Just want to know if having blogroll links in relevant and indirectly related blogs worth increasing SERPs?
Yeah, If someone clicks on your blog it will definitely increases the traffic thereby increasing the SERP.
Every link is helpful in some way, some are more and some less helpful. But a link is a link and it is valuable.
try to have the link from homepage rather than from all the pages of the site. It is of same worth but if you get that from all the pages then it looks spammy and depending on your domain age it might flag an alert in google as well.
Yes, especially if the blog increases in PR over time. I would highly recommend that you get some, but do not directly exchange blogroll links because this is frown upon by Google. Instead have more than 1 site and do threeway link exchange.
Not really. Most of the blog rolls use the rel="" attribute with the nofollow value, and the ones that don't typically just use the blog name instead of keywords. So, the value will be minimal at best (as I like to say, if you can't pull rank for your site's name, your site has far bigger problems to worry about). Click through rates and traffic have NOTHING to do with rankings. See above. You'll do well by reading my second reply in this post. (Or you can save yourself the trouble because CTR and traffic do NOT affect the rankings.) Still not worth it though. So you're now advocating laundering links the way organized crime launders money? What makes you think the search engines are okay with this sleazeball tactic? Agreed with the traffic, but must respectfully disagree with the SERPS for the reasons I already cited.
This is a great and mysterious question. Basically, google would like to only count organic citations by legitimate third parties who link to a site because they think people should go there. For the most part, this is what blogrolls are, a statement by someone that they think your blog is worth reading. It's a good think for serp. But, Google traditionally has frowned upon run of site links since they look like purchased advertisements, not like legitimate citations. is google treating blogs differently than other websites? Traditionally they have but as more blogs are used as CMS for regular websites, it's unclear that this is the future.
Since when have the search engines treated blogs any differently from other Web sites? They can't tell the difference, nor have they given blogs any special boost. What they have seen is the activity that's on the blogs (bloggers posting new content on their blogs frequently, having other bloggers comment on that new content, and then in turn commenting on other blogs). Which is something a typical Web site can do just as easily if it chose to.
I think the search engines have always treated blogs differently. Doesn't BLOG stand for a: Better Listing On Google? I've never really understood by what mechanism the blogs are treated differently. I think it has to do with Google tracking the pings that come out of blogs when they release new posts. I thought the pings were tracked by google and they treated them more as news sites (the faster they can be spidered and indexed the better) rather than regular sites (where google considers them primarily as sitting in a sandbox until they proves themselves to have some authority)
When i said this thinking in mind that - it will be a followed link - it will be rich with keywords - i have test results in getting a site to first page by putting the links with keywords on non-related sites. The effort was more but it paid off.
If m i correct, i think SERP depends on backlinks .And most bog roll links are usually no follow. Hence they do not contribute to SERP. Hence,There is no direct relation between traffic and SERP in this case. However if we talk about in general,traffic depends on SERP. More SERP in Search engine More traffic.