Forum Moderators: martinibuster
or could you do the same thing by developing one site and using the various pages of the site to provide the same outbound links?
I guess the real question I'm asking is this. Is a single link from 20 sites worth more than 20 links from 20 pages of a single site?
What got me thinking about this is geocities. Geocities has tens of thousands of different pages, each "belonging" to different webmasters. Are the geocities pages somewhat devalued in their pagerank passing ability simply because they are all on one domain?
Take a look here at this thread by ciml on theme pyramids. [webmasterworld.com]
It's not one single factor, such as anchor text, which determines the "on-topic" aspect.
The following is an example of a few of the main aspects:
Page content
Incoming links
Outgoing links
Site links
Page titles
etc.
Getting back to the original question, the link strategy should be to seek on-topic incoming links, ideally to specific sub-pages of the site.
Take a look at Brett's, now famous Successful Site in 12 Months [webmasterworld.com] It should give you some good pointers.
Example:
If you were a law firm, you'd create sub pages with each of the different aspects of the services, such as matrimonial, litigation, etc. You'd build in all the key words and key phrases about law across the whole site, and then make the sub pages very on-topic. For example, a page on matrimonial, and a page on litigation, etc.
Use anchor text to make it obvious.
You then want to encourage incoming links, ideally, to the sub pages: for example, if you could get Litigation Lawers Magazine (ficticious) to link to the litigation page (ideally with on-topic anchor text in their link) you'd be well on your way.
The above is a very simplistic example.
Page content
Page titles
my opinion is that google's determination only goes as far as the anchor text of the link and the page to which the link refers. It's for this reason that you can get a hundred links from awards sites and, if the anchor text is right, dominate for a valuable subset of mesothelioma search (i know what i'm talking about). And in that case, none of those other factors meant anything at all. It was anchor text and nothing but.
and just to clarify, I dont have a mesothelioma site but i did a thorough investigation of one and its backlinks
Doesn't it work the other way around?
Awards sites give out awards, and the vain- I mean proud, webmaster displays the award, which happens to link back to the award website...
just not convinced that any of the following factors play a role in google's determination of the relevancy of a link.Page content
Page titles
The link on it's own is not the only factor. If it were, then all you need it a FFA site, and where are they?
There's a subtle difference between a quality site with good content and one that is simply a link farm. I'm not disputing that a link farm may work, however, to make a site work, long term and with stability, it must have content.
As far as page titles are concerned, currently, they play an important role.
The effect of each aspect has on the site's ranking varies as the search engine factors in varying aspects of filtering/tweaking, etc.
Getting back to links, there is no real long term substitute for quality, on-topic, incoming links if the site is to show stability, long term. If it's a quality site, it will achieve that relatively easily.
no disagreement there at all.
"there is no real long term substitute for quality, on-topic, incoming links if the site is to show stability, long term"
I agree as well. However, my point is that I don't believe that google uses any criteria other than the text in the link to determine whether or not the link is RELEVANT to the website it is linking to. Do you follow me?
If you get a hundred links from a hundred sites that involve a hundred different content areas---but they all say "mesothelioma attorney" in the link text, I guarantee you will do well in the search results for the phrase "mesothelioma attorney". What those sites that offer the links HAVE TO DO WITH is irrelevant entirely.
I don't believe that google uses any criteria other than the text in the link to determine whether or not the link is RELEVANT to the website it is linking to.
From the Google Technology Page:
[google.com ]
Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
There used to be analysis for sheer number of votes, and also for the anchor text. Now it's been said they are examining the anchors and looking for variations... but that's off topic.
but they all say "mesothelioma attorney" in the link text, I guarantee you will do well in the search results for the phrase "mesothelioma attorney".
Do you really believe that if all else equal, another site having 100 links with properly varied anchor text from sites relating to mesothelioma, asbestos, cancer, law and legal issues, lawyers, and disease would not do better?
As for your original post, I think it is a fine idea... but build the sites to rank well (at some point) themselves and selectively use them to seed your site(s). Having too obvious a network can be the downfall of all sites involved though. Don't risk it if you're not aware of the criteria to avoid/target.
I see no evidence that they would do better. As I said, I did a thorough investigation of a site that employed this tactic quite successfully months ago and is still there.
That a site that links to another site should be "on topic" to deliver the greatest bang for the buck is an assumption.
And I don't believe it's proven.
But this thread has run its course.
