joined:Nov 11, 2007
IMO it still makes no sense for Forbes to link to these two Zemanta articles with THAT link text.
Why would Forbes be linking to a page about interinking blog posts with the link text of "SEO". The post being linked to doesn't explain what SEO is in anyway. It might be very broadly related, but the post is no more relevant to the anchor "SEO" than an article about using hyphens as word separators in the path portion of a URL.
If the Forbes article where about using related posts and/or multipage articles then perhaps that link would be relevant to the Forbes article. Perhaps if they had included the word following SEO in the anchor (i.e. "SEO spam" as the link text) that link might be a little more relevant. ;)
Same is true for the PageRank link - not at ALL relevant. It's funny that Forbes didn't even spell PageRank as one word w/ caps as it should be... instead "page rank"). The "page rank" link points to a Zemanta article about linking out which never once even mentions much less further explains what PageRank is. It's like linking to an article about rubber trees with the link text "driving school" because... well... you go to driving school to learn to drive a car... and cars have tires... and tires are made from rubber. It's a HUGE stretch.
And I find it very ironic that the Zemanta article linked to with the "page rank" anchor has the following in it:
By sending traffic to external blog posts, you are establishing a relationship with original blogs and at some point they may reciprocate and link to one of your posts.
Ah, maybe that explains why Forbes would be linking to Zemanta (in hopes Zemanta will link to them or suggest Forbes to others for linking if they hadn't already), but probably not. It's certainly NOT because they are some authority on SEO or PageRank.
It's also ironic that the article on Zemanta linked to from Forbes with "page rank" as the anchor text states:
Also, not all of your readers are familiar with the nomenclature in your field. By using links to definitions of important terms used in your posts, you will provide a more interactive experience to your readers by letting them explore outside your posts.
which is exactly why I'm saying these are probably two of the worst articles on the web that Forbes could have linked to with those specific keyword phrases... neither link provides the reader any further definition or explanation of what "SEO" or "page rank" (aka PageRank) is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but based on my experience w/ Forbes in years past and their propensity to sell links, it's MUCH more likely that these links are simply contextual paid links than it is that they actually somehow found these 10 sentence articles on Zemanta's site and thought, "Wow! Those are great articles to reference from my Forbes article to further explain to Forbes readers what "SEO" and "page rank" are.
Forbes makes a LOT of money each month selling links. Furthermore, Forbes doesn't need links from Zemanta, so Forbes certainly doesn't need to link to them in hopes of Zemanta linking back to Forbes in the future. A link to Zemanta from Forbes could be huge for Zemanta. A link to Forbes from Zemanta will do absolutely nothing to move the needle.
Bottom line... those links do NOT look like "natural" "editorial" links. They're not even contextually relevant.