I'm wondering whether linking to sites which will be not available in the future harm my PR? I mean the sites like forum posts, online newspapers articles etc. For example, I always link to a newspaper articles will be removed from the sites after three months from the publication date. So, does it matter to my PR?
Thanks, so I have to remove the links manually when the destination of the page is not available anymore, really time consuming...
Or you can find some software which reports broken links. I don't know about such software but you might search for it...
I think what you should really be concerned with is whether or not it'll be useful to your users. obviously, dead links are a bad thing. that being said, you don't "lose PR" for linking to a dead link any more than you do for linking to a live link.
Users are the main issue and page rank shouldnt really be thought about, but will linking to low level site eg PR0 dec your page rank? or is it just a matter of the more you link to the more your page rank will dec, i`ve also been told that outbound links dont affect your page rank at all, im not sure if any of these are true???? if only we could have an offical statement on this, or is there one already?
Actually I'm writing a blog on current issues (news, politics) happening in my country. So, I always link my post to the newspaper websites/online articles when quoting, citing or referencing so that my readers know that I'm not giving my opinion based on nonsense. Anyone has the similar experience?
You might want to use "no-follow" tag for all external links you add. This way you wouldnt have to go and check again and again if that link is working. And if even after a year, the link is working, it might be useful for the visitors to your site. So I'd say that you should let the links remain, just use "no-follow" with all external links.
But I heard that I site with too many "no-follow" will reduce the trust given by Google and hence rank not so well. Is this true?
I have directory with 600,000 no follow links and it got banned by Google. I still don't know why exactly, I think I might ask for reinclusion, soon. It could be for having linkmachine.php on my site, or because I had 4 links to my other sites on its main page...
Why on earth would you have 600,000 nofollow links? If I was google I would ban the site straight away.
How many is acceptable??? if my forum had users that had the 1st 20 posts they made = no-follow , would that be acceptable?
http://www.froola.com Well, it is just directory generated from external Wikipedia links and meta data from sites. I though I would be able to generate 50K site which will generate some money but sites with large amount of links doesn't earn much. BTW, Wikipedia isn't good source for "scraping" if you want to preserve their guidelines - you have to have link back, and therefore you are easily detected by SE. If you don't preserve link back, you are braking copyright...
My view of this is that since SEs want to serve their users with relevant pages they will, more or less succesful, try to devalue pages/sites with a high percentage of broken links. One or two broken links at any time is normal, but if they visit your site over a time and you always have the same broken links or an increasing number of them i would guess that they could deam the site as inactive/abondened/etc I'm sure broken links is part of their algos in one way or the other, how importent it is - well its anyones guess
Adam Lasnik (the 'reserve' Matt Cutts) has just said that even a few broken external links can cause a drop in your rankings. Go run a links checker now!
Unsure about any source but i had read in a an Ebook that if the site has any broken links or any sites links that are down, then its rankings decrease because it has Bad neighbours.