is outgoing links weakening me ?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Wow this is turning into another 'rant' again, dont see why people get so hyped up lol.

Time for me to disappear and do that thing called... wait a sec.. whats it called?... oh yeah - work.

LOL, bye peeps!

No rant just poking wholes in what SEO experts believe to be true.

[janeth]

Back To the Basics

I don’t think linking out to authority sites will increase your ranking. As a matter of fact Rand, in the article that everyone wants to point to as proof, said he believed it was something that Google looked at, at one time.

Hardly proof that Google is using it now.

But the problem goes a lot further than that. The SEO’s that are claiming linking out to these authority sites will help, have no way of knowing what an authority site is. We would need that information to even try and prove rather they helped or not. Makes me wonder how they tested this theory at all.

Then we have to add in the fact that no one knows the exact number of PR that is being leaked. We have a mathematical problem. One is adding in trust and the other is taking away PR. We would need to know how much trust helps with the ranking vs. how much PR helps with ranking.

We would then need to subtract the two and see if the one outweighed the other. And let’s keep in mind that this would be different for every site and every page, as the number of outgoing links and the amount of PR is different on every page and on every site.

Without that information there is no way to test it.
No one ever tested or knew rather linking out to authority sites helped.

It has never been tested.

[kgun]

Quote:
PageRank is green fairy dust.

Originally Posted by daniboy

Nice quote in there.

No, it is a far from perfect measure of stable semantic links as I see it.

Can you give me a better public measure?

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

I hate taking the time to read your stuff because 9 times out of 10 it has nothing to do with what is being talked about.

Danny Sullivan does not believe that linking out authority sites will build trust in your site.

And once again the article from what I can tell has nothing to do with the topic.

Why continue to do that?

It was probably the word 'advanced' that threw you.


CD - Authority sites - in the UK you have to obtain permission to use a .gov and as virtually all of my OBL's are .govs is it the same in the US?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I do not have a link to Google defining the term "authority site".

For my understanding, if we would like to use that term, I would assume it is about sites that meet the SE design, technical and quality guidelines, and that they overcame the domain/site age factor and have PageRank assigned though IBLs.

I would not rely alone on the PR of a site to define if it is an authority site. Even if I knew the actual internal PR values.

Thanks John. That's kinda the point I was making. We each have our own beliefs. Ask 10 people what is an "authortity site" and you'll likely get 10 different answers. What I do agree with is linking to relevant sites. Linking to them only when and where appropriate and when it serves to benefit your visitors.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Thanks John. That's kinda the point I was making. We each have our own beliefs. Ask 10 people what is an "authortity site" and you'll likely get 10 different answers. What I do agree with is linking to relevant sites. Linking to them only when and where appropriate and when it serves to benefit your visitors.

Dave

But to say that linking to them will help build trust in your site is wrong and incorrect information.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Hey John
Question... What is Google's definition of an "authority site"?

I think Google internally have a battery of metrics (statistical obsevators) to identify that.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Hey John
Not your definition or what we think it may be, but Google's definition and where can I find that information.

Probably, deep inside Google archives and in the heads of Google engineers.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

But to say that linking to them will help build trust in your site is wrong and incorrect information.

Janeth - you are either being exceeding ill informed somewhere along the line but here is an 'authority site' I link to it because it is 'topic related' and that is the whole point of this discussion. Think SEARCHER link to sites that are in your trade or profession.

Here it is Home : Housing Corporation

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

CD - Authority sites - in the UK you have to obtain permission to use a .gov and as virtually all of my OBL's are .govs is it the same in the US?

Here's some info David...

help_qualify

Qualifying for a .gov extension doesn't neccessary make you an "authority" and doesn't automatically define quality of the information being presented. Just makes you "affiliated". If the information being presented on a .gov (or any other extension) is relevant and of use to your visitors then link to it where appropriate. To do so because you believe a SE would consider it an "authority" is a mistake IMO.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Janeth - you are either being exceeding ill informed somewhere along the line but here is an 'authority site' I link to it because it is 'topic related' and that is the whole point of this discussion. Think SEARCHER link to sites that are in your trade or profession.

Here it is Home : Housing Corporation

I'll type slower

Back To the Basics

I don’t think linking out to authority sites will increase your ranking. As a matter of fact Rand, in the article that every wants to point to as proof, said he believed it was something that Google looked at, at one time.

Hardly proof that Google is using it now.

But the problem goes a lot further than that. The SEO’s that are claiming linking out to these authority sites will help, have no way of knowing what an authority site is. We would need that information to even try and prove rather they helped or not. Makes me wonder how they tested this theory at all.

Then we have to add in the fact that no one knows the exact number of PR that is being leaked. We have a mathematical problem. One is adding in trust and the other is taking away PR. We would need to know how much trust helps with the ranking vs. how much PR helps with ranking.

We would then need to subtract the two and see if the one outweighed the other. And let’s keep in mind that this would be different for every site and every page, as the number of outgoing links and the amount of PR is different on every page and on every site.

Without that information there is no way to test it.
No one ever tested or knew rather linking out to authority sites helped.

It has never been tested.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Here's some info David...

help_qualify

Qualifying for a .gov extension doesn't neccessary make you an "authority" and doesn't automatically define quality of the information being presented. Just makes you "affiliated". If the information being presented on a .gov (or any other extension) is relevant and of use to your visitors then link to it where appropriate. To do so because you believe a SE would consider it an "authority" is a mistake IMO.

Dave

I agree 100%

And once again, there is no proof that linking to an authority site helps your site in anyway.

[kgun]

Agree. Semantical linking may.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Agree. Semantical linking may.

lol

Explain more.

[kgun]

KW's:

• real citations
• real reference
• scientific citations.

But I am unsure of how important that is.

In my opinion there is an assymmetry (related to Google's inverted link matrix model of the web). A semantic IBL is of course valuable. Do I get some benefit if I vote for that target, even if it is meaningful and relevant, that is the question.

Study the links I have given in this thread for a deeper understanding.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

I agree 100%

And once again, there is no proof that linking to an authority site helps your site in anyway.

You want proof !!!!

Right to buy scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My link is at the bottom and I get sales year in and year out.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

You want proof !!!!

Right to buy scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My link is at the bottom and I get sales year in and year out.

That does not make you an authority. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT GOOGLE CONSIDERS TO BE AN AUTHORITY. WIKIPEDIA IS SPELLED WIKIPEDIA AND GOOGLE IS SPELLED GOOGLE.

They are not the same. Wikipedia links out to all types of sites, are all those authorities?

Before you answer, keep in mind that no one knows what Google considers to be an authority site. They didn't tell us.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

lol @ this thread.

it massively depends on how many links offsite you are talking about, and to who.

in another thread on here a few days ago I advised a noob to be thinking about nofollowing some if not all of the 7 (out of a total 12) links to other sites from his PR1 homepage if he wanted his inner pages to rank better.

the sites he's linking to could be considered relevant. they could also be considered competitors. average PR3.

im curious who here disagrees with that advice?

I think this serves to answer the first question the OP asked (at least in part) which was...

Originally Posted by the len

1. does having a page with a lot of outgoing links weaken my site?

In an instance like the one above, where 58% of links on the home page are pointing away from the site it is *likely* IMO that the lower pages are being weakened.

So not knowing the exact circumstances of the OP I'll stick with "It depends".

Dave

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Here's some info David...

help_qualify

Qualifying for a .gov extension doesn't neccessary make you an "authority" and doesn't automatically define quality of the information being presented. Just makes you "affiliated". If the information being presented on a .gov (or any other extension) is relevant and of use to your visitors then link to it where appropriate. To do so because you believe a SE would consider it an "authority" is a mistake IMO.

Dave

Sorry Dave but that link does not click through. All .gov sites are UK Government authorised. Please remember I am an authorised and regulated mortgage broker and on the official Government Homebuy scheme. UK politics is my bag.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

That does not make you an authority. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT GOOGLE CONSIDERS TO BE AN AUTHORITY. WIKIPEDIA IS SPELLED WIKIPEDIA AND GOOGLE IS SPELLED GOOGLE.

Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors

A false Wikipedia 'biography'

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

KW's:

• real citations
• real reference
• scientific citations.

But I am unsure of how important that is.

In my opinion there is an assymmetry (related to Google's inverted link matrix model of the web). A semantic IBL is of course valuable. Do I get some benefit if I vote for that target, even if it is meaningful and relevant, that is the question.

Study the links I have given in this thread for a deeper understanding.

I don't see the links.

The problem in figuring out rather the outgoing links would help or not would come back to the PR leakage. Every page would leak a different amount of PR.

So the amount of help or no help would depend on the site being linked to and the amount of PR being leaked.

I really doubt that linking out helps. And if it did how do you know that the help would not be the same with or without the nofollow tag.

Google forced Wikipedia to add the nofollow tag to all outgoing links. I do not think Google would have done something that would have hurt Wikipedia.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

That does not make you an authority. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT GOOGLE CONSIDERS TO BE AN AUTHORITY. WIKIPEDIA IS SPELLED WIKIPEDIA AND GOOGLE IS SPELLED GOOGLE.

They are not the same. Wikipedia links out to all types of sites, are all those authorities?

Before you answer, keep in mind that no one knows what Google considers to be an authority site. They didn't tell us.

Where did I say that I was an 'authority'? I said that wiki is a authority site - I also get clicks and sales from .govs that point to me.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors

A false Wikipedia 'biography'

I have no idea what that proves.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Where did I say that I was an 'authority'? I said that wiki is a authority site - I also get clicks and sales from .govs that point to me.

Where does Google say that Wikipedia is an authority?

[MuNKyonline]

And once again, there is no proof that linking to an authority site helps your site in anyway.

Works slowed down a bit so i decided to come back

Janeth I think you'll find that it does. Trustrank is used to determine spammy sites from quality sites.

http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF

As Aaron Wall points out - good sites will rarely link to bad sites - TrustRank Algorithm : SEO Book.com

By linking to good quality websites you are improving your TrustRank and therefore reducing the chance of your site being marked as being spammy.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

I don't see the links.

I wrote thread and not post.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

I don't see the links.

The problem in figuring out rather the outgoing links would help or not would come back to the PR leakage. Every page would leak a different amount of PR.

So the amount of help or no help would depend on the site being linked to and the amount of PR being leaked.

I really doubt that linking out helps. And if it did how do you know that the help would not be the same with or without the nofollow tag.

Google forced Wikipedia to add the nofollow tag to all outgoing links. I do not think Google would have done something that would have hurt Wikipedia.

If Google forced wiki to have a no follow please explain this - from my statcounter
Horsham England United Kingdom
unallocated.star.net.uk (62.231.143.90) [Label IP Address]
www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-changes.html
www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-news.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Sorry Dave but that link does not click through. All .gov sites are UK Government authorised. Please remember I am an authorised and regulated mortgage broker and on the official Government Homebuy scheme. UK politics is my bag.

Interesting. Clicks through fine for me.

As I see it, an extesion doesn't define the information on a site. All it says is that you "qualify" for using it and that doesn't automatically make anyone an "authority" especially in the eyes of a SE since we don't know what that is. We can only make our best guess.

As far as a .gov extension goes, would you consider this an "authority"...

Lucky Bear Casino- Hoopa Valley Tribe

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

I have no idea what that proves.

That wikipedia is as other dictionaries no better than the editors that write and edit there.

My personal opinion: For nautural reasons, too often Google has a link to a Wikipedia article as the first hit.

Related: Wikipedia: What Is It Good For? - Dick Clark - Mises Institute

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Works slowed down a bit so i decided to come back

Janeth I think you'll find that it does. Trustrank is used to determine spammy sites from quality sites.

http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF

As Aaron Wall points out - good sites will rarely link to bad sites - TrustRank Algorithm : SEO Book.com

By linking to good quality websites you are improving your TrustRank and therefore reducing the chance of your site being marked as being spammy.

How would he know. Where is the trust rank meter?

And if it was true and I had a spammy site I could just like to lots of none spammy sites and would be ok.

And does this trust meter that you are going to show me take into affect the amount of PR you are loosing by linking to sites in hopes of increasing your trust?

Why did Google come out with the nofollow and tell Wikipedia to use it. Maybe in hopes of hurting Wikipedia?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

That wikipedia is as other dictionaries no better than the editors that write and edit there.

My personal opinion: For nautural reasons, too often Google has a link to a Wikipedia article as the first hit.

Related: Wikipedia: What Is It Good For? - Dick Clark - Mises Institute

To make everyone happy, since your unable to define an authority site, lets say that Wikipedia is one.

Now prove that linking to it will increase your ranking.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Interesting. Clicks through fine for me.

As I see it, an extesion doesn't define the information on a site. All it says is that you "qualify" for using it and that doesn't automatically make anyone an "authority" especially in the eyes of a SE since we don't know what that is. We can only make our best guess.

As far as a .gov extension goes, would you consider this an "authority"...

Lucky Bear Casino- Hoopa Valley Tribe

Dave

Thats pretty crazy! I know nothing about the way .govs are registered but i do know that in the UK they are all government agencies of some sort and i would never expect to see the site above with a gov tld.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

Now prove that linking to it will increase your ranking.

Where did I say that in this thread?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Where did I say that in this thread.

You didn't but all these other people seem to want to continue a fight they've already lost.

Since they want to go round and round about Wikipedia being an authority site I thought I'd let them have it.

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by janeth

How would he know. Where is the trust rank meter?

And if it was true and I had a spammy site I could just like to lots of none spammy sites and would be ok.

And does this trust meter that you are going to show me take into affect the amount of PR you are loosing by linking to sites in hopes of increasing your trust?

Why did Google come out with the nofollow and tell Wikipedia to use it. Maybe in hopes of hurting Wikipedia?

Do you like asking questions?

Well do you? :P

I take it you didnt read the PDF about how TrustRank works then?

If you had then you wouldnt be asking us to prove it anymore. LOL

That is one example of how linking to quality websites will benefit your site. Thats what the thread is about right?

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Interesting. Clicks through fine for me.

As I see it, an extesion doesn't define the information on a site. All it says is that you "qualify" for using it and that doesn't automatically make anyone an "authority" especially in the eyes of a SE since we don't know what that is. We can only make our best guess.

As far as a .gov extension goes, would you consider this an "authority"...

Lucky Bear Casino- Hoopa Valley Tribe

Dave

It has some .gov links - it also links through to many other aspects of the Red Indian culture. So, whereas it is a gambling site - I have a sneaky suspicion that it probably is.


Back to Wiki - if it has a no follow on the links there how come I had 40 plus direct hits on my statcounter from it?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Do you like asking questions?

Well do you? :P

I take it you didnt read the PDF about how TrustRank works then?

If you had then you wouldnt be asking us to prove it anymore. LOL

That is one example of how linking to quality websites will benefit your site. Thats what the thread is about right?

I've had so many people post links to BS articles that I've gotten tired of following them.

But I'll go back and read yours.

But I feel that by you inability to prove that linking out improves your ranking and my ability to prove that linking out hurts your ranking.

I've made my point.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

It has some .gov links - it also links through to many other aspects of the Red Indian culture. So, whereas it is a gambling site - I have a sneaky suspicion that it probably is.


Back to Wiki - if it has a no follow on the links there how come I had 40 plus direct hits on my statcounter from it?

The nofollow would not affect what you would see on your statcounter.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

Google forced Wikipedia to add the nofollow tag to all outgoing links. I do not think Google would have done something that would have hurt Wikipedia.

Note my bolding.

New information to me. Do you have a source?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Do you like asking questions?

Well do you? :P

I take it you didnt read the PDF about how TrustRank works then?

If you had then you wouldnt be asking us to prove it anymore. LOL

That is one example of how linking to quality websites will benefit your site. Thats what the thread is about right?

Showing a PDF does not mean that something is being used. Nor does talking about.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by inertia

Thats pretty crazy! I know nothing about the way .govs are registered but i do know that in the UK they are all government agencies of some sort and i would never expect to see the site above with a gov tld.

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community

"Automatically" an "authority" that one should link to to help themselves because they're a .gov.uk?

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Note my bolding.

New information to me. Do you have a source?

I was wrong on that. Sorry.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community

"Automatically" an "authority" that one should link to to help themselves because they're a .gov.uk?

Dave

lol

I guess like linking out their argument is full of holes.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community

"Automatically" an "authority" that one should link to to help themselves because they're a .gov.uk?

Dave

LOL. Some are gonna slip through the net! I suppose the government shouldnt have authorised a public content contribution site!

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community

"Automatically" an "authority" that one should link to to help themselves because they're a .gov.uk?

Dave

NO NO NO - Dave - you are actually leading this thread away - what I am saying and webnauts, munky,inertia etc are saying is that if you link out to an 'authority site' in your trade or profession.

Now supposing a site was created called Master Jewelers of America - and it featured the most incredible articles and pages and pages of content relating to your profession. Then it formed a trade recognised board of Directors and held training courses in your universities and had articles written about it in Forbes - now if you had the chance to link your site there - would you turn down the opportunity?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

LOL. Some are gonna slip through the net! I suppose the government shouldnt have authorised a public content contribution site!

And it's the reason that Google has their own algo for deciding what an authority site is.

And it proves that no one knows for sure if linking to one will help your ranking or not.

However we do know that linking out can hurt you.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

NO NO NO - Dave - you are actually leading this thread away - what I am saying and webnauts, munky,inertia etc are saying is that if you link out to an 'authority site' in your trade or profession.

Now supposing a site was created called Master Jewelers of America - and it featured the most incredible articles and pages and pages of content relating to your profession. Then it formed a trade recognised board of Directors and held training courses in your universities and had articles written about it in Forbes - now if you had the chance to link your site there - would you turn down the opportunity?

Why would you have to have the chance? If the site is there you could link to it. But to say that linking to it would help build trust or help you in the search engines in any way would be incorrect.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by inertia

LOL. Some are gonna slip through the net! I suppose the government shouldnt have authorised a public content contribution site!

Which is exactly my point. A domain extension does not "automatically" indicate authority. Rather, the information the site/page contains is what is important. All a .gov extension says is that they "qualify" to use it. No more, no less.

Dave

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

And it's the reason that Google has their own algo for deciding what an authority site is.

And it proves that no one knows for sure if linking to one will help your ranking or not.

However we do know that linking out can hurt you.

Linking out can hurt you, if you link to crap. Well known fact. So it stands to reason that linking to good/relevant sites can help you. If google can figure out that you've linked to crap then it can figure out that you've linked to quality and relevance also. Surely!?

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community

"Automatically" an "authority" that one should link to to help themselves because they're a .gov.uk?

Dave

lol, thats a beauty Dave, where are you digging these up from?

looks like a bit of an authority on Paris Hilton spam to me

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by inertia

Linking out can hurt you, if you link to crap. Well known fact. So it stands to reason that linking to good/relevant sites can help you. If google can figure out that you've linked to crap then it can figure out that you've linked to quality and relevance also. Surely!?

the point is, we dont know if linking out helps with trust or not, or anything else.

we do know it reduces your available pagerank, in direct proportion to how much you do it.

the possible benefits / disadvantages should be considered on a page by page, case by case basis.