Internal Linking: Site-wide VS Content Links
-
I just watched this video in which Matt Cutts talks about the ancient 100 links per page limit.
I often encounter websites which have massive navigation (elaborate main menu, side bar, footer, superfooter...etc) in addition to content area based links.
My question is do you think Google passes votes (PageRank and anchor text) differently from template links such as navigation to the ones in the content area, if so have you done any testing to confirm?
-
He also said: "We invite and strongly encourage readers to test these themselves."
This is what I am after, personal opinion from people who have either tested or experienced the effect first hand.
-
it is a thought that there is an importance if the links apear at the begining of body or at end and if they are in specific tags. How do you specify to crawler that a speciffic link is from a navbar and that link has an bigger value than other content links?
-
Rand has written a blog about this a while ago, how not all links on webpages are created equal, you might find it interesting:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/10-illustrations-on-search-engines-valuation-of-links
-
Thanks for your input!
It seems like your vote goes towards all links being treated equally regardless of their location/function. Interesting... I have suspicion that there is or should be difference. Why?
Consider this, Google notices 150 sitewide links that always appear. Wouldn't it make sense for Google to treat page-specific links differently to sitewide ones as that would in fact improve their ranking system (e.g. 150 standard links not diluting the importance of a page specific link given through content).
Thoughts?
-
Many of this massive navigation are made in flash, javascript, and google can't see them as links, then it conts them as 1 link or as refference to javascript file and nothing else, that's how its done to have massive links but not seen by google or you can set nofollow to non preffered links then google will analyze different your page. And the answer is No, Links are Links everywhere only difference is the tag that link contains, and you can test this with tools like spider view try one on 2 pages and you'll se that there is no difference
Best,
Ion
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
-
Can google bots read my internal post links if they are all listed in a javascript accordian where I list my sources?
I post a JavaScript accordion drop down tab [ a collapsible content area ] at the end of all my posts. I labeled the accordion "Show Article Sources"., and when a user clicks it, then the accordion expands open and it shows all the sources I listed for my article. And this is where I post all of my articles links that I reference per each article. But I read somewhere that google crawlers can not read text in a drop down JavaScript tab. So I am wondering now if this is true because that would mean I have no internal linking SEO going on since it cant read the links? ..... if it is true, then I should remove the accordion from all my articles and some how include the links I reference in the actual body text so I can get SEO benefits from external linking similar content? If that's true, what is an aesthetic way to do this, any example links? Tips ? Thoughts ?
Technical SEO | | ianizaguirre0 -
Canonical Tags - Do they only apply to internal duplicate content?
Hi Moz, I've had a complaint from a company who we use a feed from to populate a restaurants product list.They are upset that on our products pages we have canonical tags linking back to ourselves. These are in place as we have international versions of the site. They believe because they are the original source of content we need to canonical back to them. Can I please confirm that canonical tags are purely an internal duplicate content strategy. Canonical isn't telling google that from all the content on the web that this is the original source. It's just saying that from the content on our domains, this is the original one that should be ranked. Is that correct? Furthermore, if we implemented a canonical tag linking to Best Restaurants it would de-index all of our restaurants listings and pages and pass the authority of these pages to their site. Is this correct? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | benj20341 -
WMT "Index Status" vs Google search site:mydomain.com
Hi - I'm working for a client with a manual penalty. In their WMT account they have 2 pages indexed.If I search for "site:myclientsdomain.com" I get 175 results which is about right. I'm not sure what to make of the 2 indexed pages - any thoughts would be very appreciated. google-1.png google-2.png
Technical SEO | | JohnBolyard0 -
Product pages getting no internal links in Magento
Hello I think i have a serious problem. Most of my products are not getting internal links.
Technical SEO | | macrovet
I discoverd this when i was running a Crawl Test Tool Report | Moz Here an example of one product.
This product can be navigate to a normal way true the navigation structure on my website. The navigation is http://www.macrovet.nl/scheermachine/scheerapparaat-paard-paardenscheermachine.html
On this page is the product URL: http://www.macrovet.nl/aesculap-econom-equipe-gt674.html
Time Crawled 2014
Title tag: Aesculap Econom Equipe GT674 | Macrovet.nl
Meta Description: Bekijk en bestel een Aesculap Econom Equipe GT674 paardenscheermachine voor de scherpste prijs Macrovet.nl
HTTP Status Code: 200
Referrer http://www.macrovet.nl/sitemap.xml
Link Count: 550
Content-Type Header: text/html; charset=UTF-8
4XX (Client Error): NO
5XX (Server Error): NO
Title Missing or Empty: No
Duplicate Page Content: NO
URLs with Duplicate Page Content (up to 5)
Duplicate Page Title:No
Long URL NO
Overly-Dynamic URL NO
301 (Permanent Redirect) NO
302 (Temporary Redirect) NO
301/302 Target
Meta Refresh NO
Meta Refresh Target
Title Element Too Short NO
Title Element Too Long No
Too Many On-Page Links YES
Missing Meta Description Tag No
Search Engine blocked by robots.txt No
Meta-robots Nofollow No
Meta Robots Tag INDEX,FOLLOW
Rel Canonical Yes
Rel-Canonical Target http://www.macrovet.nl/aesculap-econom-equipe-gt674.html
Blocking All User Agents No
Blocking Google No
Internal Links 0
Linking Root Domains 0
External Links 0
Page Authority 1 Domain Autority 30 Do you have an answer what is wrong, thanks for your answers Regards,
Willem-Johan0 -
SEO Terms for Internal Vs External
Hey there! I am writing up an SEO plan for our company and wanted to get the groups input on the use of some SEO terms. I need to organize and explain these efforts to nonSEO people. I usually talk about, SEO in terms of "Internal" vs "External" efforts. Internal SEO efforts being things like Title Tags, Description Tags, Page Speed, Minimizing errors, proper 301 redirect, content development for the site, internal linking and anchor, etc. External SEO efforts being things like Link building, social media profile setups and posts (FB Twitter Pinterest, YouTube), PR work. How do you split these out? What terms do you use? Do you subdivide these tasks? What terms do you use? For example, with Internal, I sometimes talk about "Technical SEO" that has do to with making sure that site speed is working well, 301s are setup correctly, noindex tag etc are all used properly. These are things that different versus "On Page" efforts to use keywords properly etc. I will also use the term "Site Visibility" for non SEOs to explain the technical impact. For example, if your site has the wrong robots.txt, if you have 500 errors everywhere and a slow site, if you are sending spiders down a daisy chain of 301s, it is difficult for the key parts of your site to be found and so your "Visibility" to the engines are poor. You have to get your visibility up, before you begin to then worry about if you have the right keywords on a page etc. Any input or references would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | CleverPhD0 -
Our UE team has presented me with a site structure where the content (folders) does not match the hierarchical directory structure (in the CME)
Our UE team has presented me with a new site structure where the content (folders) does not match the hierarchical directory structure (in the CME). I.E Sub-sectors, sectors and product pages are ALL just 1 directory off the root. example.com/sector example.com/sub-sector example.com/productpage FYI 'normal' folder hierarchy would be; example.com/sector/ example.com/sector/sub-sector example.com/sector/sub-sector/productpage I cannot find any SEO disadvantages re; crawl, if anything the SE's will crawl more efficeitly with clearly less depth... higher 'deep content', and a better nav - which is technically a sound solution with link consistency throughout - 1 to 2 clicks to all pages. Only disadvantage might be a user confusion... which can be off-set with contextual breadcrumbs. Are there any PURE SEO disadvantages to a structure this illogical? Note - This does not abuse any Search Engine guidelines. Thanks for reading, Rich
Technical SEO | | richcowley0 -
Htm vs. aspx page extensions & duplicate content
We have a client whose site is fairly new. There isn't much in the way of SEO results so far. In their content management system they have implemented friendly URLs and changed the extensions from aspx to htm. Now the htm pages are all indexed in Google but when I run a campaign report in SEOmoz it shows that all pages are duplicated with there being both htm and aspx pages for each page. Should we do 301 redirects from the aspx pages to the htm pages? Or would we be safe by removing the htm pages and letting Google reindex the site with the aspx page extensions? Does Google have any kind of preference as to what the page extensions are as long as the URLs include keywords?
Technical SEO | | IvieDigital0 -
Canonical Link for Duplicate Content
A client of ours uses some unique keyword tracking for their landing pages where they append certain metrics in a query string, and pulls that information out dynamically to learn more about their traffic (kind of like Google's UTM tracking). Non-the-less these query strings are now being indexed as separate pages in Google and Yahoo and are being flagged as duplicate content/title tags by the SEOmoz tools. For example: Base Page: www.domain.com/page.html
Technical SEO | | kchandler
Tracking: www.domain.com/page.html?keyword=keyword#source=source Now both of these are being indexed even though it is only one page. So i suggested placing an canonical link tag in the header point back to the base page to start discrediting the tracking URLs: But this means that the base pages will be pointing to themselves as well, would that be an issue? Is their a better way to solve this issue without removing the query tracking all togther? Thanks - Kyle Chandler0