15
Contributors
33
Replies
34
Views
12 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by stymiee
0

Backlinks are probably the most important factor for rankings. Essentially, when
a web page has a text or image that hyperlinks to your site - that is called a backlink.

A brief guide can be found at www.google.com/webmasters

Basically, you want to establish as many backlinks to your site as possible. You can buy, trade, or gain links naturally. There is much written on the subject.

Hope this helped.

Avi Wilensky

0

Well other sites linking back to your sites is back links in very simple terms, seo book and avi explained it very well. The aim is to have back links from sites with high page rank and sites which are somewhat related to the content of your site. The advantage of having good back links is that you do not have to pay or wait for a long time to have your site listen in SERPS. Since google bot will normally be visiting already established sites and follows links from there, on finding your link your site will be visited and thus indexed.

0

I think you have to be careful, were you link to. Random linking won't help your site any. From what I understand, the link should be from a site with related content or value. There are various ways to trade links, but I dont think it is always advantageous. We have a link on our website that allow people to copy and paste the code to link back to us, but we get quite a bit of spam. A lot of people asking to trade links, and place our link on some ramdom directory, not even on their site!
So be careful, and check and make sure the people that you do trade with actually place your link on their site.

0

Backlink is good to your site when it is came from relevant site or good PR site. But link came from nowhere doesn't help your site. It's a link farm.

0

But link came from nowhere doesn't help your site. It's a link farm.

A link from an unrelated site doesn't make your site or their site a link farm. It just makes the link less valuable from an SEO perspective.

0

backlinks are basically votes to your site.

Some search engines rank your site based on the amount of backlinks pointing to yours

0

Some search engines rank your site based on the amount of backlinks pointing to yours

Not the amount of backlinks, the quality of backlinks. Not all links are created equal.

0

Not so hard, there are many sites that sell links, just run a search in google. best links are .edu and .gov , once you contact the site's owner, he will make the link for you, all you have to do is pay.. :)

0

Not so hard, there are many sites that sell links, just run a search in google. best links are .edu and .gov , once you contact the site's owner, he will make the link for you, all you have to do is pay.. :)

That is a myth. .edu and .gov links are not special in any way at any time.

0

That is a myth. .edu and .gov links are not special in any way at any time.

Well, i dont agree with you, google have much more respect for them then to other high pr links... we can agree not to agree.. :)

0

I have nothing to agree with you guys co'z I have no .edu and .gov backlinks yet. Well, if I can gain, maybe that's the time I can share my experience.

0

Well, i dont agree with you, google have much more respect for them then to other high pr links... we can agree not to agree.. :)

Google flat out said they aren't special. Are you going to disagree with Google?

And why they aren't special is easy to understand when you think about it. Web pages on .edu and .gov domains tend to rank well because they contain quality content and many webmasters will link to their content as a result. Both of these are key elements in SEO. Also, most .edu pages are published by students and are seen as worthless by Google. Links from those pages are thus worthless despite the fact they are on a .edu TLD.

Also, there are no arbitrary bonuses given by Google. No site gets a bonus because of its TLD or any other factor. Google's PageRank algorithm already determines what is a quality page and what isn't. Arbitrary bonuses aren't needed.

0

There is no point of any arguement in the back links even about .edu and .gov.

They generally have more PR from Google, because they have much traffic than a .com or any other domain. That's only why.

Back links can be defined simply just by - your links on other websites are back links of your website.

0

They generally have more PR from Google, because they have much traffic than a .com or any other domain. That's only why.

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.

0

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.

0

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.

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

"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.

0

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.

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.

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.

"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.

0

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!!

0

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.

0

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.

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.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.