Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How valuable is a link with a DA 82 but a PA of 1?
-
Our county's website has a news' blog, and they want to do an article about an award we won. We're definitely going to do it, and we're happy about the link. However, all the other news' articles they have only have a PA of 1. The DA is 82, and the link is completely white hat. It's a govt site in our locale, however, with such a terrible PA, I'm don't think the link is really all that great from an SEO stand point. Am I right or wrong (or is it some dreadful murky grey area like everything else in this industry (which I'm thankful to be a part of
)?
Thanks so much for any insights!
- Ruben
-
Those are very good points. Thanks Lewis!
-
The Page Authority will be 1 as it'll be a brand new page. You don't create a page with an instantly high PA, it has to be earned. Take the BBC, for example; if they create a news story today the page will have a PA of 1 but a DA of 100, but most SEOs would love a link from the BBC!
News websites are constantly adding new pages as new stories break. It's unlikely these types of pages will get huge PAs as, let's face it, yesterday's news won't continue to attract many backlinks after day one or two of the story breaking.
Keep up the good work! You should certainly see some positive results if you keep building links like that!
Cheers,
Lewis
-
As always, thanks everyone!
- Ruben
-
Thanks for the excellent answer, Travis. It was very insightful. I appreciate it.
- Ruben
-
I'll chime in to wholeheartedly agree with Ryan and Travis. This is a particularly valuable link from the standpoint of local SEO, given that it's coming from a local new source.
-
I agree with Travis. In short, yes it's an excellent link. Like Travis mentions, getting caught up in the numbers can be misleading at times, and for a short hand of the sites and people you want to work with it's better to think of them as relationships. In this case, being connected to an official site that's reputable, spam-free, and exclusive is an excellent connection.
-
I would generally dispense with the concern over metrics, considering the source. It sounds like a great citation source, regardless. Plus it may do what links were intended to do in the first place: Drive Traffic
OSE, aHrefs, Majestic and the like are just keyhole views into what's really going on. Albeit important keyhole views, but still limited insights into the big picture.
I would challenge that if one focuses less on granular metrics, and puts more attention into traffic and general relevancy; one would be happier with the results and have more time for generating similar results.
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
-
Should we Nofollow Social Links?
I've been asked the question of whether if we should nofollow all of our social links, would this be a wise thing to do? I'm not exactly getting a clear answer from search results and thought you guys would be best to ask 🙂 Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | JH_OffLimits0 -
Broken canonical link errors
Hello, Several tools I'm using are returning errors due to "broken canonical links". However, I'm not too sure why is that. Eg.
Technical SEO | | GhillC
Page URL: domain.com/page.html?xxxx
Canonical link URL: domain.com/page.html
Returns an error. Any idea why? Am I doing it wrong? Thanks,
G1 -
How can I stop a tracking link from being indexed while still passing link equity?
I have a marketing campaign landing page and it uses a tracking URL to track clicks. The tracking links look something like this: http://this-is-the-origin-url.com/clkn/http/destination-url.com/ The problem is that Google is indexing these links as pages in the SERPs. Of course when they get indexed and then clicked, they show a 400 error because the /clkn/ link doesn't represent an actual page with content on it. The tracking link is set up to instantly 301 redirect to http://destination-url.com. Right now my dev team has blocked these links from crawlers by adding Disallow: /clkn/ in the robots.txt file, however, this blocks the flow of link equity to the destination page. How can I stop these links from being indexed without blocking the flow of link equity to the destination URL?
Technical SEO | | UnbounceVan0 -
Updating inbound links vs. 301 redirecting the page they link to
Hi everyone, I'm preparing myself for a website redesign and finding conflicting information about inbound links and 301 redirects. If I have a URL (we'll say website.com/website) that is linked to by outside sources, should I get those outside sources to update their links when I change the URL to website.com/webpage? Or is it just as effective from a link juice perspective to simply 301 redirect the old page to the new page? Are there any other implications to this choice that I may want to consider? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Liggins0 -
Is skimlinks-unlinked organic and valuable?
Hi, recently we got some editorial links on some of the articles from a few online journals and I've noticed anchor links all have these similar property within the <a>:</a> Mysite What does the skimlinks-unlinked and data-skimwords-word means? Are these normal organic links and valuable?
Technical SEO | | LauraHT0 -
Having www. and non www. links indexed
Hey guys, As the title states, the two versions of the website are indexed in Google. How should I proceed? Please also note that the links on the website are without the www. How should I proceed knowing that the client prefers to have the www. version indexed. Here are the steps that I have in mind right now: I set the preferred domain on GWMT as the one with www. I 301 redirect any non www. URL to the www. version. What are your thoughts? Should I 301 redirect the URL's? or is setting the preference on GWMT enough? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0 -
Find broken links in Excel?
Hello, I have a large list of URL's in an excel sheet and I am looking for a way to check them for 404 errors. Please help! Adam
Technical SEO | | digitalops0 -
Add to Cart Link
We have shopping cart links (<a href's,="" not="" input="" buttons)="" that="" link="" to="" a="" url="" along="" the="" lines="" of="" cart="" add="" 123&return="/product/123. </p"></a> <a href's,="" not="" input="" buttons)="" that="" link="" to="" a="" url="" along="" the="" lines="" of="" cart="" add="" 123&return="/product/123. </p">The SEOMoz site crawls are flagging these as a massive number of 302 redirects and I also wonder what sort of effect this is having on linkjuice flowing around the site. </a> <a href's,="" not="" input="" buttons)="" that="" link="" to="" a="" url="" along="" the="" lines="" of="" cart="" add="" 123&return="/product/123. </p">I can see several possible solutions: Make the links nofollow Make the links input buttons Block /cart/add with robots.txt Make the links 301 instead of 302 Make the links javascript (probably worst care) All of these would result in an identical outcome for the UX, but are very different solutions. What would you suggest?</a>
Technical SEO | | Aspedia0