The Truth about linking -- Dirk Johnson

[compar]

I just read this very interesting exchange on the LED Digest. The author is Dirk Johnson a well known expert in the filed of links and linking. He dispells many of the myths that exist around this subject.

From: Dirk Johnson
Subject: Outbound links


>> After doing linking campaigns for a couple of clients, I noticed
>> that pagerank seemed to increase as soon as I put outbound
>> links on the site, long before any number of links could be
>> reciprocated... I reported this in several forums, and was
>> heartily poo-pooed by the experts...

- Dave Roberts, LED 1808

Dave,

It's no surprise that you got "heartily poo-pooed by the experts".
As someone who does link management work full-time, and has done it
for years, I stay out of those forums. The "advice" presented in
them is notoriously misguided.

Your analysis was correct. The "experts" have never seen the
phenomenon of outbound links helping a site because they are too
concerned about gaming Google with their linking efforts, and
creating complex theories. They'd never put a non-reciprocating link
on their sites, because that would run counter to their coveted
theories. They flamed you out because you challenged their beliefs.
They are not really interested in facts and analysis and what
actually works.

Here are a few of the myths that are widely-circulated on those
boards as "fact", when, in fact, I see case after case that refutes
all of it:

- Myth 1: Non-reciprocating, outbound links are "bad".

As you observed correctly, they can actually help. Google seems to
reward sites for being genuine resources to their visitors. And to
do so implies a lot of non-reciprocating links. The only thing that
"leaks" about the whole concept of "leaking" PageRank to
non-reciprocating outbound links is the theory of "leaking PR"
itself. Maybe it holds up mathematically in the famous PageRank
equation, but real world examples of index results refute the effect
of it on actual index results, very consistently. As you've
observed, it actually helps.

- Myth 2: Low PR links bring down your own PR.

The fact is, every link earned adds to your overall standing. Even
the original PageRank equation (which is very likely not a big
factor in the actual Google index results anyhow) is an summation,
with the PR of each link evaluated separately, and then totaled. It
is not an average. Whoever thinks otherwise simply does not
understand advanced algebra. It is true that some links count more
than others. But, mathematically, they all count, cumulatively.

There is emerging and very strong evidence that the sum total of
links from unique domains, while also tossing out the influence of
multiple links from the same domain, is a very strong factor in
Google's index results. The PageRank formula does not account for
this at all because it does not distinguish for unique domains, so I
suspect that this evaluation is a separate, and very significant
factor inside the Google indexing algorithm.

My guess is that it's probably Google's way of devaluing the
following situations:

- Multiple instances on a site of affiliate links that point
directly back to the merchant domain.

- Internal links within a site.

- Outright gamesmanship and "sister" site link structuring.

- Paid advertising text links that show up on every page of a
advertiser's site.

The "first" link coming back from a domain is the one matters. The
rest seem to be discounted heavily inside Google. I see a lot of
examples of sites with thousands of links that come from a handful
of domains that do not index as well as a site that has only a few
hundred of links, but they all come back from unique domains. And
those links are not necessarily high PR links. The site with more
unique domain links generally gets indexed higher for specific
keywords.

I have never seen this tidbit described on any discussion board or
put forward by any SEO specialist, because arriving at this
conclusion is not readily apparent, except to those of us who do
advanced analysis of competitive link back situation reports on a
daily basis. You read it here, first. Forget about PR. Unique
domains matter. Big time.

- Myth 3: "One-way" backward links count more than reciprocal
links.

This is a myth being perpetrated and perpetuated by the "PR links
for sale" industry, and by the SEO gurus who rely on that industry
to get their index results. Sites with large numbers of reciprocal
links and limited numbers of one-way links continue to index
extremely well. Again, all it takes is a look at some actual, real
world index results, and then analyze the link-back profiles, in
depth.

- Myth 4: Google counts only the links from pages with PR4 and
higher.

This one is famous, and even the SEO crowd knows that it is a flawed
theory. Yet it is perpetuated and recycled by the amateurs on the
discussion boards, probably because Google only shows high PR links
in their standard link back report. There are a lot of sites that
have very few PR4 links coming back, but a large number of lower PR
links, and they index extremely well. Again, think "unique domains"
here.

- Myth 5: Links outside of your "theme" will hurt you.

Total bunk. The real reason for not pursuing links outside of your
"theme" is because it is not appropriate to do it, and it is mostly
a waste of time and money. Themeing takes place on the page level,
not the domain level. And links coming from "non-themed" sites can
reside on pages that are quite well-themed. A link from the "travel
links" page of a gambling site may be very helpful to a travel
agent, if only from a keyword density analysis perspective. The
direct traffic from that link would be non-existent. Please realize
that I am not a fan of this practice at all, but the results that I
have seen prove that it works. Take it for what it's worth.

If you want a link strategy that works well, then forget all of
gobbledygook on the discussion boards. Success is much more simple
than that. Just set out to link as if your site traffic depended on
it, and that Google did not exist.

Request links from as many sites as you can find in your realm of
interest that publicly offer to reciprocate. Link to them first, and
request links from them using their preferred method of submission.
Be sure to use their online submission form, if one is provided.

Be gracious and patient. Don't ever threaten to remove links if you
don't get a reciprocal. And no gamesmanship with respect to PR,
networks, page coding, etc.

Keep doing this work indefinitely, with as much vigor as you can
muster. You'll likely be amazed at the outcome, and you'll soon
leave the "game players" in the dust. I see this happen all the time.

Dave, you'll rarely see that kind of straightforward advice on a
linking discussion board, where gamesmanship is celebrated. Yes,
it's more interesting to over-analyze something, but it is all quite
misguided.

Thanks!

Dirk Johnson, Owner

LinkStrategy.com
http://www.linkstrategy.com

[dazzlindonna]

Very interesting article. I'm not sure anyone can conclusively proclaim the "truth" about any aspect of Google's algo (except Google), however, my own "beliefs" match Dirk's. And my beliefs are based on my own experiences with my own sites, which of course is limited (twenty-some-odd sites). Nevertheless, it's nice to see such a good summation of my own thought process by someone who is respected in his field.

[SENewbie]

Thats a great article, thanks for posting. The one quote that really stood out to me was this:

"If you want a link strategy that works well, then forget all of
gobbledygook on the discussion boards. Success is much more simple
than that. Just set out to link as if your site traffic depended on
it, and that Google did not exist."

I've let the link exchanging slide lately since I usually get a couple requests a week from newer sites. But I think its time to resume some efforts in this direction with the above quote in mind.

[Such Great Heights]

I like his point of view. Sounds like good advice to me.

Especially the line ... "Just set out to link as if your site traffic depended on
it, and that Google did not exist."

Makes sense.

Google is definitely a big player, but if there was no Google/big search engines what would we depend on?
Inbound links. From anywhere and everywhere.

There are probably little things you can do to help your site out, with Google's SERPs, but the bottom line is traffic, well targeted traffic.

This reminds me ... I need to put more effort into link building.
----
SENewbie beat me to it.

[ferret77]

I like that fact that he reconginizes that mant seo 'experts' if there is such a thing use forums to spread bad advice

[Help Desk]

It is very difficult to find straight answers. I have seen numerous postings in other forums that indicate outbound links reduce your PageRank(PR).

Great article.

[ferret77]

I have site drop in pagerank when i added outbound links but they did not drop in rankings

I aslo think i have gotten ranked for a term that i didn't optimize for by my outgoing links

[mxlabs]

good article for sure. I like how he thinks "out of the box" and tries to counter the PR madness... for everybody else it is too hard to resist the magic of the green bar obviously.

[GuyFromChicago]

Originally Posted by ThinkBling

It is very difficult to find straight answers. I have seen numerous postings in other forums that indicate outbound links reduce your PageRank(PR).

Great article.

PR aside, outbound link are of value to your visitors if they present information that may be of use or interest to your visitors.

I have a page on one of my newer sites that I give people links on for posting in my forum. They get an anchortext link with a paragraph of text describing their site. I only accept sites that are well themed with my site. PR is not even a consideration for me in this case, providing links to sites my visitors may enjoy is.

[compar]

Originally Posted by ThinkBling

It is very difficult to find straight answers. I have seen numerous postings in other forums that indicate outbound links reduce your PageRank(PR).

Great article.

Yes and they are from paraniod people who don't really understand what they are talking about. That's the point of the article and why I posted it.

[steve sardell]

I too enjoyed his article. I especially enjoyed the dig at certain fora that have been spreading some of these myths for years. What impressed me was the fact he did not need to name them as most already know which he was referring.

[Help Desk]

It is amazing how much "mis-information" is out there. Google for one likes to keep their solutions/results simple. They have "solve things with an algorithm" and "affect the entire world" mantras. When I see posts that worry me, from other sites, I just think if it fits with the way Google see's things.

Here's an excellent little article about Google's company that I have hanging on the wall of my cube. It would be great if more companies where like this.

The Google Way

[Arnica]

Originally Posted by ferret77

I have site drop in pagerank when i added outbound links but they did not drop in rankings

I aslo think i have gotten ranked for a term that i didn't optimize for by my outgoing links

There's a lot to be said for your outbound links giving you relevance. I also have several sites that I use to link to my main business site ranking higher than I would have expected for the phrase that only appears in the outbound link anchor text on those sites. The moral is don't worry about PR - build good links (both inbound and outbound) that will keep visitors interested in your site.

These days many visitors seem to be too well aware of sites that are playing SEO games to achieve rank and are wary of doing business with them.

Mick

[schlottke]

Mick, I agree with you. I feel it is more necessary to gain good linking structure than worrying about a leak in PR. I think if you run a site correctly you'll find yourself on the top of the engines with little effort.

[Help Desk]

How did forums.DigitalPoint.com do it? This site is at the top of ALOT of searches.

[digitalpoint]

www.digitalpoint.com is what some would consider an authority site.

[Arnica]

Originally Posted by digitalpoint

www.digitalpoint.com is what some would consider an authority site.

Undoubtedly!

[steve sardell]

Originally Posted by ferret77

I have site drop in pagerank when i added outbound links but they did not drop in rankings

Hi ferret77,

There are a number of other reasons you may have lost page rank other than adding outbound links and I would never consider it a cause and effect relation. As an example some of the pages linking to you may have lost rank thus causing your rank to drop. Having out bound links to the best of my knowledge will not cause a dilution in your PR. The key is your rankings did not drop.

[schlottke]

Originally Posted by digitalpoint

www.digitalpoint.com is what some would consider an authority site.

Is the phrase used loosely or how does google decide this?

[compar]

Originally Posted by schlottke

Is the phrase used loosely or how does google decide this?

The term authority sites first showed up in either the Local Rank patent application or in the hilltop paper. I'm not sure which and it may be both. I'll give you the links to these below.

The question is, is Google actually using this technology and declaring sites as authority sites. I'm not sure.

Here are the links:

Hilltop paper: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/%7Egeorgem/hilltop/

Loacl Rank Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...0&RS=6,526,440