5,170 backlinks and STILL a PR5? could PR bleed be more real than we want to believe?

I've got 5,170 backlinks coming into my site, ffshrine.org. we've been a PR5 since we had 300 or so links.

even after all these new incoming links, we're still not even a PR6. unless there's something blatant that I'm missing, the only POSSIBLE thing I can think of would be PR bleed- I hate to say it as much as you hate to read it, but let me explain.

we've two kinds of link swaps; a one page link swap, and a ROS/"your link is on every page on our site" link.

could this sort of massive outlink structure have an impact on my PR- and even my serps? we've got over 1,000 content pages, and on each one, there are (at least) those 15 outgoing links, on every page.

could this be what's holding me back?

not only is my PR less that what would be expected, but the serps don't even seem right...

the #1 site (for a basic search for "Final Fantasy") has 13 links. they also rank #1 for allinanchor..

 

yeah, I know I do have to wait for a PR update and maybe I'll get lucky...

but still, wouldn't you expect well over 5,000 backlinks to EASILY beat someone with 13 visible ones in the serps for allinanchor? it just seems really wrong to me.

 

If I were to venture a guess I would say the problem is in the number of different domains from which you are getting your 5k backlinks. I have had many sites where it seemed I was way ahead in terms of backlinks but I could not win in SERPs.... when I went on a massive backlink campaign and made dramatic increases in the number of sites linking to me, the SERPs finally moved.

I think I had sent you a PM regarding helping me test one of my new text link management tools. The key is that (IMHO) it makes no sense for you to offer an ROS text link on your site. It is a complete waste. Once a site has 100 links from you, I believe link #101 is pretty worthless.

My tool will let you set up a list of links for each spot (as many or as a few as you wan for each positon) so you could easily get 15 * 100 = 150 link partners instead of the 15 you currently have. "Easily" in terms of maximizing your inventory I mean ... finding 150 link partners is never that easy.

But, you could also have 3 spots and roll your 15 link partners into those 3 spots giving them ~2,500 links each which again, is just as good as the current ROS they are getting. It will bleed off less PR as well, which may help improve your homepage SERP - not sure on that though.

Anyway, I am still looking for large php based sites to help work me test the ad server ... it will probably be public by the end of the week but if you want to give it a shot earlier, let me know.

 

The Coop Ad Network is beautiful. If you have at least 100 pages of content, you should be in it.

If you don't have 100 pages of content, focus on getting that first, then join.

If you have 1000+ plus pages of content, drop everything you are working on and get into the ad network ... it really has that much potential.

I am not building a replacement or competitor for that tool. I am building a separate tool that can work side by side with the coop ad network without any issues and gives you control over your inventory when trading or selling text links.

 

Is the ad network supported on more than just blogs now?

 

6190 backlinks and still PR0 :-(
I hope Google will update the PageRank soon!

 

Let me know if and when you add support for ASP.

 

I am convinced (though I do not have proof) that Google has implemented heavy dampening on multiple links from one site to another. Or, possibly from one site to one page.

I'm calling it the "one site; one vote" rule.

 

What are you saying, that we need more SEO forums ?

 

It's funny you should mention that, because other testing I am conducting strongly suggests that Google is completely ignoring links from web forums.

 

Actually, no.

The backlinks displayed and the backlinks counted for relevance and PR have no reason to be the same. I believe we have many examples where they are not the same.

I tested by posting unique anchor text in eight forums, both in message bodies and signatures. Either forums are being 100% discounted, or Matt Cutts was not completely honest when he said there was no sandbox, or I've missed something, again.

 

Hi Will Spencer!
That's very interesting! Could you give us a few examples? One link reported as a backlink by the link: command and not counted for relevance, or the contrary?

Thank you very much.

 

The most clear example is the contrary case. Most links are counted by Google for PR and relevance, right?

It follows logcally that most links should be reported by the link: command, No?

I think we have all seen that the Google link: command only shows about 20% of our inbound links. Compare it to the current implementations of the link: commands on AllTheWeb and AltaVista.

On the forward side, it gets a lot more tricky. For example, it is difficult to prove that Google is discarding multiple links from one site to one page, but no other theory explains the available data.

I'm running some tests now on forum message body links and forum signature links. You can see the in-progress results at the Search Engine Reverse Engineering Project

I've linked to otherwise-hidden pages using unique anchor text from 8 web forums. No keyword relevancy has been passed from any of the forums. The web forums are relevant for the unique anchor text -- but the linked to pages are not.

That seems pretty convincing. Brian is the only fellow to come up with any other reasonable explanation, which is the 120-day link sandbox.

But, of course, to your sub-point, the web forums don't show up on the link: command either.

 

How long have you had these links and how many are internal links or forum posts?