How long does it take to see the backlink effect?

[dailypress]

hi all,

Does it take about 6 months to see the effect of several strong back links from legit news websites with PR 5-6? I immediately showed up on page 2-3 for keywords with over 500,000 search results for my new pages that received the backlinks.

How long would be reasonable to rank 1-2 on page 1? 1-2 months?

[dailypress]

do backlinks need to be a Follow link or as long as its NOT a NoFollow does it count?

I just read somewhere that unless its a follow link, its useless. I dont think thats true. Am I Correct?

[diddlydazz]

hi dailypress

do backlinks need to be a Follow link or as long as its NOT a NoFollow does it count?

a link is considered *normal* (follow) unless the nofollow attribute is specifically added.

you may also want to check the HEAD section to ensure that the nofollow attribute is not set there (via a META tag)

as for your first question

in my experience the benefit is usually fairly fast (weeks/month). But, there are so many variables it is hard to judge

a good indication of the quality and usefulness of a new link is whether it actually sends you traffic, if it does, there is a good chance there will also be a positive impact on the page in the SERPS

[martinibuster]

Where were you diddlydazz in 2011, when I shared that the traffic metric [webmasterworld.com] is a good signal of quality? :)

The traffic effect can depend on where you're building the links to. For me, that is one of the important off-page factors at the heart of influencing the SERPs.

[tangor]

One also has to include the OTHER side of the struggle to list on page one:

All those other folks.

And one needs to observe that there's always a bigger fish than you are... unless YOU are the biggest fish of all....

In which case this conversation would not be occurring. :)

Time wise, you normally see immediate traffic uptake from good links. That will not necessarily put you on page one, but it will put you better than you were previously.

[dailypress]

I had thought so as well - that a normal link would be considered a follow link. But searching online I read a post which had thought otherwise. That post was probably not accurate.

What meta-tag do websites use for outward links to become no-follow?

Interesting note on the referral traffic. Unfortunately, I receive very little traffic from the backlinks.

[FranticFish]

My impression is that that the stronger/better the link the quicker it's trusted, the more of its juice it gives your site faster, and the more you notice impact on your rankings. Sounds very obvious, because the more noticeable the effect, the more likely you are to notice an effect :)

The most obvious case I saw which led me to this conclusion was where a brand new shopping website picked up a home page link from a household name exhibition website. It was not even a very prominent link, but it was sending hundreds of visitors daily. The effect it had on rankings was a huge jump for one key term within 48 hours from nowhere to 2nd place in Google UK. This was a brand new site, just indexed, and this was the first link it got, so it was very easy to infer 'cause and effect'.

[martinibuster]

Nice example. If it was a temporary boost or permanent that's still a good sign about that link in terms of being recognized as a good link.

[FranticFish]

It was a temporary boost, tied to that link, but what was interesting is that it didn't seem to disappear overnight when the link did because the exhibition was over. Rather the rankings faded over the course of a few weeks as the owners didn't find anything with that much clout to replace it with. Eventually all the 'juice' was lost, but it hung around for a bit. This is an old case so I didn't document it scrupulously I'm afraid and so my impressions are a bit anecdotal, but it seemed as if the link conferred some sort of trust level by its existence that had more longevity than a simple on/off switch.

[martinibuster]

I think it could also have been a topicality boost, something that might be of interest for the moment when it receives a surge of interest. As I understand it, Google (and presumably Bing) give a boost to sites that may be of current interest, although one would think it'd take more than a single good link.

[diddlydazz]

Where were you diddlydazz in 2011, when I shared that the traffic metric [webmasterworld.com] is a good signal of quality? :)

checking the date of your thread, i was probably dealing with Panda :)

likewise, to me, traffic is the most important signal any link provides - even more now than ever

[diddlydazz]

What meta-tag do websites use for outward links to become no-follow?

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="nofollow">

[dailypress]

Thanks I didnt notice a NoFollow meta tag however, the referral traffic is pretty low.

Although the Page Rank and Moz Rank and the overall traffic of the site is high, I received very little traffic from the back-link. About 10-20 unique visitors only.

[diddlydazz]

About 10-20 unique visitors only.

daily?
or since the link went live?

[dailypress]

unfortunately since the link went live cause then it immediately gets archived. how come?
the content on the news sites is on the front page for a few hours, and since the link is at the end of the article it receives very few hits.

[diddlydazz]

how is the backlink profile for the page where your outbound sits?

[dailypress]

backlink profile? I dont get it... in what sense?

[diddlydazz]

backlink profile? I dont get it... in what sense?

how is the internal link profile for the page which links to you?

although the page (that links to you) may have been demoted from the main page(s) of the news website, how is its inbound link profile now?

is it still linked from some main category or has it been orphaned?

[fathom]

Many people never consider the flow of PageRank and how relatedness will pass from linked page to the next linked page and so on. In the original PageRank formula the decaying factor affords PageRank thus relatedness to be passed through 22 links before there is nothing left...

e.g. 85% of Available PageRank/85% of Available PageRank/85% of Available PageRank/85% of Available PageRank/85% of Available PageRank/85% of Available PageRank/etc.

So diddlydazz point is quite valid and I have seen nothing that suggests PageRank has changed since its original creation. No matter what patents Google submitted.

Therefore as an example: 8 links in a path
If these were the link anchors where ">" denotes the link:
External links are bolded

Company's Website > Services > SEO > Reviews > Brand Name > Gift Baskets > Baby Gift Baskets > Newborn Baby Gift Baskets

This is one continous path of natural relatedness from a Directory type site to an SEO Site to an SEO Customer website that happens to be a gift basket merchant.

The external anchors are Naturally occurring external anchors while the internal links are Naturally occurring internal link anchors even if they include targeted keyphrases.

If the search query was REVIEWS OF NEWBORN BABY GIFT BASKETS COMPANIES

This path of relatedness would help substantially!

The PageRank passed from the directory page would be an equal share of PageRank off the page and will impact the Newborn Baby Gift Baskets ability to rank at about 27.25% of its original value and add relatedness to stemmed phrases around COMPANY or WEBSITE.

Where the REVIEWS link would pass an equal share of 44.37% PageRank and add relatedness towards phrases that contain REVIEWS in the phrase.

[martinibuster]

PageRank has changed considerably since it was first created. The fact is that the amount of PageRank flowing out has been steadily cut and diminished little by little, year after year since soon after PageRank was created. I discussed this two years ago in 2013 on sugarrae's annual ask the link builders roundup [sugarrae.com], in response to the question: Are links becoming a smaller portion of Google’s ranking algorithm?

The answers are wide ranging, indicating a lack of consensus in 2013. Aaron Wall believed links were playing less of a role. Eric Ward opined they mattered more. Rand Fishkin stated he didn't see the link signal diminishing but rather other signals rising. My answer focuses on the strange situation that Penguin has created, where links became a sort of an anti-ranking factor. Can't that be considered a major change in PageRank?

Links have been on a years-long journey away from being purely a ranking signal to becoming a negative signal in itself, something for the spam filter. It started as a ranking signal then quickly became a relevance signal once Google started depreciating links based on on-page relevance factors. The further depreciation of the value of links continued with whacking links based on the location on the page. That was the evolution of the concept of unnatural links, growing in response to methods such as expired domains (remember those!), text link brokers, and reciprocal linking. Links moved from ranking signal, to relevance signal then links as a signal moved to having one foot in the ranking algorithm and the other foot in the “un-ranking” algorithm.

Rae offered:

Do I believe Google is desperately trying to find more and better ways to “validate” the authenticity of links? Absolutely.

That part about validating the authenticity of links is a huge part of how PageRank has changed.

[fathom]

PageRank change is debatable. I have been doing link schemes for as long as I have been a member here and the flow has been quite consistent. What has changed in Google's methodology to detecting PageRank manipulation.

Do I believe Google is desparately searching for a PageRank replacement.... NO!

Do I think they can come up wih something better... SURE!

I may be wrong ... But I'm in good company with Eric Ward... Rand Fishkin also believes +1s were a ranking signal, and got a bunch of experts to sign off on that including Aaron Wall.

I follow most of the talking heads as well but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

The algorithms have changed sure but IMHO PageRank has not.

Additionally, everyone's understanding of their own observations have changed but the clarity of PageRank hasn't unless someone has published a new PageRank formula and Google has endorsed it as accurate.

But in light of no official assertion from Google I'll stick with what I can prove and avoid guessing even if collective wisdom calls me stupid.

That was the evolution of the concept of unnatural links, growing in response to methods such as expired domains (remember those!),

Still buying them... Still using them ... I wouldn't make a PBN. But this doesn't explictly or implicitly suggest PageRank changed.

[martinibuster]

Back to the original post. One more thing to monkey-wrench the backlink effect. There are calculations that come after the PageRank part that modifies the influence of links. So the backlink effect may arrive but you might not even see it if the post-PR calculations favor other pages.

[fathom]

Yes... how long to rank 1-2 on page 1 is a factor of displacing who is already there. So if your NEW GREAT LINKS, only bring you to a worth of 50 (in a scale, whatever that scale is) and the websites in those positions are at least 51 you will never reach those heights

In my experience, link crediting is a factor of Googlebot crawling those pages and crediting. Crediting usually happen pretty quickly, so crawling ... If Google is showing your links on the pages (all pages) in cache those are most certainly credited within a day or two... However, if Googlebot has yet to crawl those pages (that is where the problem lies if there is one).

So I again agree with MartiniBuster.

[dailypress]

is it still linked from some main category or has it been orphaned?

Its linked in Archive only.