Best anchor text strategy for embeddable content
-
Hi all
We provide online services, and as part of this we provide our clients with a javascript embeddable 'widget' to place on their website. This is fairyly popular (100s-1000s of inserts on websites).
The main workings of this are javascript (they spit html iframe onto the page) but we also include both a
<noscript>portion (which is purely customer focused, it deep links into a relevant page on our website for the user to follow) and also a plain <p><a href=''></a></p> at the bottom, under the JS. This is all generated and inserted by the website owner. Therefore, after insertion we can dynamically update whatever the Javascript renders out, but the <noscript> and <a> at the bottom are there forever.</p> <p>Previously, this last plain link has been used for optimisation, with it randomly selecting 1 out of a bank of 3 different link anchor texts when the widget html is first generated.</p> <p>We've also recently split our website into B2B and B2C portions, so this will be linking to a newer domain with much established backlinks than the existing domain. I think we could get away with optimised keyword links on the old domain but the newer domain they will be more obvious.</p> <p>In light of recent G updates, we're afraid this may look spammy. We obviously want to utilise the link as best as possible, as it is used by hundreds of our clients, but don't want it to cause any issues. </p> <p>So my question, would you just focus on using brand name anchor text for this? Or could we mix it up with a few keyword optimised links also? If so, what sort of ratio would you suggest?</p> <p>Many thanks</p></noscript>
-
SamuelScott is 100% right, I only wanted to add, that we should stop thinking about the anchor. It is allways manipulation in the room, when we think about anchor. Thats my opinion.
-
Seeing as this replaces a traditional link, which I'd very much doubt would carry a nofollow (these event organisers would not be aware of it) then would you agree that a 'powered by' link under the box would be ok without a nofollow, as long as we just use our brand as the anchor text?
How about a brandname + keyword anchor text? Such as "ticket sales powered by xyx"
I hate to sound negative, but this part of your response still seems like you are trying to use the widget to build links that will pass "PageRank" and increase your rankings. My recommendation is still: Do not do this at all! Such links are completely artificial and are one of the old tricks that Google definitely looks for today. Just because other sites do it right now does not mean that Google won't hit them at some point.
I stand by my recommendation: Use a no-follow attribute and make the name of your brand the anchor text. At the very most, putting a desired phrase such as "ticket sales" close to the link -- but not included in the actual link -- may help you out of the idea of co-occurance (sometimes called cocitation).
If you want to get more links, I suggest going through Moz's category archive for that phrase to see how to get links that are 99% natural and earned (rather than artificial and built).
-
Great, thanks for the info.
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be seen badly by Google as it provided a valuable tool for the website - selling tickets. The 'old way' of doing this would be for the event owner to link directly through to our website ('buy tickets here...'), but using the widget we can improve conversions - keeping to Google's rules of designing for the customer, not SEO, I think this fits the bill. Adding a 'powered by' link also enhances customer trust?
An example of another company doing something similar, is
Eventbrite: http://www.outlookfestival.com/tickets/ (they include no on page link, just an iframe but that includes a link)
Ticketscript: http://deershedfestival.com/tickets/ (an optimised keyword, and it's almost hidden (tooltip) which I'd prefer to keep away from.)
Seeing as this replaces a traditional link, which I'd very much doubt would carry a nofollow (these event organisers would not be aware of it) then would you agree that a 'powered by' link under the box would be ok without a nofollow, as long as we just use our brand as the anchor text?
How about a brandname + keyword anchor text? Such as "ticket sales powered by xyx"
-
First, I highly recommend that you do not use widgets on external websites as part of any "linkbuilding strategy." (I'm not saying that you are using the widgets as a cheap way to build links -- they can have a lot of valid uses, so I just hope that you are using them in the correct way.)
Matt Cutts, the head of Google's webspam team, said in 2013 that any links in widgets on third-party websites should have the no-follow attribute added to them. In Google's eyes, here's the simple reason why: Why should the search engine give you "credit" for a link that you have given yourself? The only links that Google wants to count are those that are 100% natural and "earned." The Penguin updates -- among other actions -- are all aimed at moving the search engine in that direction. (Here's Google's guide to no-follow.)
Secondly, don't even think about keyword-based anchor text. (No-follow or not, you just don't want to risk incurring the wrath of the Penguin.) If you need a link back in the widget, just make the brand name of the website / company into the link.
In summary:
1. Add no-follow to all widget links
2. Make the brand name the anchor text
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
-
Removing duplicate content
Due to URL changes and parameters on our ecommerce sites, we have a massive amount of duplicate pages indexed by google, sometimes up to 5 duplicate pages with different URLs. 1. We've instituted canonical tags site wide. 2. We are using the parameters function in Webmaster Tools. 3. We are using 301 redirects on all of the obsolete URLs 4. I have had many of the pages fetched so that Google can see and index the 301s and canonicals. 5. I created HTML sitemaps with the duplicate URLs, and had Google fetch and index the sitemap so that the dupes would get crawled and deindexed. None of these seems to be terribly effective. Google is indexing pages with parameters in spite of the parameter (clicksource) being called out in GWT. Pages with obsolete URLs are indexed in spite of them having 301 redirects. Google also appears to be ignoring many of our canonical tags as well, despite the pages being identical. Any ideas on how to clean up the mess?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Moving some content to a new domain - best practices to avoid duplicate content?
Hi We are setting up a new domain to focus on a specific product and want to use some of the content from the original domain on the new site and remove it from the original. The content is appropriate for the new domain and will be irrelevant for the original domain and we want to avoid creating completely new content. There will be a link between the two domains. What is the best practice for this to avoid duplicate content and a potential Panda penalty?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Citybase0 -
Diversifying anchor text question
Hi, I've seen a new article by Dr. Pete on diversifying links for 2013 (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/top-1-seo-tips-for-2013), now my question is this: Dr. Pete talks about mixing up the anchor text for links, is so we don't get caught out by Google or actually mixing it has a better impact? For example: 1. 20 anchor text links targeting just the target term. 2. 20 anchor text links targeting 4 variations of the target term. Is number 2 recommended so things look natural or does it actually have a better impact on SEO. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | activitysuper0 -
Websites with same content
Hi, Both my .co.uk and .ie websites have the exact same content which consists of hundreds of pages, is this going to cause an issue? I have a hreflang on both websites plus google webmaster tools is picking up that both websites are targeting different counties. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
Best procedure for distributing identical content about your company/site for affiliates to use?
When dealing with affiliate websites, whereby you send them a stock standard bio or info on your company for them to use on their sites, what is best practice? Is is OK to have multiple websites all linking to you with pages that contain the same content? Should I ask them to implement canonical or no-index tags for those particular pages? Should I ask them to rewrite the content (which may be impractical or they're unwilling to do)? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Martin_S0 -
First link importance in the content
Hi, have you guys an opinion on this point, mentioned by Matt Cutts in 2010 : Matt made a point to mention that users are more likely to click on the first link in an article as opposed to a link at the bottom of the article. He said put your most important links at the top of the article. I believe it was Matt hinting to SEOs about this. http://searchengineland.com/key-takeaways-from-googles-matt-cutts-talk-at-pubcon-55457 I've asked this in private and Michael Cottam told me he read a study a year ago that indicated that the link juice passed to other pages diminished the further down the page you go. But he can't find it anymore ! Do you remember this study and have the link ? What is your opinion on Matt's point ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | baptisteplace0 -
Recommendation to fix Google backlink anchor text over optimisation filter penalty (auto)
Hi guys, Some of you may have seen a previous question I posted regarding a new client I started working with. Essentially the clients website steadily lost all non domain name keyword rankings over a period of 4-12 weeks, despite content changes and various other improvements. See following:: http://www.seomoz.org/q/shouldn-t-google-always-rank-a-website-for-its-own-unique-exact-10-word-content-such-as-a-whole-sentence After further hair pulling and digging around, I realised that the back link anchor text distribution was unnatural for its homepage/root. From OSE, only about 55/700 of links anchor text contain the clients domain or company name!....8%. The distribution of the non domain keywords isn’t too bad (most repeated keyword has 142 links out of the 700). This is a result of the client submitting to directories over the last 3 years and just throwing in targeted keywords. Is my assumption that it is this penalty/filter correct? If it is I guess the lesson is that domain name anchor texts should make up more of your links? MY QUESTION: What are some of the effective ways I can potentially remove this filter and get the client ranking on its homepage again? Ensure all new links contain the company name?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Qasim_IMG
Google said there was no manual penalty, so not sure if there’s any point submitting another reconsideration request? Any advice or effective experiences where a fix has worked would be greatly appreciated! Also, if we assume company is "www.Bluewidget.com", what would be the best way to link most naturally: Bluewidget
Blue widget
Blue widget .com
www.bluewidget.com
http://www.bluewidget.com....etc I'm guessing a mix of the above, but if anyone could suggest a hierarchy that would be great.0 -
I have a duplicate content problem
The website guy that made the website for my business Premier Martial Arts Austin disappeared and didn't set up that www. was to begin each URL, so I now have a duplicate content problem and don't want to be penalized for it. I tried to show in Webmaster tools the preferred setup but can't get it to OK that I'm the website owner. Any idea as what to do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OhYeahSteve0