I'm sure Google looks for common terms between the pages. That would be related. Also, it could look for synonyms or similar topical words, so "horoscope" and "astrology" could be considered related, even though the same actual words aren't used. You could also look at Google's definition of "similar pages" http://www.google.com/help/features.html#related Common sense should be enough to tell if a page is related or not.
There's a ton of people on here, but how many of you have actually done some research on this topic? It sounds like lots of opinions, but almost no one is posting any real proof (I'm not being a jerk, this is just frustrating). When you talk about relevancy, relevant to what? to the page it's linked to? To the anchor text? To the website the page is on? Have you actually considered all that goes in here? Sure, common sense dictates that "related links" are best. But what does related links mean? Here is what I have PERSONALLY witnessed: You might think something is relevant, but it may not be. What do mythical short and pudgy creatures have to do with fertilizers? Seemingly nothing, but anyone knows that garden gnomes is something related. What is common sense to you, may not be to Google. There's 1,200,000 results for "garden fountains". Do you think these are all related to every other keyword you can think of about gardens or gardening? Would Google consider it related? What about fence? What about the material of fence? Wood? What about trees? are they related to gardens? What if it was a metal fence? Do you want to discuss what happens if your metal fence is hit by lightning? Is metallurgy related to herbicides? In whose eyes? Sorry for seeming obstinate, but I'm simply asking why we are making assumptions without testing it like we are supposed to be? Let me show you some of my case studies: Site 1 (I'm not telling what it is): Ranked #4 out of 104,000. Almost all the backlinks are from sites that are not really related to it. Site 2: Ranked #14 out of 28,000 for the KW. No backlinks from related sites. Site 3: Ranked #16 for a kw out of 170,000. No backlinks from related sites. All of these sites are less than 3 weeks old as well. How do you think they're doing so well? I'm just beginning to get links for them, and the links are not from related sites. What REALLY matters is your anchor text. Of course, having related links is a bonus too, if Google considers it related. If a site optimized for "gardening tools" links to you with the anchor text "gardening tools", more power to you. I just like being realistic in knowing that it won't happen. So please, let's look at what ACTUALLY HAPPENS, not what we think makes sense and what Google might be doing. Three things matter: Content, links, and authority (no, PR does NOT matter in search engine ranking). Content is easy, links are hard, and authority is the hardest for most people.
Anchor text certainly matters, but so does Page Title, url (including longtail urls), keyword density, and the first paragraph worth of words have much more weight. If your site is optimized for "gardening tools", then getting backlinks from gardening sites (preferably from their gardening tool page and/or articles) is what will matter. Ranking highly in the SERPs for non-competitive keywords doesn't mean much. Also, since you've not told us what keywords you're talking about, your "case studies" don't mean much either. You may also be seeing high ranking in the SERPs for newly indexed content simply by having a boost. The real test will be in where that content is at after a few weeks. Is it still at much the same position? If yes, then you should be good. Here's some Matt Cutts info that you may find interesting. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-advice-writing-useful-articles-that-readers-will-love/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-provides-backlink-tool-for-site-owners/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/tell-me-about-your-backlinks/ Here's more: http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002925.html
Okay, usasportstraining, you took me a little out of context, through no clear error on your part. Of course it is important to build content worth linking first. That is part of the reason I ranked well for so many of the keywords. Some of my older sites rank very well too (few months old) like #4 for my main keyword. The issue I'm primarily trying to clarify is the myth that revolves around what relevant texts really are. Often we have wrong impressions of what is needed and what Google values. for example, why does a PR8 link sell for more than PR1 link when: Google has clearly stated that buying and selling links will get sites in big trouble. Authority does not depend on PR, but on a few other factors too. What I'm getting at, is that most people hear what someone has to say without considering it at all and run with it. Someone spreads a myth, and others pick it up because it seems to make sense, but no one seems to want to check it out by themselves. Thanks for the links though, I really did enjoy reading through them.
If you are going to make an internal directory and than doing link exchange with any category website but it should be quality and placed under the relevant niche.
It might not do you much good, but it won't harm you. SEs wont penalise you for what someone else could be doing to your site, i.e., linking to your site without your permission! Although this is not your case.
a one way link is a one way link by any other name , or points is points! True - a keyword targeted link from a contextual match is what you should be developing but any link is good provided your not trading with a black hat link partner who can blow your PR in nothing. I have to admit I fell for it !trading links with male enhancement sites and doing a little hoodia but I'll tell you from experience . I checked my PR the following week and got a blank BAR and after killing the return links my PR shot up to PR3 in 2 hours . SO my best advice is to go cold turkey , get clean & stay out of the seedy part of town .