Link Location Still Making That Much Difference?
-
I got to thinking earlier... I know obviously footer links are always going to be the bottom of the barrel but does the rest of block level analysis still mean as much... I mean, everybody went nuts with getting in-content links only so there's a billion and one badly written spammy blogs with useless content on just for the sake of getting in-content links instead of blogroll/sidebar links. I just wonder if maybe due to that, things might have levelled out a bit for link location and we hadn't noticed... or at least there's not been much discussion over it lately.
Thoughts anyone?
-
Yeah that does clear things up in my head... do you think it's always the case though. I mean with blogs yeah I reckon it is massively, but on normal informational sites you tend to see a lot of links to "useful information" types stuff in sidebars... i.e. A website about planning permission for houses that would link to the local council for regulations, etc...
I'm just wondering if the slurry of poor content blogs with contextual links that ensued the discussions on block level a few years back has resulted in the whole idea being scaled back.
Again I would rule out the footer altogether as it will I'm sure always be considered a place where no decent link would be put. But to me, a sidebar link could be of more importance to the user than one within the content... in a sense like it's more something a site is offering users to see, standing out from the content if that makes sense.
Kind of like what you said with the list of great resources, would you usually find that in the content window? I often see them in the sidebar.
Just to clarify though, I think "When crap links to crap the position of the link does not matter." is totally right but would you say "When quality links to quality the position of the link does not matter." was absolutely the case, or do you think it does matter a bit, just not loads?
-
Well put. even if placement did not matter, I believe contextual links would have an advantage being surounded by content showing relevance, rather than being plonked somewhere
-
When crap links to crap the position of the link does not matter.
When quality links to quality the position of the link does not matter.
That is an oversimplification but think of it like this.... when a quality website gives a meritorious link to another website, they usually don't put it in their footer or in their header or in their side navigation. Instead they link to it within a blog post or within an article or within a list of great resources. All of these are in the content window of the site.
-
I think the thing is most of the sites which spam links within content google will just look at the number of links on the specific page.
If you have a blog with 30 low quality articles and each post has like 5 links within the content it is not going to pass much value.
I mean I still see websites with 100's of root domain links in the footer of their clients and they are still doing well, the thing is because they have a low number of out going links.
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
-
50 nofollow outbound links is too much?
Hello, I was reading that having many nofollow outbound links is bad for SEO. Could somebody give me an idea how many is "many"?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fabx0 -
How Many Links to Disavow at Once When Link Profile is Very Spammy?
We are using link detox (Link Research Tools) to evaluate our domain for bad links. We ran a Domain-wide Link Detox Risk report. The reports showed a "High Domain DETOX RISK" with the following results: -42% (292) of backlinks with a high or above average detox risk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
-8% (52) of backlinks with an average of below above average detox risk
-12% (81) of backlinks with a low or very low detox risk
-38% (264) of backlinks were reported as disavowed. This look like a pretty bad link profile. Additionally, more than 500 of the 689 backlinks are "404 Not Found", "403 Forbidden", "410 Gone", "503 Service Unavailable". Is it safe to disavow these? Could Google be penalizing us for them> I would like to disavow the bad links, however my concern is that there are so few good links that removing bad links will kill link juice and really damage our ranking and traffic. The site still ranks for terms that are not very competitive. We receive about 230 organic visits a week. Assuming we need to disavow about 292 links, would it be safer to disavow 25 per month while we are building new links so we do not radically shift the link profile all at once? Also, many of the bad links are 404 errors or page not found errors. Would it be OK to run a disavow of these all at once? Any risk to that? Would we be better just to build links and leave the bad links ups? Alternatively, would disavowing the bad links potentially help our traffic? It just seems risky because the overwhelming majority of links are bad.0 -
Competitor sites vs mine - No links, lower DA, and still beating me.
Thank you for taking the time to read my question. I have a website - berneseoftherockies.com - it is a bernese mountain dog website My competitors are Rockymountainpuppies(dot)com and Coloradobernesemountaindog(dot)com When using the Moz tools, I see they have no incoming links, except for one site has 5 links from its own pages. But when I type in Bernese Mountain Dogs Colorado - I am no where to be found, except for a you tube video. So what am I doing so wrong? They are basically doing nothing, and killing me in the serps. I have gotten social media stuff like Google +, facebook, twitter, pinterest, and youtube. They are still behind the times. So any thoughtful advice is appreciated. I mainly cater to the state of Colorado where I live. So just curious if there is something at the top of your head that you may think of that's causing my issues? Like could it be my hosting? Like can you have a black listed host? I am with Hostdime I did have a few, like 10 foreign backlinks, which I did remove or disavow I think its called. I have used the title tag tools here to get proper size title tags, and decent keyword density. I built the site for people first, then Google etc. So not sure if you are allowed to tell me, but maybe you can advise me on a decent seo company, or maybe give me a couple tips that may help me out. Please no - read the moz book, I am reading it and trying to do what I am reading. But maybe something simple is keeping me from showing up, while these other sites are. Thank you so much for any advice.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Berner0 -
Google Manual Penalties:Different Types of Unnatural Link Penalties?
Hello Guys, I have a few questions regarding google manual penalties for unnatural link building. They are "partial site" penalties, not site wide. I have two sites to discuss. 1. this site used black hat tactics and bought 1000's of unnatural backlinks. This site doesn't rank for the main focus keywords and traffic has dropped. 2. this site has the same penalty, but has been all white hat, never bought any links or hired any seo company. It's all organic. This sites organic traffic doesn't seem to have taken any hit or been affected by any google updates. Based on the research we've done, Matt Cutts has stated that sometimes they know the links are organic so they don't penalize a website, but they still show us a penalty in the WMT. "Google doesn't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. However, because we realize that some links may be outside of your control, we are not taking action on your site's overall ranking. Instead, we have applied a targeted action to the unnatural links pointing to your site." "If you don't control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google's perspective, the links already won't count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you're able to get the artificial links removed, submit areconsideration request. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action." Check that info above at this link: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC Recap: Does anyone have any experience like with site #2? We are worried that this site has this penalty but we don't know if google is stopping us from ranking or not, so we aren't sure what to do here. Since we know 100% the links are organic, do we need to remove them and submit a reconsideration request? Is it possible that this penalty can expire on its own? Are they just telling us we have an issue but not hurting our site b/c they know it's organic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Outbound Links to Authority sites
Will outbound links to a related topic on an authority site help, hurt or be irrelevanent for SEO purposes. And if beneficially, should it be Nofollow?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VictorVC0 -
Content linking ?
If you have links on the left hand side of the website on the Navigation and content at the bottom of the page and link to the same page with different anchor text or the same would it help the page (as it is surrounded by similar text) or is the first one counted and this is it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Worth changing existing link profile to make it more natural?
Hi Guys, I am picking up responbility for the SEO work for a company and I need some advice please. The current link stratgy involves a lot of single backlinks from the home page of variious sites. There is also a very big proprtion of the anchor text which is for the exact keyword and also finally there is very little deep linking. The result of this strategy is some 1st page ranking, but it has required a lot more links than some of the competitors with more natural link structure, Question is this.... is it worth contacting the webmasters of the existing links and asking then to move some of the links onto subpages and ammending the link tex to be move natural. Or alternaitvely, I could concenrate on adding some new article links, with a variety of keywords, which would be subdomain links. The problem with the 2nd approuch is that I can't easily add enough article links to balance out fully the effect of thecurrent problem. However, I'm nto sure if changing the position and the anchor text of the current linking could affect the current main site ranking... Can you see my problem? Any advice would be gratefully received. Cheers, Ed.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eddiesteadygo0 -
Competitors and Directory Links
Hi guys, wanted to get some input and thoughts here. I'm analyzing many competitor links for a specific client (even other clients actually as well) and come across a pretty heavy directory backlink profiles. has anyone here had success with directory listings? Seem many of the competitors backlinks are coming from directories. What say you?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PaulDylan1