Any benefits to having Wikipedia links now they are 'no-followed' (apart from traffic and natural link prof.)
-
I see that Wikipedia outbound links are all no-followed, is there any benefit (aside from the traffic) for having links here now ?
For example is their co-citation and co-occurance benefits. I know there is without the links since from seeing previous Moz content about this saying Google getting good at connecting brand/s and topic mentions on a page (without any links) so appreciate Wikipedia is still good for that sort of thing. And a no-followed link is obviously good for the potential traffic. But is there any additional SEO benefit to having a no followed link on a wikipedia entry/stub too ? (aside from its contribution to your no-followed links which in turn contribute to a natural looking link profile)
Cheers
Dan
-
Completely agree with you, Oleg.
I've got two wikipedia links back to my website and I get a fairly regular stream of traffic from them as referring sources, and those visitors are the most engaged, too, averaging at least 5 to 10 minutes per visit!
-
absolutely agreed still better to have a link than not
-
No-follow is still in the works with search engines , and SEOs are still in research phase, of testing whether or not no-follow counts and what it counts for.
Responses like these are not uncommon: "but what little research has been done by anyone would seem to indicate that they do still count those [no-follow] links."
More: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/all-wikipedia-links-are-now-nofollow/4288/
-
Thanks Oleg
But the co-citation/occurance will occur anyway wont they (if brand is mentioned on page) ?
But then i suppose the link just helps elminate any doubt in G mind as to the location of co-citated/occured brand, so better to have link if possible
-
Although I haven't done or read any studies about the impact of a wikipedia link on rankings, I would say it has a positive effect. Although there is no link authority/page rank flowing, the co-citation/occurance on a SUPER high authority website would drive direct traffic and increase your site's trust. I would say that one way or another, this has an impact on your rankings.
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
-
How important are 'anchor' text links now
We have started building some good links but I'm just wandering how important anchor based text ones are now.
Link Building | | nick-name123
I'm not talking about spamming/going too heavy but a few here and there. What's your recent experience?0 -
Linking to press coverage, reciprocal links?
We have been generating decent online press coverage with links to our site thanks to our PR agency and I have been asked to link to the online coverage from our website in a 'press coverage' section. My question is would google consider links from our site to the online press coverage as reciprocal links? Thanks
Link Building | | gavinr
Gavin0 -
Are followed links from these high authority domains any good?
Hi Mozzers, I have a link building question, in 2 parts. I am in the UK. We have a large local directory network over here which involves some high authority national news domains. Basically, you get a citation for free but if you go "featured" as well as the benefit of being returned top for keyword searches in the directories, buried under a tab on your page are deep links to your website, and they are followed. What are the risks/benefits of this? Are followed links from other high authority domains like Visual.ly and Behance worth it? They are easy to get and I've always believed an easy link usually isn't a good link. Thanks in advance!
Link Building | | Silkstream0 -
Is anybody else noticing a dramatic change to their 'links to your site' section in Google Webmaster Tools?
Hey,
Link Building | | ChrisHolgate
Over the last six months or so we've been going through our backlink profile and cleaning up links from poor quality sources. Week by week there have been small changes in our Google Webmaster Tools 'links to your site' section to reflect this. I logged on this morning however and there has been a dramatic shift in the information displayed. Pretty much every bad link has been removed from the list including sites I know for a fact are still linking to us as they didn't communicate at all to our removal requests. Additionally, rather than showing the top 1000 links to our site as it used to, WMT is only showing 73 linking domains. The remaining 73 domains are good natural links from high quality sources. I'm guessing Google are just in the middle of an update and that the remaining linking domains (including the bad ones) will reappear shortly. This isn’t a request for advice or help but I’m just curious as to whether anybody else is seeing anything similar?0 -
Link Detox and Link Removal
I have a question about which links to remove after running a link detox from Link Research Tools. First a little back story. I had had an SEO company link building for one of the websites I own. But I have recently stopped working with them. In the last month my rankings have near dropped off the charts. I have just recently gotten access to Google webmaster tools and noticed an unnatural link warning from back in March. So yesterday I ran link detox and it reported 19 toxic links, 120 suspicious links, and 24 healthy links. It's rather obvious that I should remove all of the toxic links. They all from sites that have been deindexed by google. But my question is a about the suspicious links. What should my criteria be for removing them? Am I better off removing them all and leaving my site with only 24 healthy links or should I personally comb through them and remove only the worst of the worst so that I leave my site with a few more links? I'd really like to get the site ready to resubmit to google as soon as I can. Thoughts? yyCOf.png
Link Building | | CobraJones950 -
Blogroll links vs. in author's byline
So, I have the following dilemma. I have certain amount on my budget and I'm thinking where to invest it better. Would you recommend obtaining blogroll links or focus on links that put in author's byline (for instance when you write a guest post). Could you also explain why you think so? 🙂 Thanks beforehand.
Link Building | | VinceWicks0 -
Curating Content. used to avoid, but now i'm having second thoughts
It's really hitting me now, because content curating is extremely common in a lot of other forms of media. I always avoided it because I didn't know the extent of any negatives that I might see from the search engines (duplicate content). Does anybody else curate content for their blogs? The main problem that I am having is that I just don't have enough time to publish the amount of content that I need. Outsourcing is the best alternative, and quite frankly, unless your high school English teacher needs extra money, it really isn't a very good one. Basically, i'm looking at content curating as a really good way to publish a lot of content, on more topics, a lot easier. What extent do you consider reasonable? How do you go about creating your content? What would you say is the easiest way to create content efficiently?
Link Building | | TylerAbernethy0 -
How long does it take for crawlers to update links? As in number of back links
How long does it take for crawlers to update links? As in number of back links
Link Building | | tom14cat140