I have been reading so much about back links lately. One person says one thing then another contradicts them. Is this because people don't want competition or is it all really that grey? Back links from forums are said to be weak. Back links from article sites are said to be weak. Reciprocal links are said to be weak. I've heard so much BS about Back links I want to barf! Just where TF are we supposed to get high quality back links?? If anybody really knows they probably won't share, but I'm asking anyway. I've read so much about which back links are weak, but slim to nothing about which links really hit hard. I'm already preparing for lots of contradiction but let’s get down to it! Peace and thanks, Herman
The best backlink is from a page that is same topic as your site and has high page rank. Forums and others have little page rank on those pages most of the time. Backlinks from a page with good PR and less links has the most effect. The more links on a page the less it will help your site.
Thanks rcj662, I agree with this theory but talking a site owner into dedicating an entire page to my site is going to be tough. I made 1 link trade with this real nice site owner who directed my (original) back link to a page dedicated only to my link. He did that with everybodies back links. He has a main links page then those links get directed to their own page. It's a cool idea I didn't understand at first. I didn't care for the way people had to click my link twice to get to my page. Then when you think about it back links are more for SEO than the small amount of traffic generated by the individual link. The other side of the coin is those individual link pages probably have very low PR. I didn't check but since the page was brand new it's quite likely. I could make a back link to that individual link page. Maybe that's what the site owner is hoping for. If so he's pushing the envelope and expecting your average site owner or "webmaster" to think about back linking to those pages is probably a little far fetched. The other thing about getting a link on a new page is hoping the search engine spiders the page soon. Of course a site with a high PR is likely to get spidered often. I'm enjoying this already. Thanks again, Herman
The best backlinks are the ones that provide HUMAN traffic! The individual strength of a backlink is dependent upon many factors. My sig links here on Digital Point do not do bad at all, assuming they are related to the threads I post in. The ones not related to webmastery things seem to not get the clicks that one related does. For instance, the middle sig link here about google does a LOT better then the one about technomancy (I assume that many here just don't know what technomancy is). Getting blog links can also be a great asset, assuming the link is relevant to the topic it's posted in. A blog about cars can generate some fair traffic assuming it's about automotives and not about pet care. Article sites can generate some decent traffic as well, assuming it's an article worthy of being read! A crappy article with a link will likely not pull in much of anything...however, an article worth being read can get linked too by other sites as a resource. When that happens trickle traffic can be had. Directories I find give the least amount of human traffic, and that's ANY directory. Reciprocal links are a GREAT asset, assuming that both sites are related. I have a few out there and some of them do give some good human traffic. The best thing is to get a mix of links, and in doing so make sure that each link is on a high quality page that offers something to the HUMAN reading it. It's all about the end user, and if you keep that in mind, then every link will have it's own perks. If you are just getting links to make the google bot happy, then you'll find that most links are pretty weak in the long run.
True enough. Many people say that back links coming from forums are weak. This may be true on an SEO standpoint but if you make a great relevant post you will likely get plenty of targeted visitors. Of course it has to be in a quality forum. I am guilty of trying to hammer out back links for the Google bot though. I still feel they are very important because Google usually provides 50% plus of my traffic initially. I do get a bunch of direct traffic to my sites but I like to think 50% or more of those initially found my site through Google, maybe I’m wrong. They found me somewhere though and yes I know a bunch of those direct traffic visitors are bots & spiders etc. I will continue to exchange links for this very reason. Even if Google doesn't apply a bunch of juice from reciprocal links they still get traffic to my site when posted properly on quality sites. Thanks again for your valuable input Qryztufre. P.S. I see you have a rifle there. Are you a hunter? I know it's off topic but it's my thread and I enjoy hunting myself.
Go for what rcj662 said. Backlinks from quality and relevant pages with high PR are the strongest backlinks you can have. I've seen the list of backlinks from the competitors in our niche and some of our strongest competitors only have less than a hundred backlinks, but all from quality sites.
Hello maporsche, I agree with rcj662. But any suggestions as to how to acquire such valuable links would be greatly appreciated. It's my experience that sites with a high PR ranking generally don't want anything to do with a site showing a low PR. My best site has a PR 3 and the site I'm working on right now has a zero last I checked. The site is only 7 weeks old or so. It gets real nice rankings on obscure keyword phrases but I can't come close to the first page on my targeted keyword phrase. I know Google devalues newer sites or at least that’s what I read. Funny I get top rankings on a different nearly new site from Yahoo!. Google barely recognizes it even exists. It seems it's either Yahoo! or Google that favors my sites in the rankings and rarely both. Thanks again, Herman
"The best backlink is from a page that is same topic as your site and has high page rank." I agree with rcj662 and getting this back link is difficult and that means really difficult. If you get one call it a very good day. I don't think most seo guys are hiding the ball, the fact is that with some sites have millions of back links the value of one teeny, tiny back link can have small value while another has the opinion that is has very small value and the next guy thinks it has no value. I think they are all right, especially since google has the answer sheet and they aren't divulging what the correct answer is. In general it is better to have back links from high pr sites as opposed to low pr sites but no one really knows how many low pr back links equals one high pr site back link. At least I haven't seen the formula that makes sense to me. The best advice I have seen here over and over is seek as many high quality back links from as many legitimate sources as you have time to do. Trying to find the "best", or highest value method can be elusive and where the litany of theories and opinions comes. I do think that if anyone has the best secret method they would be wise to keep it to themselves but I suspect that guy is Matt Cutts himself and his inner circle.
If one had the manpower, intelligence and money the Google code could very well be cracked. We all seem to notice improvements in rankings and then try to quantify the reason for it. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm always fiddling around with various SEO tactics. At the end of the week when my site rank improves I can't really put my finger on exactly the things that worked the best. I can tell if what I am doing is working overall, not working or making things worse, but only to a degree. Google takes it's sweet time gathering back links and getting them into their system etc. I have some killer secrets and I'm sure many others do also. I'm not about to let mine lose until I see some that are as sweet as mine though. Once again I'm sure lots of us are in the same boat here. Peace, Herman
Yes, but not impossible. Though you are correct, by the time it's cracked it will have changed again. Though I reckon once the basics are down, the slight tweaking may be easier to follow along with. The best back links are still those that bring in HUMAN traffic though, and people are pretty easy to figure out.
Last post off topic I promise. It would my thought that the slight tweak would screw your forumlas so much across the board that it really never would be accurate.
First try to get link from most related especially from any edu site. That would give you more power.
Navigation links are weaker then content links too. Links higher on the page offer more value then link lower on the page. High PR, relevant pages. They are hard to get, because they are so valuable.
Best link is only from the site that are very closely related to your site. And it is all the more goodif it is from edu. sites.
You will often see a PR0 do wonders compared to say PR6 or something else if its from your niche. Don't look for quantity.
The link carries more weight if it is surrounded by text and is an exact anchor text link. Having said that, it's very important to have a lot of variation in your anchor text with related phrases, one easy way to find these related terms is in the GKWT, where it says website, put your URL and you will then see the keywords that g thinks are relevant. Rotate this list in your anchor text links.