Settle an argument re first links from a page? Anyone?
-
If we accept "the first link from a page to another is the one that transfers anchor text and PR" - does that then apply just the same for internal linking as it does with linking from domain to domain?
-
Instead of building links I am building content assets - even for retail sites... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/throwing-out-the-book-on-seo
-
".... I am betting all of my money on links being rapidly depreciating assets."
That terrifies me, I'm not kidding I lose sleep over thinking about that regularly.
-
Lots of people say that the first link on a page is what google counts.... but really.... which do you think Google would consider more relevant... a link in the first paragraph of an article or a link in the bottom of the left navigation column. The nav link would be normally higher in the code, but the paragraph link would be higher on the page. However, don't you think that the paragraph link would be higher in relevance but the nav link would indicate it might be higher in the heirarchy of the site.
I am going to spend all of my time working on content and let the links appear where they naturally fall. What people talk about and what google does could be two different things and what google does tomorrow could be entirely different from what they are doing today.... (and we know a few instances of what google says they are doing being entirely different from what they really are doing).
To close the rant.... I am betting all of my money on links being rapidly depreciating assets.
-
What we know is anchor text from the first link is associated with the target page, while the anchor text from additional links to the same URL are not valued (from the same page).
It is debated as to how Google handles additional links to the same page. For example, if you have 100 links on a page with 1 of them being to your /about-us page, you may or may not have the same amount of PR flowing to the page as if you had 100 links on the page with 3 of them pointed to your /about-us page.
Some SEOs feel more links = more PR flow while others feel Google will discount the additional links in a similar manner to how they discount the anchor text. Until a definitive response from Google is shared, we wont know for certain.
Either way, I am not aware of any reason why the PR flow would check whether the link was internal or external. Is it possible Google offers a different decay rate or valuation of internal vs external links? Yes. Once again it's one of those things we would need an official response from Google to be sure.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Canonical Page Question
Hi, I have a question relation to Canonical pages That i need clearing up. I am not sure that my bigcommere website is correctly configured and just wanted clarification from someone in the know. Take this page for example https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ Canonical link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ The Rel="next" link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?sort=bestselling&page=2 and this page has a canonical tag as rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2' /> Is this correct as above and working as it should or should the canonical tag for the second (pagination page) https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2 in our source code be saying rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/' />
Technical SEO | | oceanstorm0 -
Manual Action - When requesting links be removed, how important to Google is the address you're sending the requests from?
We're starting a campaign to get rid of a bunch of links, and then submitting a disavow report to Google, to get rid of a manual action. My SEO vendor said he needs an @email domain from the website in question @travelexinsurance.com, to send and receive emails from vendors. He said Google won't consider the correspondence to and from webmasters if sent from a domain that is not the one with the manual action penalty. Due to company/compliance rules, I can't allow a vendor not in our building to have an email address like that. I've seen other people mention they just used a GMAIL.com account. Or we could use a similar domain such as @travelexinsurancefyi.com. My question, how critical is it that the domain the correspondence with the webmasters be from the exact website domain?
Technical SEO | | Patrick_G0 -
What is meant by to many on page links
I have just done the report for my site http://www.in2town.co.uk and it says i have 246 on page links but i am not sure how come i have got that many. I know i have a large number of links and in the old days it says that you should keep the links under 100 but now with website speed and the net, people are saying this is no longer listened to. A report i read said that the links should not confuse the reader or put them off, so i am just wondering what your thoughts are on a site with over a 100 links on the home page and also if my site does have to many links what should i do about it. I cannot understand why it is showing 246 when i do not see that many on the page, any advice would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Anyone See This Before? Google Following Links that are Not Hyperlinks
Today I was going through my Google Webmaster URL Errors (404s) info. I came across two links in my URL Errors report that are NOT actually hyperlinks on the source page. Both of these links are from two different forum-type websites. In both cases, the post references a URL on my website (incorrectly, hence the 404 error) in the text of the post but did NOT actually link to my site. I looked at the source code...no href. Both forum posts simply had a tag or tag around the incorrect URL text referencing my site. I have never seen this before or heard that Google will follow a URL that is not actually a hyperlink. Anyone else?
Technical SEO | | cajohnson0 -
Adding parameters in URLs and linking to a page
Hi, Here's a fairly technical question: We would like to implement badge feature where linking websites using a badge would use urls such as: domain.com/page?state=texas&city=houston domain.com/page?state=neveda&city=lasvegas Important note: the parameter will change the information and layout of the page: domain.com/page Would those 2 urls above along with their extra parameters be considered the same page as domain.com/page by google's crawler? We're considering adding the parameter "state" and "city" to Google WMT url parameter tool to tel them who to handle those parameters. Any feedback or comments is appreciated! Thanks in advance. Martin
Technical SEO | | MartinH0 -
Do I need to add canonical link tags to pages that I promote & track w/ UTM tags?
New to SEOmoz, loving it so far. I promote content on my site a lot and am diligent about using UTM tags to track conversions & attribute data properly. I was reading earlier about the use of link rel=canonical in the case of duplicate page content and can't find a conclusive answer whether or not I need to add the canonical tag to these pages. Do I need the canonical tag in this case? If so, can the canonical tag live in the HEAD section of the original / base page itself as well as any other URLs that call that content (that have UTM tags, etc)? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | askotzko1 -
No-follow links on advertising pages
Hi I run a job board that enables employers to post job vacancies and information about their organisations. These are 'paid for' pages (advertising) on our site. These link out to their own websites. My question is, would it be better for these links out to their sites to be no-follow? From my site's perspective, I cannot necessarily dictate the quality of their websites (although the majority are leading firms) as I would in article and feature content, where we do happily link out and refer to other quality sites with information that gives readers further information. I know that many large job boards do this where they run listings of feeds from other sites, but should we also do this at the page level where the link out is effectively paid for. What would be the pros and cons if I do or if I don't use no-follow? I hope this makes sense and look forward to some replies. Many thanks
Technical SEO | | CelestialChook0 -
If you add a no follow to a time sensitive link, will it get picked up as broken link 404 in WMT report?
We have a client who publishes deals that are time sensitive. Links to the deals expire and so Google's crawlers are picking them up and finding a 404 If I no follow them, will the 404's still get picked up and reported in WMT? The same question applies to SEOMoz Pro.
Technical SEO | | Red_Mud_Rookie0