Backlinks?

Please support our Search Engine Optimization advertiser: Get a Free SEO Analysis!
Reply

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Reputation: jgma is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
jgma jgma is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #21
Sep 4th, 2007
Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
That's not true. PR has nothing to do with traffic. It has to do with link popularity and only link popularity. Most .edu and .gov pages do not have high PR. And the ones that do have high PR because they have great content and thus have a lot of links pointing to them.
Not quite accurate. Link popularity does influence PR; however, it certainly isn't the only or greatest influence on Google PageRank (PR). My experience tells me that all incoming links are good for PR and SERP (all search engines) ranking. However, some icoming links are better than others. The type of domain extension (.gov, .org, .com) of the page linking to your site has no baring on anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,422
Reputation: stymiee is on a distinguished road 
Solved Threads: 35
Moderator
stymiee's Avatar
stymiee stymiee is offline Offline
He's No Good To Me Dead

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #22
Sep 4th, 2007
Originally Posted by jgma View Post
Not quite accurate. Link popularity does influence PR; however, it certainly isn't the only or greatest influence on Google PageRank (PR).
Did you read that link I posted? Obviously you didn't. PR is only about link popularity. That's it. It is a published formula so you cannot argue or speculate about how it works. There is no debating it.

Originally Posted by jgma View Post
My experience tells me that all incoming links are good for PR and SERP (all search engines) ranking. However, some icoming links are better than others.
No duh some links are better then others. That is built right into the PR formula and is a cornerstone of how PR works. But you are wrong that all incoming links are good for PR. Some intentionally block PR from being transfered (either by using nofollow or blind redirects) and Google blocks others themselves internally for trying to manipulate the SERPs (usually by selling links for PR). In those cases the links will not transfer any PR.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Reputation: jgma is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
jgma jgma is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #23
Sep 5th, 2007
Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
Did you read that link I posted? Obviously you didn't. PR is only about link popularity. That's it. It is a published formula so you cannot argue or speculate about how it works. There is no debating it.


No duh some links are better then others. That is built right into the PR formula and is a cornerstone of how PR works. But you are wrong that all incoming links are good for PR. Some intentionally block PR from being transfered (either by using nofollow or blind redirects) and Google blocks others themselves internally for trying to manipulate the SERPs (usually by selling links for PR). In those cases the links will not transfer any PR.
Yes, I read your post. I'm familiar with the formulas from Brinn and Page and their white papers on the matter. Superficially, PR is only about link popularity, but, more importantly, and this is what 99.9% of self-appointed experts don't get, it's about page count and linking, internally and externally.

"No duh"? If this is "no duh," then why do you waste time discussing it? You point out examples of bad links, such as those with nofollow. These are exceptions that I would call "no duh." Of course a link with nofollow will not be followed. I don't think that talking about these obvious exceptions merit much discussion. What merits discussion, I think, are search engine algorithms, theories, their practical applications and their baring on the work of webmasters and marketers. Right?

Incidentally, that "published formula" is not a formula used by Google and it sure isn't a complete fomula that ever was implemented. I think that most people who follow this stuff realize that Google has moved a long way from its idealistic and democratic-type formula developed at Stanford. Todays Google is a monster trying to dictate and monopolize the rules of the Internet. It's a big business that lost its altruistic nature back at the IPO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,422
Reputation: stymiee is on a distinguished road 
Solved Threads: 35
Moderator
stymiee's Avatar
stymiee stymiee is offline Offline
He's No Good To Me Dead

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #24
Sep 5th, 2007
Originally Posted by jgma View Post
Yes, I read your post. I'm familiar with the formulas from Brinn and Page and their white papers on the matter. Superficially, PR is only about link popularity, but, more importantly, and this is what 99.9% of self-appointed experts don't get, it's about page count and linking, internally and externally.

"No duh"? If this is "no duh," then why do you waste time discussing it? You point out examples of bad links, such as those with nofollow. These are exceptions that I would call "no duh." Of course a link with nofollow will not be followed. I don't think that talking about these obvious exceptions merit much discussion. What merits discussion, I think, are search engine algorithms, theories, their practical applications and their baring on the work of webmasters and marketers. Right?

Incidentally, that "published formula" is not a formula used by Google and it sure isn't a complete formula that ever was implemented. I think that most people who follow this stuff realize that Google has moved a long way from its idealistic and democratic-type formula developed at Stanford. Todays Google is a monster trying to dictate and monopolize the rules of the Internet. It's a big business that lost its altruistic nature back at the IPO.
You're mixing PR with page ranking which are two different things. They are very separate and distinct issues. How pages are ranked is constantly changing (actually it isn't, how they ween out spam is actually what is changing) but PR is exactly as it always has been. The only thing that may have changed in the PR formula that we see is the dampening factor for external links. But otherwise that formula is unchanged. It looks complex but it's so simple there isn't much to change anyway.
Last edited by stymiee; Sep 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm. Reason: typo
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Reputation: jgma is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
jgma jgma is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #25
Sep 5th, 2007
Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
You're mixing PR with page ranking which are two different things. They are very separate and distinct issues. How pages are ranked is constantly changing (actually it isn't, how they ween out spam is actually what is changing) but PR is exactly as it always has been. The only thing that may have changed in the PR formula that we see is the dampening factor for external links. But otherwise that formula is unchanged. It looks complex but it's so simple there isn't much to change anyway.
No, I do not confuse PR with SERP ranking.

OK. The formula may be simple. Was this a point of contention?

It seems to me that you took issue with the practical meaning of PageRank and how to achieve this for a Web page. You said something to the effect of it's all about number of back links. I said that it is to a point, but that it is actually, or more acurately, about page count and distribution of PR. If a webmaster goes forth in the world and accumulates millions of readable links, then yes, all things else being ok, that page will gain considerable page rank. But, that is only part of the story.

I think that very few people inside or outside of Google know the formulas that they use, but I would not hesitate to say that dampening is part of that formula and that there is much more to it than what you're asserting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Reputation: jgma is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
jgma jgma is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #26
Sep 5th, 2007
"These are very separate and distinct issues."

To a point. They are very related issues when dealing with Google search engines. Simply, where all things else are equal, the page with the higher PR will have a higher SERP rank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,422
Reputation: stymiee is on a distinguished road 
Solved Threads: 35
Moderator
stymiee's Avatar
stymiee stymiee is offline Offline
He's No Good To Me Dead

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #27
Sep 5th, 2007
Originally Posted by jgma View Post
It seems to me that you took issue with the practical meaning of PageRank and how to achieve this for a Web page. You said something to the effect of it's all about number of back links.
Actually I never said it was about number of links. It's about quality of links. Number and relevance of links are not a factor in calculating PR.

Originally Posted by jgma View Post
I said that it is to a point, but that it is actually, or more acurately, about page count and distribution of PR. If a webmaster goes forth in the world and accumulates millions of readable links, then yes, all things else being ok, that page will gain considerable page rank. But, that is only part of the story.
Page count is not a factor in PR because PR is calculated on a per page basis. Distribution of PR is what the formula is all about. Every page starts with the same amount of PR. Then through inbound and outbound links PR is "distributed" to other pages.

Originally Posted by jgma View Post
I think that very few people inside or outside of Google know the formulas that they use, but I would not hesitate to say that dampening is part of that formula and that there is much more to it than what you're asserting.
Unfortunately this just isn't true. You're making something up where nothing exists. The PageRank formula is published and acknowledged by Google. It is out there for the world to see. We may not know Google's algorithm for ranking pages but we do know how PR is calculated and there is no harm in that. Unlike their page ranking algorithm, knowing how PR is calculated doesn't really benefit anyone so having it be public is harmless.

Originally Posted by jgma View Post
"These are very separate and distinct issues."

To a point. They are very related issues when dealing with Google search engines. Simply, where all things else are equal, the page with the higher PR will have a higher SERP rank.
They are separate issues. When you are talking about PR in a ranking sense then you are using it in a different context then when you are talking how how PR works. When talking about ranking it i s just one of many factors. And all things are never equal so the PR tie breaker never comes into place. Of course, you can also say that about any factor affecting rankings.
Last edited by stymiee; Sep 5th, 2007 at 6:57 pm.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 45
Reputation: KeyDegree is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 1
KeyDegree's Avatar
KeyDegree KeyDegree is offline Offline
Light Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #28
Sep 27th, 2007
Hello, i have tried everyhting, cept buying links? Is there anyway to tell what is a good price to pay for a good backlink?

I would think the higher the pr or better the site, the more expensive. But i have come across many sites that are basically directories and they wanna charge $50 for a link!

Is that normal? How do you guys decide when you buying links where you are going to buy and how much your going to pay?

Is it just a matter of opinion? I dont know what else I can do to get mt site better ranking...

Our site has been up for about 4 months and nothing....

Thanks!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Reputation: jgma is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
jgma jgma is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #29
Sep 27th, 2007
Hi, Melissa.

Buing backlinks is not necessary. To answer your question completely, I would have to know more about your website. But, I can offer this with certainty:
1. Be sure that the anchors of your backlinks match your key term or word for your page. In other words, if you sell oranges, and this is your key word, then be sure that the anchor, or title, of your backlinks is "orange" or at least contains that key term.
2. There are two reputable sites that offer link exchange services. I recommend both of them. They are: linkalizer[dot]com and linkexchange[dot]com.
3. Building up many good back links and a good reputation takes some time and ranking a new website takes some time, also. Just like a new business in real life, to succeed usually takes persistence and hard work. There are no short cuts.
Regarding buying links, I strongly advise against doing this, because Google considers this unfair and may consequently penalize your site, and it is just not necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,422
Reputation: stymiee is on a distinguished road 
Solved Threads: 35
Moderator
stymiee's Avatar
stymiee stymiee is offline Offline
He's No Good To Me Dead

Re: Backlinks?

 
0
  #30
Sep 27th, 2007
Originally Posted by jgma View Post
2. There are two reputable sites that offer link exchange services. I recommend both of them. They are: linkalizer[dot]com and linkexchange[dot]com.
Reciprocal links are bad for SEO and should be avoided. They are a clear attempt to manipulate the search results which is a big no-no. That's why Google specifically outs them in their webmaster guidelines. Additionally, by exchanging links you risk being considered part of a link farm which is another way to find yourself banned from the search engines.

Even without those two problems, reciprocal links have no SEO value. They negate each other or, even worse, you may be on the losing end of one and weaken your SE positioning. Link exchanges should be saved for websites in your niche that are well established and ahead of you in the rankings.

Originally Posted by jgma View Post
Regarding buying links, I strongly advise against doing this, because Google considers this unfair and may consequently penalize your site, and it is just not necessary.
Actually that's a myth. Google will only ever punish sites that sell links, not purchase them. If they punished sites that purchased them, or it seemed like they purchased them, then a competitor could purchase links on your behalf and get your site penalized.
Last edited by stymiee; Sep 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Reply

This thread is more than three months old.
Perhaps start a new thread instead?
Message:



Similar Threads
Other Threads in the Search Engine Optimization Forum


Views: 7138 | Replies: 33
Thread Tools Search this Thread



Tag cloud for Search Engine Optimization
About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | DaniWeb | Acceptable Use Policy | RSS Feed

©2003 - 2009 DaniWeb® LLC