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
-
#Page Jump link sharing
Hi I'm managing an in-house link building campaign in order to help in our key search term 'Location Holidays'. We were historically number 1 for this term until a recent re-design in May where our web design agency butchered our SEO. All of the main issued fixed, we're now fluctuating between 3rd & 4th on a daily basis. I'm putting together a social share comp to promote through the press in order to boost our backlink profile. We're nesting the competition within the body of the page we want to improve the rankings for. I will be including a #page jump link to quickly access it as it will be further down the page. My question is that if we get press to link to http://holidaycompany.com/destination/#comp will http://holidaycompany.com/destination/ receive the link juice or will http://holidaycompany.com/destination/#comp be looked upon as a whole new page? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | MattHolidays0 -
What to do with temporary empty pages?
I have a website listing real estate in different areas that are for sale. In small villages, towns, and areas, sometimes there is nothing for sale and therefore the page is completely empty with no content except a and some footer text. I have thousand of landing pages for different areas. For example "Apartments in Tibro" or "Houses in Ljusdahl" and Moz Pro gives me some warnings for "Duplicate Content" on the empty ones (I think it does so because the pages are so empty that they are quite similar). I guess Google could also think bad of my site if I have hundreds or thousands of empty pages even if my total amount of pages are 100,000. So, what to do with these pages for these small cities, towns and villages where there is not always houses for sale? Should I remove them completely? Should I make a 404 when no houses for sale and a 200 OK when there is? Please note that I have totally 100,000+ pages and this is only about 5% of all my pages.
Technical SEO | | marcuslind900 -
Many Pages Being Combined Into One Long Page
Hi All, In talking with my internal developers, UX, and design team there has been a big push to move from a "tabbed" page structure (where as each tab is it's own page) to combining everything into one long page. It looks great from a user experience standpoint, but I'm concerned that we'll decrease in rankings for the tabbed pages that will be going away, even with a 301 in place. I initially recommending#! or pushstate for each "page section" on the long form content. However there are technical limitations with this in our CMS. The next idea I had was to still leave those pages out there and to link to them in the source code, but this approach may get shot down as well. Has anyone else had to solve for this issue? If so, how did you do it?
Technical SEO | | AllyBank1 -
Responsive design blowing out on page links?
Hi guys, We have a site about to launch with a responsive design to suit desktop, tablet and mobile. Each design carries it's own navigation as one primary set of navigational links won't suit all versions of the design. So as desktop resizes to mobile (or tablet) the desktop navigation is hidden (css) and replaced by the nav more suited to the mobile experience (hope I've explained that ok!). Problem is that if the primary navigation carries 50 links then all 3 designs together carry 150 links which is too many on page links. Is that going to be a problem? Is there a tag that can be applied to the mobile/tablet nav links? Like a canonical tag but for links?? Cheers in advance of your ideas
Technical SEO | | lovealbatross
James0 -
Link profile
Hi All, I am doing a link profile audit I have few questions 1. Should i stop worrying about backlinks that i once had and now the websites is down or page is 404 2. The link is nofollow Also i have 60% of my site links few root link and many articles/blogs links pasted in sites without any anchor text, should i worry about them? Thanks
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
How do I get rid of irrelevant back links pointing to missing pages on my site
Hi all, My site was hacked about a year ago and as a result I now have a ton of back links from irrelevant sites pointing to pages on my site that no longer exist. The followed back links section on the Competitive domain analysis tool shows about 3 pages worth of these horrible links. I have 2 questions: how bad is this for my site's SEO (which isn't good anyway, Page Rank 0) and how do I get rid of them? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Andy WkXz0
Technical SEO | | getzen560 -
Page title vs page element
Hello! I'm new to SEO as my question would imply. Can someone show me the difference between a page title and a page element? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | atrenary1 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0