SEO experts needed to clear this out

[freetraff]

INTRO:

Imagine there are two pages on two different sites.

Page A on a high SEO value site that has let's say position 1 in Google for <some keyword>

Page B, on a quite fresh site, but it is linked from page A with the same <some keyword> in the anchor text.

QUESTION:

Will page B with time get better position than page A in Google, just because page A gave all its SEO *juice* to page B by linking to it with exactly <some keyword> in the anchor text?

MY OWN MESS:

I understand that page A looks a lot better for search engines, because it's on a trusted site and has quite enough quality backlinks to get position #1. So, it seems that for page B the chances are super low.

But, on the other hands, this super-dooper page A gives away its champion power to page B. And, moreover, it's not just a simple backlink to page B, but backlink with exactly the same anchor text that page A is a champion.

To me it looks like if a champion pages says "well, I, as the champion for keyword <some keyword> officially claim that page B is even better than me about this <some keyword> - rank it better than me!"

Does it make sense to assume stuff like this?

[kgun]

In my opinion your non ceteris paribus question make sense. How it is treated by SE's (it is the SEO sub forum) is another question.

Some reflections:

1. What about other ranking factors?
2. Related content on the site and internal links to related content on the site.

I am not a SEO expert and there may IMO be no unique answer. It may vary from case to case depending on how important the other factors are and the structure of the two sites.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by freetraff

page A gave all its SEO *juice* to page B by linking to it with exactly <some keyword> in the anchor text?

No, they gave a little pr juice that would be divided by every other link leaving that page.

If page A is optimized for the keyword in question and has more links with that keyword then it will take more than one link for page B to outrank page A.

[naz]

Plus you also have the age of the site to take into consideration because the se's do.

[Old Welsh Guy]

SOMETIMES, it can happen. My rugby forum for example is an authority on the subject, the BBC linked to my forum, from their Rugby section, and now my forum outranks them for the name of their show!

These are rare though, and what you are referring to is the local rank effect, and possibly the HITS & Hilltop algo's. Safe to say though that the only time the scenario you are talking wbout will happen is if the two pages are close together in the SERP's.

e.g. Say the two pages in the example page a is naturally position 1, page b is naturally position 2. Local rank would say 'according to US, the order is A=1 B=2 BUT local rank dictates that if age A cites (links to) page B, then IT thinks Page b is an authority on the subget. So we rank Page b above page A.

this is why it is important to try and get links from sites that appear in the top 20 for the phrases you are targetting.

General comment: Local rank isn't to be confused with local search or google local One relates to the geographic positions in the world long & lat. Local rank refers to pages that appear in the neghbourhood of the SERP's

[scotthai]

Hey Freetraff,
I have been doing SEO work for the past 2 years now, and it is my opinion that you will begin to rank very well over time with this link. Let's say that Page A has PR 5+, while Page B has PR3. If Page A is a site dedicated to growing vegetables while Page B is another site that is about growing vegetables with the Title tag "Grow your own vegetables", if Page A links (via anchor text "How to Grow your own vegetables" to site B on Page B, then you should expect that you have just got a real good boost of Page A's power. That is because you are now two sites that share a common category - this helps Google reach the understanding that you (as Page B) are playing by the rules, are who you say you are, and have a website that is telling the truth and are linking in from a site that not only is about your same category (vegetables) but also states in it's link to you that you are a resource for how to grow vegetables. You will have no problem getting high up in Google.

The big problem is getting a real good quality link from a website that isn't a over-populated directory since it is easy to buy a link, it is harder to deserve a link or create a partnership, and you will always have better results from a good honest partnership. (but I'm not saying directories are bad either, they are the bread and butter of link building!)

Go get your links and watch the site climb to the top of the rankings.

Scott Haines
San Francisco Bay Area Website Design

[iandoc]

Originally Posted by janeth

No, they gave a little pr juice that would be divided by every other link leaving that page.

If page A is optimized for the keyword in question and has more links with that keyword then it will take more than one link for page B to outrank page A.

I completely agree with Janeth. Plus, I am a great believer in the search engines following good, methodical, common sense. As I see it, common sense says A will remain better - all other factors being the same.

[murdockme]

another thing to consider is are page a and page b identical? if that's the case then google would see them as duplicate content. Or are they different in the regard of the amount of content, but have the same anchor text.

Lots of holes in the potential for this, and some missing information, but good luck with it anywho.

Michael

[jabo]

Depends on how either of them are optimized... either page could rank higher than the other

[brucet]

It sounds possible provided

1) Page A has no other outbound links, and
2) The two pages are equal in every other respect, including the value of their inbound links

That's unlikely ever to be the case IWHT. But if it were, then at some point the value of the optimised text link might exceed the value of the difference in their ages, and page B would leapfrog page A. That might happen after a few months. OTOH it might not happen for a hundred years. Google only knows...

[freetraff]

Thanks to all of you for sharing your ideas about the subject.

I did not want to influence the discussion with my personal experience so that I get a clearer picture. But from my own experience page A wins over page B is results after a few months have passed. And the experiment is still going on.

Your feedback was really fruitful, and I hope not to me only, but also to all others who are in the situations like this one.

[tbond]

Interesting discussion, but there are simply too many variables to determine the precise effect of your linking question.

Everyday I see links from sites with MUCH LOWER "pagerank" getting listed well above sites with high PR values. I think the old ideas about sharing juice with links may have to be re-thought due to Google's recent and dramatic adjustments to its ranking algorithm(s).

It appears the OLDER SITES do seem to still have more "value" than younger sites do, no matter what else we are considering.

After all, the AGE of a site is the most difficult parameter for a potential spammer to game.

As the web becomes more and more filled with - frankly - crap, I'm sure that Google will rely more and more on the age of a site in its formulas about the final worth of a keyword ranked search position.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by freetraff

INTRO:

Does it make sense to assume stuff like this?

It would be nice if it would be that easy, wouldn't it?

But ranking depends on a lot more than just 1 link. In your example, you´re saying that Page B has just 1 backlink. Would it make sense to rank a page high with just one backlink? It doesn't.

Now it is possible that you would do this and you actually get the result you're suggesting. OldWelshGuy gave an example. But to assume that that happened just because of that one backlink is not correct.

And to say something about the term "SEO Juice".... There's no such thing as SEO Juice.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by tbond

Interesting discussion, but there are simply too many variables to determine the precise effect of your linking question.

Everyday I see links from sites with MUCH LOWER "pagerank" getting listed well above sites with high PR values. I think the old ideas about sharing juice with links may have to be re-thought due to Google's recent and dramatic adjustments to its ranking algorithm(s).

The PR value of a page, only Google knows that. Or is there something I am missing?

Originally Posted by tbond

It appears the OLDER SITES do seem to still have more "value" than younger sites do, no matter what else we are considering.

After all, the AGE of a site is the most difficult parameter for a potential spammer to game.

As the web becomes more and more filled with - frankly - crap, I'm sure that Google will rely more and more on the age of a site in its formulas about the final worth of a keyword ranked search position.

If they do they will be missing out on a lot of really good information. I might have to start using another search engine at that point.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

If they do they will be missing out on a lot of really good information. I might have to start using another search engine at that point.

Don't worry, luckily Google is smart enough to compensate for age being the only thing that matters.

It all depends on the average age of various factors, but it's recalculated on a per query basis. So for keyword phrase A the average age may be much lower or higher than for keyword phrase B.

Even if in a specific market most domains are 10 years old, a much younger site can still rank good. In this specific market, pages get updated at a certain frequency. New backlinks show up at a certain frequency and exiting backlinks disappear on average after a certain amount of time. The total average age of all these factors could for example be 3 years.

That means that your website doesn't have to be as old as the older sites, but most likely does have to be at least 3 years old for the more competitive keyword phrases. Yet there are still many keyword phrases that can be targeted that can get a site higher up there much faster.

Just like in the offline world, if you follow the market leaders, you will never become a market leader. Innovation and a different approach make the difference.

[johnafrankllin]

Hi,
I'll just say that a Single Authority Site Link is not able to affect the entire algo of search engines. The search engine algorithm is not only works on link Juice. There are much more than this to rank high in SERPs. It can give you a bit benefit in your PR but definitely not in SERP. If you have some links like this you can be on top but with only one single link it is not possible.

[Janna122003]

Originally Posted by freetraff

INTRO:

Imagine there are two pages on two different sites.

Page A on a high SEO value site that has let's say position 1 in Google for <some keyword>

Page B, on a quite fresh site, but it is linked from page A with the same <some keyword> in the anchor text.

QUESTION:

Will page B with time get better position than page A in Google, just because page A gave all its SEO *juice* to page B by linking to it with exactly <some keyword> in the anchor text?

MY OWN MESS:

I understand that page A looks a lot better for search engines, because it's on a trusted site and has quite enough quality backlinks to get position #1. So, it seems that for page B the chances are super low.

But, on the other hands, this super-dooper page A gives away its champion power to page B. And, moreover, it's not just a simple backlink to page B, but backlink with exactly the same anchor text that page A is a champion.

To me it looks like if a champion pages says "well, I, as the champion for keyword <some keyword> officially claim that page B is even better than me about this <some keyword> - rank it better than me!"

Does it make sense to assume stuff like this?

google will still see other factor lick quality backlinks, keywords in content and relevancy.

[smargenau]

Too many factors to answer this question. I think we all agree the link is helpfull, but thats about it.

[incrediblehelp]

Which pages was ranking first? page A right? For how long? If it was ranking for the keyword for a long time 12 months, it would be hard to bump it off, but with more high quality (relevant) back links then page B could easily beat page A.

[innominds]

Even a new site can climb up into the top 10 of Google if proper steps are taken. Say for example if you can get a backlink from DMOZ, then the site B will throw away site A.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by innominds

Even a new site can climb up into the top 10 of Google if proper steps are taken. Say for example if you can get a backlink from DMOZ, then the site B will throw away site A.

I think it would take more than 1 link from DMOZ for that to happen.