Determining Link Value???

[tomtj]

Are there any guidelines to determine the value of link in regards to transferring PR? Here are some of the questions I have:

1. If there is only 1 outbound link on a PR5 page, how much PR is passed?

2. If you add a second outbound link to that page is the transferring PR cut in half or just by a little?

3. What’s a better Page to get a link from a PR3 page where you would be the sole outbound link, a PR4 page where you would be one of 10 outbound links or a PR5 page where you would be one of 50 outbound links?

4. Does google pass the same amount of PR from a PR5 homepage as it does a PR5 interior page?

Tom
www.nutritiongeeks.com

[tomtj]

This is an important topic and I know some of you must have opinions on the subject. I went back 36 pages on this forum, plus did some searches and couldn’t find this topic discussed. Obviously there aren’t any manuals from Google on the subject, but surely anyone reading this must have given these sort of questions some thought.

Every link exchange requires some effort, unless your link system is completely automated (which I’m not a fan of), so how do you decide who to bother with? From what I’ve seen, a handful of quality links is better than a ton of crappy ones, but that’s a pretty broad statement. What’s quality? What’s crappy?

Let me tell you all what prompted me to start this topic. We recently switched our domain and even though we didn’t have to start from scratch from a customer standpoint, we did from a PR standpoint. Link exchanging started and boy oh boy do people get excited about linking to a PR0 site. Now we’re a PR5 site, but our directory is still PR0 because we just switched those pages from ‘asp?’ (that’s another story). I had what I thought was a good idea. I decided to seek out quality, relevant sites and ask them to exchange links outside of each other’s link directories on high PR pages. I currently have 9 pages with a PR5 and decided to limit the outbound links to only 3, so the PR those pages passed to my link partners would be very high and vice versa. Well one of the sites that I’ve been in contact with has asked me to point to 3 different pages. I don’t really mind doing this because of what I’m getting in return, but I don’t know if diluting that page to 5 links would matter or not. Is he better off getting 1 of 3 outbound links pointing to his most important page or 3 of 5 outbound links? Also how much does this dilute the value I’m passing to the other 2 link partners?

The funny thing is how hard it’s been to get people to reply to what I think is such a win-win arrangement. I work pretty hard on our site and believe it to be very clean and professional. We get a lot of link exchange requests that I dismiss, but if we got one like I’m offering, I would jump at it. What’s the downside? Does my breath smell?

Thanks,
Tom
www.nutritiongeeks.com

[janeth]

Originally Posted by tomtj

This is an important topic

I do not think so. I think that when it comes to getting ranked in Google most links count.

Every link exchange requires some effort, unless your link system is completely automated (which I’m not a fan of), so how do you decide who to bother with?

I will link to any site I find interesting that is over a pr1

From what I’ve seen, a handful of quality links is better than a ton of crappy ones, but that’s a pretty broad statement.

What’s quality?

What’s crappy?

If your calling a pr1 link crappy I disagree.

If your calling a link farm crappy I agree.

If your saying off topic links are crappy I disagree


I have a link from a pr2 site and get a lot of traffic from them. They do a lot of marketing thats not done online.

Links from other site can help drive traffic to my site. PR is just an added benfit.

[randfish]

Tom -

I have to say that when you think about who to link to or to get a link from, one of the best things you can think about in terms of value is how likely you'd be to seek that link (or make that link) if search engines did not exist.

If a link to a site would help your visitors, offers valuable content, etc., then link to it. If a site would send you traffic or has people who might be interested in your link visiting it, get a link from it. Otherwise...

There are certainly more quantitative ways to measure if a link is worthwhile, PR, # of backlinks, # of pages in Yahoo!, MSN, Google, rankings for the page titles, etc. But, I prefer this other method as it is very forward looking and stays one step ahead of the algos. Even if the link doesn't help you now, in the future, it will.

[rivux]

Originally Posted by janeth

I do not think so. I think that when it comes to getting ranked in Google most links count.

I've noticed that a lot of people have reading compehension issues around here. This post was about "Are there any guidelines to determine the value of link in regards to transferring PR" So this comment above and all the rest you made about traffic and other value is more then just slightly off topic.

A link from ESPN is better then a link from JoeBlows Geocities page, it will transfer more PR and it will give you a better boost in the rankings. So when you are deciding on who to request links from or who to buy links from, determining the exact value of that link is of course important. Getting links takes time and time is money so people prefer to get links in the most productive manner possible.


As for the dilution question, anytime you increase the number of outbound links you are going dilute the PR that is passed. And I think on the whole, people would rather dilute the PR on link exchange pages versus their regular pages (which they sell links on). So getting other mid-high PR sites to exchange links outside of their link exchange pages is difficult because the value of that link (or perceived value) is less then the value of a link they could have sold there. If a site has 5 spots for outbount links per page, it is generally in their best interest to sell those 5 versus trade those 5, unless a trade is so slanted in their favour that they can turn down the cash for it, which isn't often.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by rivux

I've noticed that a lot of people have reading compehension issues around here. This post was about "Are there any guidelines to determine the value of link in regards to transferring PR" So this comment above and all the rest you made about traffic and other value is more then just slightly off topic.

Some how I missed his first post and went off his second post. But my post was on topic with his second post.

A link from ESPN is better then a link from JoeBlows Geocities page, it will transfer more PR and it will give you a better boost in the rankings.

I´m not so sure a pr5 link will help you rank any more then a pr1 link.

Have you tested and do you have any proof that a pr5 link will help you rank higher then a pr1 link ?

[rivux]

Originally Posted by janeth

I´m not so sure a pr5 link will help you rank any more then a pr1 link.

Have you tested and do you have any proof that a pr5 link will help you rank higher then a pr1 link ?

Its the definition of a ranking system, 5 is better then 4, 6 is better then 5 and so on. Unless Google is working backwards and 0 is the highest and 10 the lowest, if thats the case then Im kicking ass on some of my PR0 sites. lol

You could argue that a link to a web hosting site on a PR5 page with the title "Plane Tickets" is less valuable then a link on PR1 page to the same site but with the title of "Web Hosting" when you are talking about doing seraches for 'web hosting'. But if you have two links with the same title, one from a PR5 and one from a PR1 I think its pretty obvious which one has more value.

[bhartzer]

Forget about PageRank and start thinking about getting on-topic links from authority sites.

[rivux]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Forget about PageRank and start thinking about getting on-topic links from authority sites.

What is with this forum and its inability to hold a conversation, its enough to drive members away. It's especially bad when talking about PR but I've noticed it in a lot of topics.

This isn't a conversation about whether PR is useful, or whats better for ranking. It's a discussion on the transferring of PR from one site to another. I've been a member for less then a week and in nearly every thread that Ive posted in, someone has either not read the first post before replying or made wildly off topic comments. I was told wpw was a professional forum, Im starting to question my source.

[bhartzer]

I apologize, rivux, if you're talking about my last post. I should have been more clear in my post. Let me try to explain my thoughts a little better.

The original question was related to this:

determine the value of link in regards to transferring PR

I've been studying the transfer of PageRank in the past few months, and from what I can tell there is still PageRank being passed. But it's the value of that PageRank that's being passed that we should be more concerned about. It appears, from what I can tell, that PR is being passed in some cases and it isn't being passed in other cases.

As a result of my testing and talking to other SEO professionals who I respect, the value of the PR that's being passed varies depending on whether or not the link is from an authority site or an off-topic non-authority site. In many cases, PR is not being passed for certain reasons, perhaps because the link is from an off-topic page.

I'm not quite sure yet whether or not the passing of PR is based on the value of the link (whether it's an authority or not). It is my belief that you will get valuable PR passed to you if the link is from a valuable on-topic authority page. And PR won't be passed if the link is from an off-topic page that's not an authority.

For many years now--ever since PageRank ever existed we (myself included) have been obsessed with getting links from web pages that had a certain PR. I've spent many hours looking at the transferring of PageRank from one page to another and have even set up sites' navigation so that PR was passed "properly" throughout the sites.

We are in a new Google world now, and the old original PageRank formula is most likely not the same as it used to be. The actual transfer of PageRank from one page to another may be based on a different formula, and I'm seeing evidence that the passing of PR depends on the type of link, not just it's PR number that shows in the toolbar.

[bhartzer]

But if you have two links with the same title, one from a PR5 and one from a PR1 I think its pretty obvious which one has more value.

No, in today's Google world, it's not obvious at all which link is more valuable. Even if those links have the same title tag, you have to look at it a little deeper. You have to determine the "authority" of the page that's linking to you.

There's much more value in a link from a lower PR page that's an authority page on a subject than from a page that's not an authority on a subject.

[rivux]

Thanks for the followup bhartzer much appreciated. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote especially the part about the transferring of PR from authority sites. Though it can be argued what is meant by that term, the only meaning that matters is the one from Google. I may think a site is an authority site, but if it google doesn't think so, links from them wont count for much.

So if the only definition of an authority site that matters is Googles then we need to find out how google determines this. As of right now PR is the only ranking/rating/measure of a sites value/worth/importance that Google shows us. Which means if we want links from Authority sites then getting links from hi PR sites is very important.

As for on-topic links, I agree that getting on topic links is very important which tomtj agrees with as well as in the 2nd post he states "I decided to seek out quality, relevant sites.."

So we all agree that ontopic is good and authority is good. Maybe we can get back to helping him answer his question which was " Is he better off getting 1 of 3 outbound links pointing to his most important page or 3 of 5 outbound links? Also how much does this dilute the value I’m passing to the other 2 link partners? "

[bhartzer]

Just so you know, when I talk about Authority sites I'm am referring to the Hilltop Paper by Krishna Bharat and George A. Mihaila.

getting links from hi PR sites is very important

Not necessarily. You need to get links from on-topic sites that have a lot of links going to them. One PR5 page may have 1000 on-topic links going to it and another PR7 page might have 8 links going to it. You cannot rely on PageRank to tell you whether or not you should get a link from that page. You have to dig deeper than that.

Besides, with the stealing of PageRank and "faking" of PageRank still happening, you cannot rely on what the Google Toolbar says.

Is he better off getting 1 of 3 outbound links pointing to his most important page or 3 of 5 outbound links? "

It really depends. It depends on the quality of the links. If you can get quality and quantity then that's the best of both worlds.

Also how much does this dilute the value I’m passing to the other 2 link partners? "

Whoa! If you're doing any sort of reciprocal links or helping any link partners then that's a whole other ballgame--reciprocal linking and "link partners" are now becoming the new spam. Go for one-way links only.

[tomtj]

Thanks rivux for keeping this discussion on-topic. If I had a nickel for every time some wrote on this forum “Just look for links that benefit your visitors”. I don’t think that’s the whole answer.

I also appreciate bhartzer answers, it’s apparent you’ve given this subject a lot of thought and research. I don’t understand some of your logic however or how one would apply it. If on-topic incoming is the only way to go, then how does a page with 1000 on-topic incoming links only have a PR5. Isn’t the PR5 Google’s way of telling the world just how important and relevant it thought those incoming links were? Are you saying that if everything else were equal, you would rather have a link from the PR5?

I don’t know why reciprocal linking is so bad. If google does pass PR by factoring in both PR and relevancy of the linking site, then where’s the problem? If PR0 casino site links to PR0 Porn site, then very little PR should be passed. But if PR5 garage door company wants to link to PR5 shingle company, then where’s the spam? There is just as much chance that a one-way link is the result of a deal. $$$

I see very little reason for an authority site, outside of money, to give a one-way link to an ecommerce site. So it seems unrealistic to make that a marketing strategy.

I’ll read the Hilltop Paper.

Thanks,
Tom
www.nutritiongeeks.com

[sfowler]

Maybe I am just too much of an engineer, but for something that I consider to be an authority site to link to me, then I have to have something to offer that they don't have. In other words, I have to be an equal authority. The next big snag is that if they are such an authority I would probably voluntarily place a link to them anyway, and we are back to reciprocal linking. After all, don't you go and take a peek who it is that has just placed a new link to you?

[cbp]

Isn’t the PR5 Google’s way of telling the world just how important and relevant it thought those incoming links were?

PR has nothing to do with relevancy.

I think what bhartzer is that the relevant and on-topic links are given additional weight in the relevancy part of the ranking equation - thats different to the PR equation

CBP

[tomtj]

I wasn’t saying that PR was related to relevancy. My impression on PR is just the opposite. It would seem that PR is Google’s rating of the site independent of all other factors. The relevancy I was referring to was that of the site giving the link. It’s clear that a link can pass PR. So what are those factors? PR? Amount of outgoing links per page? Amount of outgoing links per site? Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming? Relevancy? A combination of all the above?

That was my point, if bhartzer was saying that on-topic links give additional weight to the relevancy part of the PR passing equation, than how can Google still rate it as a PR5 after 1000 links? That’s contradictory, isn’t it? Irrelevant relevance;)

Tom
www.nutritiongeeks.com

[activeco]

Originally Posted by rivux

What is with this forum and its inability to hold a conversation, its enough to drive members away.

You had a luck you were not personally attacked by some members here.
In one very hostile thread, I was attacked from a few sides, totally unprovoked. While the mods did a pretty hard work and removed most of the posts, the spitting part towards me remained there while my replies were removed. I guess it's hard to be non-biased for some reason.

Anyway, I am stil here occassionally and will try sometimes to contribute for the sake of some people.
Regarding tomtj's original question I would repeat the old truth that the best things are always free.
Probably noone will give you a ready-made blueprint of her/his years-long experiences, but you can make your own conclusions.
Start with the classic (I think still only to find at archive.org):

http://web.archive.org/web/199805020...ub/google.html

Further reading:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2
&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G
&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=351316.APN.&OS=apn/351316&RS=APN/351316

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2
&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&
l=50&d=ptxt&S1=google.ASNM.&OS=an/google&RS=AN/google

From there you have wide open door for further research. Good luck.

[tcampione]

In keeping with the original question, it is important to know that PR has nothing whatsoever to do with relevancy, and little or nothing to do with rank within a search results set. PR is nothing more than a page’s popularity, which in turn *suggests* importance.

PR is a direct measure of the number of links from other pages. It makes no difference in true PR whether those pages are from the same domain, a different domain, on-topic, off-topic, or an authority author. In the example given, 3 links from a page with a total of 5 is definitely a better choice than 1 link from a page of 3. That’s because 3/5 = 60% of the available PR whereas 1/3 = 33% of the available PR.

The reason why others here are broadening the thread is that many are trying to issue a warning. That is: PR has become almost a non-factor in SERPs!

If your motivation for the original question is to ‘sell’ PR, then the question is probably justified. But based on the second post, it seems your concern is related more to passing PR to link partners in order to attract an exchange.

If that is the motivation, then the message others are sending is *you’ve got it wrong*. Today, PR appears to be a very different animal. It used to be that PR was an accurate measure of *link value*. Today, determining the value of a link is far more complex, involving much more than simple PR.

I would suggest that understanding the factors presented by bhartzer and others is critical to approximating the value of a link exchange between you and another. I would also suggest that educating your exchange partner about the many other factors will help him/her determine the exchange value as well. Then, if both feel there is value, exchange links. If not, don’t.

/*tom*/