Is this still considered true about INTERNAL anchor text? "Penguin seems to be targeting overly aggressive anchor text (both internally and externally), especially from low-quality sources."
-
Recently I've heard a few people say now it's okay to be aggressive with internal linking. So a link from mydomain.com/news to mydomain/widgets can use spammy anchor text like "best green widgets in California" that are an obvious problem for links coming in from external site.
Which is accurate?
-
Here's Matt Cutts on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ybpXU0ckKQ
Basically he's saying that you are perfectly ok to have exact match anchored internal links. But, if it becomes really obvious that you're overdoing it to try to manipulate Google then you're at risk for a manual penalty.
Look at wikipedia. They are the perfect example of a site that has a LOT of exact match anchors. And they do pretty well.
-
Me either. Previously you asked, "Is there any difference in Google's treatment of aggressive anchor text between internal and external?" Externally, if every link pointing to your 'green widget' page or home page said, 'green widget' you'd likely get penalized by Google. Internally, linking to your page as such navigationally and in context like EGOL mentioned is fine. So there's a major difference right there. I don't think it's a question of 'being aggresive with it' just that you can refer to your own pages more precisely within the context of your own site.
-
Im not sure we're communicating. I am well aware of how aggressive anchor text from external links causes problems with Google.
I need to get an idea of how approximately how much leeway there is for internal anchor text. I was told by two people I respect that internal anchor text can be much more aggressive.
-
Read: http://moz.com/blog/most-important-link-penalty-removal-tool-your-mindset. Very much so. Google knows what a natural link profile looks like so well that you're best bet is gaining external links as naturally as possible. Sites with super high percentages of anchor text links, followed links, and conversion page specific links are running red flags in front of Google's eyes. Take Eric's advice from above. Cheers!
-
Thanks for reply. Is there any difference in Google's treatment of aggressive anchor text between internal and external?
-
Like EGOL mentions, going after unnaturally long links--and the type of copy that falls afield of some of the Adwords policy--is likely to cause issues in your work to aggressively link internally. What is fine is remaining factual and linking to your 'green widgets' page with the link, 'green widgets'. Just look at Wikipedia's level of internal linking...
Leave the best of stuff to review sites or pages.
-
I use anchor text like "green widgets" in persistent navigation and in paragraph text on all of my sites and have no problems.
Now, if you are using chest-thumping anchor text like... "best green widgets in California"... then you might be asking for it.
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 to deal with hundreds of externally-generated images with no alt text?
Hi all This is a good one. I work for a webdev company who has clients in the transport industry. Part of our work on their sites involves pulling in transport-related offers from a feed. This includes both text and images, which our site template turns into viewable pages. The problem is that Moz has flagged that these images don't come with alt text, and there are _hundreds and hundreds of them. _I can't add alt text to them all, there just isn't the time or resources. Besides, the list is updated frequently, and new images are pulled in. So... what do? Would it be prudent to noindex them all by default setting? I'm stuck! Many thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | tomcowles
Tom0 -
Is there a Penguin Time Limit
Hi, so I am curious if Penguin has a time limit? Like say after 90 days it resets and looks to see if any penalties still exist? Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | Berner0 -
Home page and category page target same keyword
Hi there, Several of our websites have a common problem - our main target keyword for the homepage is also the name of a product category we have within the website. There are seemingly two solutions to this problem, both of which not ideal: Do not target the keyword with the homepage. However, the homepage has the most authority and is our best shot at getting ranked for the main keyword. Reword and "de-optimise" the category page, so it doesn't target the keyword. This doesn't work well from UX point of view as the category needs to describe what it is and enable visitors to navigate to it. Anybody else gone through a similar conundrum? How did you end up going about it? Thanks Julian
On-Page Optimization | | tprg0 -
"Turning off" content to a site
One site I manage has a lot of low quality content. We are in the process of improving the overall site content but we have "turned off" a large portion of our content by setting 2/3 of the posts to draft. Has anyone done this before or had experience with doing something similar? This quote from Bruce Clay comes to mind: “Where a lot of people don’t understand content factoring to this is having 100 great pages and 100 terrible pages—they average, when the quality being viewed is your website,” he explained. “So, it isn’t enough to have 100 great pages if you still have 100 terrible ones, and if you add another 100 great pages, you still have the 100 terrible ones dragging down your average. In some cases we have found that it’s much better, to improve your ranking, to actually remove or rewrite the terrible ones than add more good ones.” What are your thoughts? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ThridHour0 -
To many links on page and penguin
Could to many links on to many pages be a factor that the penguin update would effect your site. I know this is a broad question , but I am curious what people think.
On-Page Optimization | | cbielich0 -
"On Page" report says 2 rel canonical urls-how do I fix that?
I am reviewing my On Page scores and I'm not getting a perfect score bk of this notice: No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> <dd>HOW do I fix that?</dd> <dd>I am using Platinum seo plugin which I have checked "Use canonical urls" and the page in question is</dd> <dd>http://adderalldosage.net/general-adderall-dosage/</dd> </dl>
On-Page Optimization | | ccare7230 -
No Follow Internal Links
Hi Mozzers, I know that this has been asked a few times and answered as well, I would just like to know some more on the internal link count on a page. I ran the SEOmoz report and many of the pages on the website have more than 150+ internal links. Now, should I use the rel=nofollow tag on some pages that I feel are not important? I have a list of pages which are not important from the SEO point of view, but from the usability factors they need to be there so I cannot remove the links to them. So, would be OK to place the rel=nofollow tag on them. My whole purpose is to reduce the count of internal links on the page as seen by SE's. Now, some say that the rel=nofollow tag does not lower the link count, but it can definitely (I believe) prevent the bots time in getting to those pages, which SEOmoz report also quotes. (__When search engine spiders crawl the Internet they are limited by technology resources and are only able to crawl a certain number of links per webpage. ) So, probably I can save their time. Does anyone have any views on this, Cheers,
On-Page Optimization | | RanjeetP0 -
Geo-targeted content and SEO?
I am wondering, what effect does geo-targeted "cookie cutter" content have on SEO. For example, one might have a list of "Top US Comedians", which appears as "Top UK Comedians" for users from the United Kingdom. The data would be populated with information from a database in both cases, but would be completely different for each region, with the exception of a few words. Is this essentially giving Google's (US-based) crawler different content to users? I know that plenty of sites do it, but is it legitimate? Would it be better to redirect to a unique page, based on location, rather than change the content of one static page? I know what the logical SEO answer is here, but even some of the big players use the "wrong" tactic. I am very interested to hear your thoughts.
On-Page Optimization | | HalogenDigital0