Quote:
Originally Posted by rlrouse
It all depends on anchor text and the quality of those links, not just the quantity. Yahoo.com has hundreds of thousands of backlinks yet my sites outrank them for literally thousands of search terms.
A page with 1000 backlinks all with a cryptic URL as the anchor text will rank lower than a page with 10 high quality backlinks with the search term in the anchor text.
|
I have worked on some sites for up to ten years. IMO, the link thing has near zero value in the age/sandbox algo which IMO, is part of a bigger "trust algo" that uses domain age, content themes over time and links& link Text. The link theories are IMO, just
SEO's not seeing the forest for the trees. I do no linking and if a client insists... I fire 'em! Yet... I can show you every site I monitor that has been around for over 8 years and have only a few links... are consistently in the top 5 for their competitive terms. Why? IMO, the reasons are:
1. age of internal and external links
2. age/stability of internal link text (how often has it changed)
3. Superior content/products selection
One of the theories I've had is fresh content is neccessary and failure to do so leads to positions degrading. Lately I have come to question that because I see these sites that have done nothing for years rising. I recently updated one site and am curious about how the link text change will affect the positions it's holding presently and how well the old links do with new text or old text at a new page with no parameters. This research will tell me where to go from here.
IMO, the trust is such that the site will rise for the new term (which is currently in the 13th position) and I will not be surprised if the new page outranks the old page because on page factors like KW in title and description.