PR and backwards links?

[katiab]

PR and backwards links?


WHAT IS IT AND DO DO YOU GET IT?
I keep seeing this on most topics and while I have a very superficial understanding, I may want to know everything there is to know about it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Have a great day!
katia
http://www.intl-roots.com

[scallihan]

Originally Posted by katiab

PR and backwards links?


WHAT IS IT AND DO DO YOU GET IT?
I keep seeing this on most topics and while I have a very superficial understanding, I may want to know everything there is to know about it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Have a great day!
katia
http://www.intl-roots.com

I think you mean "backlinks," which are simply inbound links (sometimes called "IBLs") that link to your page. In Google, PR is based on the number and quality of your inbound links (which also include your own interlinks) -- when another site links to your site, it is considered a "vote" for your site. What role PR has in determining where your page shows up in Google's search results, however, is a highly debated topic -- another factor, relevancy, plays a much stronger role in how high your page will show up relative to any particular search phrase. Relevancy is determined by both onpage content and inlink content. Anyway, that's a very rough synopsis...

[greeneagle]

Good answer scallihan,

We are (or maybe it's just me) in quite a quandry here, there are many suppositions circulating in the threads here about what was actually changed in the Dec 17th alg update at GOOGLE.

Strong rumors indicate that Google is enforcing the 100 links/page rule spelled out in their "Webmaster Guidelines" more vehemently than before, and others indicate that they have diminished the value (set a threshold) on IBLs with the same anchor text. We are also dealing with a new "No Follow" tag, BlogSpam crushing etc.. here.

YOU CAN BET THOUGH - ALL ALG CHANGES ARE AIMED AT TAKING AWAY ANY VALUE FROM "SPAMING", AT ANY LEVEL, USING ANY TECHNOLOGY!

Ken

[modernsavage]

greeneagle I can see you no longer have a link in your signature. Is this due to the recent changes in Google algo or just not needed?

[greeneagle]

I really don't see that they do that much good any more, besides it's just not what these forums are about anyway. The advice and communication is way more valuable.

Ken

[scallihan]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

We are (or maybe it's just me) in quite a quandry here, there are many suppositions circulating in the threads here about what was actually changed in the Dec 17th alg update at GOOGLE.

Strong rumors indicate that Google is enforcing the 100 links/page rule spelled out in their "Webmaster Guidelines" more vehemently than before, and others indicate that they have diminished the value (set a threshold) on IBLs with the same anchor text. We are also dealing with a new "No Follow" tag, BlogSpam crushing etc.. here.

YOU CAN BET THOUGH - ALL ALG CHANGES ARE AIMED AT TAKING AWAY ANY VALUE FROM "SPAMING", AT ANY LEVEL, USING ANY TECHNOLOGY!

Ken

The wise approach, I think, is to avoid questionable stuff that Google could easily filter for, whether they are actually filtering for it now or not. A high proportion of identical incoming links to a page could easily be filtered for, it seems to me.

I doubt they're doing something that can be reduced down to one single factor, however. I can see them filtering pages that exhibit both high frequency and high density of identical links. For instance, a page with only a few incoming links might also have a high density of identical links -- since they'd be unlikely to rank well, anyway, there would be no point in adding insult to injury, in other words.

Same with the 100 links thing -- I've got some pages that just nose over the 100 links limit, but are doing fine in Google. Some have speculated that one might get dinged for being over 100 links/100 KB.

Has anybody posted a page that has conclusively been filtered for any of these factors?