backward links

[whatson]

Does the number of backward links matter in ranking, or is it just Pagerank.
i.e. if everything else was the same with 2 sites, one has 200 backward links and the other has only 20, but thier Pageranks are identical. If they were trying to position for the same keyword, which one would rank higher?

[Krapulator]

Pagerank is derived from backlinks - thus the one with more incoming links would most likely have a better pagerank

[allanp73]

Remember quantity and quality are two different things. PR is also based on the quality of the links. I've seen sites with only a few links with pr6 or pr7 where as sites with over 500 links are still pr5. It is important to look at the sites doing the linking.

[MyWifeSays]

Number of links is thought to be a factor in ranking, this has been seen in the past with pages ranking highly based on repeated use of keywords in the anchor text of links.

Whether this is still the case with Googles latest algo. is not so clear. My personal experience is that pages with fewer incoming links do better.

[Powdork]

PageRank is Google's opinion of a page, nothing more, nothing less. Generally, it is derived from a formula that takes into account factors such as the PageRanks of the pages that link to the page in question as well as the number of other links leaving those pages. However, Google has the legal right give any Pagerank to any page regardless of what pr the page would have according to the mathematical formulae. This is why some pages with only 26,900 backlinks can have higher pr than pages with 799,000 backlinks. Its Google's opinion that these 26,900 backlinks are more important, or genuine, than the 799,000 for the other site.

[peewhy]

There is a balancing act, lets say Google give more kudos to those with more relevant links.

Assuming a funeral director has a back link with a wedding party organiser, it has a low relevance.
However, a back link with a stone mason as a higher relevance factor.

Industry related, non-conflicting links are good.

[Powdork]

Assuming a funeral director has a back link with a wedding party organiser, it has a low relevance.

Relevance is always in the eye of the beholder.
Wedding organisers are event coordinators. Wakes are events. Funeral directors are definitely involved in wakes.

[peewhy]

Okay, bad example .... good point. ;)

I was referring to weddings being not connected with funerals.

There is joke; What's the difference between a wedding and a wake?

There's one less at the wake!

I would think on this topic relevance might also be in the eye of Google :)

[Powdork]

Sorry, it was kind of like shooting ducks in a bathtub as a wedding/wake organiser. What didn't occur to me was to get links from the funeral directors. Off to work again.:)

[peewhy]

Shall we try MP3 links in a site for the deaf?

Bad taste links on a childrens' site?

... or will someone find flaws in them? :)

I think most will see my point.

Quality of relevance being the objective.

[MyWifeSays]

There seem to be some suggestion that Google takes more than the anchor text into consideration when ranking a page based on the page that links to it. I disagree with this and would ask for some evidence.

I think people credit Google with a little bit too much intelligence sometimes. Remember they don't even give any relevance to plurals when a singular search term is given.

[coconutz]

I'd still guess that a link is a link is a link. I can't see that relevance increases the value of a given link to anyone but your visitor.

[James_Dale]

MyWifeSays,

The context of external links is genuinely now more important. I'm pretty sure that NewRank and LocalRank algorithms are being applied to search results (as of the last couple of updates). Read Claus' amazing analytical summary of the patent and see what you can derive from it. My own research leaves little room for doubt.

I have a PR3 site which is ranking #1 in the world for a highly searched term (more than 200 requests every 24 hours, and with several hundred thousand competing sites)

My competitors for this term are chasing PageRank, whereas I have optimized my site giving more consideration to LocalRank and NewRank (much trickier, but worth it). My site is PR3, the other sites in the top 30 are all at least PR5, and some are PR6 and PR7.

Context is king :)

[MyWifeSays]

Hi James_Dale,

You could be right but I'd be surprised if they implemented the algo described as I think it would be a little short sighted and would leave spammers in an even stronger position.

Google would immediately benefit by eliminating some spam but that would only be until the spammers set up on different ip addresses. They could then outperform high PR sites which get their links from pages which are of a similar theme (but not exact match of the phrase) or from pages of sites which are an exact match of theme but which link from a page that does not perform well for that theme (e.g. a links page).

I'd be interested in any examples you could point me to though.

[GranPops]

I don't follow it either. However, I have a site with over 700 legit links, mainly 3, 4 and 5. My site is PR1.
The surprise is that it comes No.1 out of 375,000 for a keyword not included in title, desc or alts.

Granpops

[coconutz]

>>keyword not included in title, desc or alts.

Is the keyword in the anchor text of the links pointing to your page?

[GranPops]

Nope, not anywhere