I've read on different sites that backlinks are only initially worth 5% - 10% of their total weight. They say that over time however the backlinks gain strength, until after a certain amount of time, they reach their total strength. This would seem to make sense, for google to include this type of metric in their algorithm. However, does anyone know or suspect if this delayed link strength is actually true?
The Google patent application states that is may use "freshness of links" as a factor in determining the weight it assigns each link. My guess is that links gain value over time.
Even if you forget about google and its algo for a minute think about it this way... You get a link on websites x, y and z. They will work on their own backlinks and over time as they grow in terms of seo you should see their links go up in value.
Yeah that definitely makes sense. So I guess we should not only focus on getting links from sites with high PR, but also by getting links from up and coming sites.
I agree with you. Though I believe the OP was asking about a different case. So I assume this is something like : site A links to site B, site A doesn't do anything to build its backlinks, doesn't get any new baclinks nor losing any of its previous one, in short site A "value" in terms of links and seo remains the same. The question : is it true that over time the backlinks gain strength, until after a certain amount of time, they reach their total strength? From the above case, is it true that over time site A give more weight to site B?
Yes, it gains value over time and also the anchor text used, i assume the anchor text remain same and the spot of the link also should remain same to get that full value over time
Different sites will go up in page rank and favor with the search engines. Different sites will go down in rank. That is why it is very important to diversify your link building methods. Don't rely solely on commenting on other blogs. Don't think that just doing directory submissions will benefit long term. Don't put all of your eggs into the article submission basket. Some of these methods may hold the test of time, so may not. If you build links naturally, consistently, and continually, then you will see great results over time. But yes, essentially a lot of your links, if placed on good sources, will gain strength over time. But, on the flip side, some of your stronger links now may not be worth as much in the future because of many different reasons.
An old link is a valuable link, in most cases the longer the link stays in places the more you will benefit from it.
So do you guys think that internal links gain weight over time? Obviously if the PR of the interal pages increase over time, the link strength will increase... However do you think that strength of an internal link is proportional to the time it has been in place?
As the backlinking page gains rank, so does the backlink itself. For this reason, it is short-sighted for people to NOT accept backlinks from low PR sites/pages, especially if related. Yes. I believe this would be known as "tunneling". To use nofollow to control the loss of PR 'linkjuice' from external links, while allowing PR to still go toward internal pages. It's very effective SEO.
I think that aged links may do the same as aged domains, "they become more trusted" if this is the case then older links will have more gain (some) weight but I believe it's the age of the domain with links that give it more weight including content, PR and the other factors around the ranking system.
going backwards from an advertising standpoint, it seems like I should be selling anchor text keywords in my posts based on future value of the link! how about selling a permanent link from a finance relate blog-post (PR 3, 750-1000 uniques/day) for $100? sounds like a better investment to an advertiser than their paying $40 for a 1 month text ad on all the sites pages?
I know that Wikipedia now uses nofollow links, so maybe that means Google doesn't pay any attention to those links... But one thing that sites like Wikipedia could suggest is that old links (regardless of PR change of linking page) are more valuable. I.e., in the old days, an old link from Wikipedia was one that editors and contributors had (presumably) continually reaffirmed ... Every month or whatever, a bunch more people had looked at link and thought it was good and so left the link in... In comparison, a fresh link could have been inserted by, e.g., an Adsense "entrepreneur"... P.S. I wonder why if Google ignores Wikipedia links Google still shows the Wikipedia links to my sites...
one would think (as someone here already said) that even if a search engine's view of the individual link did not change, as the sites with the links on change over time, then that must affect the value of the link. yes in either direction..