God help us all if Google is doing this as it will really clean things up. Some Questions: 1. Do you get a boost for linking to other sites (or other sites on topic)? 2. If so has anyone noticed in the latest algo update that linking out has been given increased importance? 3. Does anyone have an authority site that does not link out? 4. If they are making outbound links a positive factor or more of a positive factor (i.e. you get a boost if you link to other sites [on topic?]) what negative effect will this have? I have an authority site which links out plenty - with the authority site I can determine the serps under me by linking to them or not in different proportions. (showing the importance of IBLs for the other sites). Personally I still think IBLs are king but this does make sense if OBLs are getting greater importance.
In bound links are important, but I have seem some importance given to outbound links in the last 6-9 months. Although hard to really gauge how much value.
I find it very difficult to start linking to my competitors that already have me beat in the SERPs. But if that is what google wants, that is what google will get.
Nobody is suggesting that. The type of OBL you need to be an authority site or at least a "hub" site are links to informational pages. For instance if you run a gambling site you put up an OBL to Gamblers Anonymous. If you sell Video Surveillance cameras you put up links to articles or sites concerned with personal privacy issues.
How do I know if my site is an authority site or not? Here are two sites which I personally think of as authority sites. GSM Security Internet Search Engines FAQ I have not noticed any difference in the way that Google treats these two sites. In addition, I had another site which had thousands of outbound links. I converted 98% of these links to JavaScript links several months ago. The end result was no change. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. I had been hoping to clean up due to less "Page Rank leakage". The evidence which I have seen personally causes me to believe that Google has seperated outbound links into two buckets: Internal Links and External Links. This is my alternative theory to the Page Rank leakage theory. Aside from Google's response to OBL's, outbound links do have some positive and negative features: They create lots of keyword rich text for you (good) They can lead to reciprocal links (good) They give site visitors a place to click other than your advertisements (bad)
PageRank leakage was always a crock. I'm surprised at you Will. I thought you knew better. As far as your third point that isn't necessarily bad. First open the link in another copy of the browser. That way they can easily get back to your original page. Second if you provide information, particularly information that may not directly support your product -- like Gamblers Anonymous from a gambling site -- you may draw respect and appreciation, and in fact this may motivate the buyer to return to your page and use you product or services. Have you never gone shopping for something and after visiting several stores returned to the one who gave you the most information and seemed more interersted in helping you than all the others. The same thing works with web pages.
Page Rank leakage is not "a crock"--it is a simple, mathematically demonstrable issue, seeing as PR itself is a fairly simple mathematical construct. Where people go wrong is in vaguely assuming that it is the page giving a link that somehow "bleeds" PR out through that link; that, at least, is indeed a crock. But for a site as a whole, there is assuredly a net PR loss (a bit here, a bit there, page by page). This is not rocket surgery. (stet) A page has X amount of PR; it has Y number of outbound links. Add one, and each of the Y+1 links is receiving a shade less PR than it was before; since inevitably some of those links are to other pages of the linking page's site, those other pages thus each receive just that shade less PR than they did before the added link. It's that simple. Two caveats: if the new link is internal to the site, there is no bleed. Or, if the linking page has no links whatever to any other pages of its site (or any other sites the owner has an interest in), then the net intrasite bleed is zero--but that's an awfully unlikely case.
Nobody is denying that Owlcroft. The crock is that it never mattered if you bled a little in any case. PR has almost nothing to do with SERP placement. And to put up links to a page and then purposely deny that page the benefit of the links seems to me both dishonest and immoral. But the real point is that the potential value from an OBL is way greater than the value of an infintestimal PR bled, which has no effect in any case. So all this work and obsession with PR bled has always been a "crock". And I continue to be surprised and disappointed with anyone who would take great steps to hide their links under the claim of preserving PR. It is that kind of deceptive practice and outright SE manipulation that gives SEO a bad name. Shame on all of you who use and promote this shoddy practice.
PR is very important, the higher the PR the sooner you seem to be added and more frequently crawled. It also gives you the power to start up new sites with instant crawls from google. I would say although PR plays a much less role than it used to, it is still important.
What the hell does it matter in the scheme of things whether your site is crawled today or next Wednesday. And what is the real value of being crawled more frequently? Particularly if you are hiding your OBLs. In that case you would want to be crawled less in case Google should figure out how to read javascript. To go to great length to hide your OBL to preserve a little PR has so many things wrong about it, and so infintestimal possibe advantage, that I think it is a waste of time.
There is almost nothing which I will not test. On a side note, did you know that _blank is being deprecated? Fairly irrelevant to my sites, as I don't sell anything.
If it's your site, it's your property, and you can do with it as you will. Hiding OBL's is, of course, "wrong" when exchanging reciprocal links. However, I don't think that's what we have been discussing. Let's say that I make a light of flashlight manufacturers and post it on my web site. By listing a manufacturer with a JavaScript link, I am giving them a free gift (advertising and a direct link which users may follow). By listing a manufacturer with a HTML link, I am also giving them the free gifts of PR and keyword relevance. Two gifts may be better than one, but I do not owe either to the manufactuer. They are both free gifts from me which do not obligate me in any way. Now let's make this a wee bit more complex. Let's say that one flashlight manufacturer sends me a free flashlight and links back to my page. Mmmmm... nice. I would really like to give this guy something more than his competitors. If I give him an HTML link and I've given all twenty of his competitors HTML links also, he gets 1/20th of the PR4 from my web page. That's not much. But, if I give him an HTML link and his competitors all JavaScript links, he gets all of that PR4 all to himself (not considering HTML links in shtml includes automatically attached to the page). I have now (partially?) repaid that manufacturer for his kind efforts.
I'm pretty sure nohaber would like to join in: Source: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2061&page=2
Will, you still are looking at this incorrectly to my way of thinking. These links provide value to your site and to your readers or else you wouldn't use them. So to that degree you are riding on the backs of the manufacturer. The "gift" isn't only in one direction. To paraphrase an old expression "no web page is an island". And isn't it rather presumptive to take the position "if he links to me then I'll link back". Why should he have to do it first? Isn't there any room for unselfish goodwill in web site design?
Man, I'm with Compar on this. PR is just a waste of time. What does that PR3/4/5 do for you, other than getting you crawled more often? PR leak is all a bunch of BS. I couldn't care less if I was spreading PR about. What harm does it actually do. High PR means one thing - You can sell links to people who believe that a PR boost will help them in the SERP's. The only thing that will do that, is the anchor text. Simple as that.
The more PR I give "unselfishisly" to undeserving sites, the less I have to give to more deserving sites. The unselfish goodwill is, on some of my sites, limited to JavaScript links and the resulting benefit of direct targeted traffic. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow.
This is a great thread with quite some intellectual power on SEO! Glad, I found it. I agree with the facts, that PR got less important for the SERPs during the last 6 months. You should indeed place an emphasis on outbound linking to authority sites, but be sure to take usefull and relevant link anchor text. Cheers n keep it up, Bill