is outgoing links weakening me ?

[the len]

hi

i have a site about t-shirts (http://www.big-t-shirts.com).

i would like to make a page with links to leading sites of my industry, for 2 reasons: it's a valuable source of info for my surfers, AND some of the sites offer backlinks in return.

2 questions:

1. does having a page with a lot of outgoing links weaken my site?
2. if i have reciprocal links with sites of my industry, is it worth something for ranking or does google ignore it?

thanks

lenny

[ctabuk]

There is a lot of misinformation on reciprocal linking and linking out in general. My thoughts are this.,

If the sites are based on similar anchor text/content/theme/keywords then you are not breaking any guidelines. I have a massive link out in my main site Right to Buy from Council Tenants Advice Bureau (UK) Ltd (http://www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk) and I have been using that for over 6 years and have over 1,000 page one SERP results on various search terms. Some of those sites have linked back. But they are all related sites. And you are doing exactly the right thing in thinking about what your readers will want to look at.

So 1 No
2 It cannot do any harm IMO

[bobchrist]

I think the number of outgoing links should depends on the informative pages you link with which can add value to the content of the page.

[janeth]

Outgoing links can hurt you.

1. You are leaking PR

2. If you link to a bad neighbor you could get baned.

3. It could cause your internal pages not to rank as well due to #1

[the len]

Outgoing links can hurt you.

1. You are leaking PR
3. It could cause your internal pages not to rank as well due to #1

thought so.

first, is it proven the pr leakage?

would you reccomend to avoid it?
even if i miss incoming links?
or should i put outgoing links only if the other site links back?

thanks

lenny

[janeth]

thought so.

first, is it proven the pr leakage?

would you reccomend to avoid it?
even if i miss incoming links?
or should i put outgoing links only if the other site links back?

thanks

lenny

Yes, PR leakage has been proven.

I would link out to the sites that I felt would benefit my customers but would use a nofollow tag to keep from giving them PR.

[the len]

is there a way to "nofollow" a link or rather metatag the whole page?

[janeth]

is there a way to "nofollow" a link or rather metatag the whole page?

Then your links end up with a nofollow tag as well. So the purpose of controlling where the PR flows is of no use at all.

By sending PR to your inside pages it will help them rank higher and then you can link those pages back to your home page helping it rank higher.

[ctabuk]

Sure and Wikipedia really suffers!!! Linking out to related sites is cool.

Here is just one of my link outs
Local councils : Directgov - Directories (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/Localcouncils/index.htm) Now that is massive - The UK Mortgage market is in deep doggy doo, but my site is still attracting new hits everyday.

This forum is awash with OBL's billions of them - has it affected the search results?? Think searcher - create a site that is of interest to the public - create a service.

[kgun]

- The UK Mortgage market is in deep doggy doo, but my site is still attracting new hits everyday.


House prices to stagnate for 'years' - Aussie Stock Forums (http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1977) (Thread started 19th-September-2005, 12:13 PM)
More hits, every day, may be because you know this digital media better than most of the traditional companies working in that industry.

[ctabuk]

Not particulary Kgun, I have around a thousand search terms that find the site - so what are your opions on linking out to related sources of information for your potential visitors?

[ctabuk]

I have found a very good forum discussion on this topic - which I think needs to be read carefully and evaluated - some agree with my stance others do not.

How important are outbound links? (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/7712.htm)

[kgun]

I have found a very good forum discussion on this topic - which I think needs to be read carefully and evaluated - some agree with my stance others do not.

How important are outbound links? (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/7712.htm)

May be an old (2002) classic thread:

<cite>
Hi All,

Are outbound links good / necessary in order to improve my pagerank and my listing in Google?
My site has between 20-30 inbound links with pages with pageranks of 3 to 7. Is it important to link back to them?
Another question, how long does it take to get a pagerank in Google (it is grey at the moment)?
Thanks, Chris
</cite>




My view:
I think the heart of the Google model is still votes / citatations / IBL's. I personally do not se a better model for a (non meta) search engine.
The interent is still in its infancy: http://www.webproworld.com/web-programming-discussion-forum/61639-xml-family-technologies-will-revolutionize-web-linking-etc.html#post330575 Little interest in that thread.
http://www.webproworld.com/google-discussion-forum/63125-ignore-misunderstandings-have-produced-present-world.html#post339093 Look at that Google video Transclusion: Fixing Electronic Literature (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8329031368429444452) by Ted Nelson. Transclusion is a much broader concept than direct linking in and out as it is done today. Digital books have a large advantage compared to ordinary books, citations can be embedded directly in the book that cite with a link to the source.
Some search engines may fear this model, since it will make things much more complicated, programming versus tagging and styling in todays web.
Few sites have so many outbound links as mine. I collect, order and rank sites and pages for the surfer / browser and not for a bot. Easy to steal and copy like it is easy to copy Fidelity's (https://www.fidelity.com/) investment portfolioes with a time lag. Some funds specializes (specialized) in that business. Sooner or later it is discovered.
Read about my view on trustrank here: http://www.blognorway.com/ Do you trust a bot? I would not always.My experience:
I order my domains through a Norwegian registrar. When they come on the internet they have Google ToolbarRank of 4, since the regtistrar may have (had) a linking program if they host the site there.
I host my sites by much cheaper hosters, and it is not long before the toolbar rank that you hate (sometimes for good reasons) is zero. So I could have hosted n sites there and sold them with a ToolBar rank of 4.:roll:
And you think that by including links to "expert sites" on your web page that you are going to enhance the PR or SE ranking of that page?
Source: http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/38485-backlinking-smartlinks.html#post197965

I liked this

<cite>
But apart from that you should think of your visitors before you think of the search engines. They should always have some good links to get away from a page. Sooner or later they will leave it anyway and it's best if they leave it in a positive and constructive way. So give them good and relevant links. Internal links or outbound links as best you can. Links that lead them to answers to those questions that are raised in their minds by reading your page. The better you treat your visitors the more of them will return.
</cite>
view from that thread. But that fits my model and not a software or bot model like Googles adaptive inverted link matrix model of the web.

[janeth]

Sure and Wikipedia really suffers!!! Linking out to related sites is cool.

And Wikipedia uses nofollow tags and has lots and lots more incoming links than most people would be able to get in a life time.


Here is just one of my link outs
Local councils : Directgov - Directories (SITE REMOVED FOR LINK DROPPING) Now that is massive - The UK Mortgage market is in deep doggy doo, but my site is still attracting new hits everyday.

And we will just take your word for it. Like the time you posted the list that was so long it would not post on WPW but when I looked it was not even a quarter if what you claimed?

I removed your link, just cause I hate it when people always find a reason to link to their own site.

[janeth]

I have found a very good forum discussion on this topic - which I think needs to be read carefully and evaluated - some agree with my stance others do not.

How important are outbound links? (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/7712.htm)

From your thread



They should always have some good links to get away from a page. Sooner or later they will leave it anyway and it's best if they leave it in a positive and constructive way. So give them good and relevant links.

This guy is an idiot. If I want to leave a page I close the browser or hit the back button. I don't need you to give me a link to follow.



PageRank of a specific page is unaffected by outbound links. Where some people around here worry about PR leak, thinking that they can send that PR to some of their own internal pages, but in reality, most navigation schemes will still recycle most of your PR back to your own pages it only a little going to other pages.

This guys understand PR leakage but is saying it is not enough to worry about. He should have asked for the number of sites being linked out to first.



Somewhat over a year ago it was speculated on WW that placing one or two outgoing links with keyword titles, to high PR sites would eventually be considered beneficial to your own site's PR and/or SERP's. But by the summer of this year that theory had been totally abandoned.

This guy tested it and found that linking out didn't help him any.



I agree there's no reason to think that linking to other sites will boost your PR. The whole concept of PR is predicated on the value of incoming links.

This guy agrees that linking out does not help.

And I forgot this one


from personal experience I do NOT think outbound links are necessary (to external sites I mean)

being a hypocrite, I try and NOT give an outbound link unless it is absolutely essential.

You proved my point.

Thanks,

[ctabuk]

So - have I got this correct Janeth? You would never link out?

[janeth]

So - have I got this correct Janeth? You would never link out?

I didn't say I would never link out. I would be careful when doing it and wouldn't link just to be linking.

I've got outgoing links all over my site.

[ctabuk]

I didn't say I would never link out. I would be careful when doing it and wouldn't link just to be linking.

I've got outgoing links all over my site.

Yes you have Janeth - including youtube -do you see any potential risks in linking there?
Finding information online (http://www.geeksonsteroids.com/blog-geeks/)

[janeth]

Yes you have Janeth - including youtube -do you see any potential risks in linking there?
Finding information online (http://www.geeksonsteroids.com/blog-geeks/)

Not at all. It's kind of like linking to Google.

But I do not link out on pages I want to rank that page for a keyword.

You are looking at pages I don't care about.

[kgun]

An IBL to site A from site B is
an OBL from site B to site A.
You have no control over IBL's.
In a sense you are who you link to.Without links the the web is dead. Google recalculates trillions of links & PageRank several times per day (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017803.html) and Web address total tops one trillion - Internet - iTnews Australia (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/81216,web-address-total-tops-one-trillion.aspx)

I only need control over my own small linkbase.

[ctabuk]

Outgoing links can hurt you.

1. You are leaking PR

2. If you link to a bad neighbor you could get baned.

3. It could cause your internal pages not to rank as well due to #1

Janeth wrote....
'I didn't say I would never link out. I would be careful when doing it and wouldn't link just to be linking.

I've got outgoing links all over my site.'

So there are rules that you agree with and others that you do not? I would have thought that youtube could be construed as risky - but there again I use them in forum links LOL I only link out to sites that I feel will interest my readers and it has never upset my SERP

[kgun]

I would have thought that youtube could be construed as risky - ...
Why? I don't see the point.

[inertia]

As a matter of course I add relevant outbound links to my clients sites to relevant industry pages. I try to concentrate on trusted government and education links but I also have no problem with linking out to other industry related sites. I've seen NO ill effects from this and my SEO works so...?

Its obvious that PR is passed through links or why would we all try and build the damn things but as far as outbound links being "holes in a bucket" then I'm not buying it.

SEOmoz | Google Search Engine Ranking Factors (http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors)



Quality/Relevance of Links to External Sites/Pages

Do links on the page point to high quality, topically-related pages?


Jonah Stein

Rand, your letting the last SEO secret out of the bag. Shame on you :-)
Barry Welford

This relates to the whole concept of authority and hub websites. What's good for people should translate into value for the search engines.
Russ Jones

Anchor Text Tunneling... Site A => Site B => Site C if Site A links to Site B with the "widgets" keyword, and site B links to C with "widgets", there is added benefit.
Ben Pfeiffer

Yes, quite important for newer sites. Great things happen to those that share in the same group.

[ctabuk]

Why? I don't see the point.


There are porn sites and child violence on youtube

[janeth]

As a matter of course I add relevant outbound links to my clients sites to relevant industry pages. I try to concentrate on trusted government and education links but I also have no problem with linking out to other industry related sites. I've seen NO ill effects from this and my SEO works so...?

Its obvious that PR is passed through links or why would we all try and build the damn things but as far as outbound links being "holes in a bucket" then I'm not buying it.

SEOmoz | Google Search Engine Ranking Factors (http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors)

If you're going to do SEO for people and charge for it you really need to understand and study how PR flows.

You might look and say that it does not damage a site, while it could be the difference between being #1 and #2 for a keyword ranking.

[janeth]

There are porn sites and child violence on youtube

lol

They are removed the second they are seen. Do you think Google is going to ban YouTube?

[kgun]

There are porn sites and child violence on youtube
That is why you are who you link to. I see no problem linking to an educational video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBAJgksyhxo).

That free education is good for the web surfer, but bad for Viacom (http://www.webproworld.com/google-discussion-forum/70652-viacom-vs-google.html#post384799).

[inertia]

This goes beyond PR. Citing other sources is one of the essential aspects of the WWW, why would google try to damage that fundamental by making outbound links a bad move? It makes no-sense.

If i find a site with loads of good info which relates to my clients product or service then im going to put that on their site in support of their content. If that content reinforces the sale/service then thats even better (im thinking more government grant pages or legislation there).

I have NEVER seen a client loose traffic/ranking from adding some outbound links.

@janeth Have you?

I can show you evidence in support of relevant outbound linking but what about the opposite?

[ctabuk]

Actually Janeth there was one of a fight in the UK that stayed on youtube for long enough for SKY to do a feature on it. But I agree, by and in large they are better monitered than they used to be.

No - Google will not chop off a leg. But I think that you will probably have to agree that linking out to certain authority sites, as Inertia stated - the .govs etc does assist in providing the bots with the opportunity of seeing who you link out to and if they find good anchor text etc they will think of you as being an 'authoritive hub'

[janeth]

This goes beyond PR. Citing other sources is one of the essential aspects of the WWW, why would google try to damage that fundamental by making outbound links a bad move? It makes no-sense.

If i find a site with loads of good info which relates to my clients product or service then im going to put that on their site in support of their content. If that content reinforces the sale/service then thats even better (im thinking more government grant pages or legislation there).

I have NEVER seen a client loose traffic/ranking from adding some outbound links.

@janeth Have you?

I can show you evidence in support of relevant outbound linking but what about the opposite?

Maybe you should start by reading this

Pagerank Explained. Google's PageRank and how to make the most of it. (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html)

[janeth]

Actually Janeth there was one of a fight in the UK that stayed on youtube for long enough for SKY to do a feature on it. But I agree, by and in large they are better monitered than they used to be.

No - Google will not chop off a leg. But I think that you will probably have to agree that linking out to certain authority sites, as Inertia stated - the .govs etc does assist in providing the bots with the opportunity of seeing who you link out to and if they find good anchor text etc they will think of you as being an 'authoritive hub'

Read the link you posted above. That theory has already been disproved.

[ctabuk]

No Janeth - you have yet to disprove anything - you find one site - just one with authoritive links in and out that is not doing well in SERP - you contradict yourself - over and over again - it reads like 'Do as I say - not as I do'. You link out - how's your SERP????

[inertia]

Can I tell people of a funny occurrence?

I tried to pay back a hip hop associate of mine (he made a track about me being an internet nerd) by putting a link on my cash cow home page. I used his pseudonym as the link text and linked to the home page of a gay hip hop site (im not homophobic but he is!).

As i was pretty sure that my link was the best quality link he had online (with his pseudonym as the link text) the idea was that this gay hip hop site would appear when you googled his name. As he googles his name quite a bit this would have been hilarious and the perfect revenge!

Within 3 days the link had been picked up and my home page appeared number one for his pseudonym! He saw it, spotted the link, followed it and fully clocked my plan! Game over.

[ctabuk]

Maybe you should start by reading this

Pagerank Explained. Google's PageRank and how to make the most of it. (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html)


Well I think you will find that Phil Craven had a few problems with a certain Michael Martinez over that post and the questions he raised were never replied to. Linking to authoritive sites is excellent SEO.

[kgun]

Can I tell people of a funny occurrence?

I tried to pay back a hip hop associate of mine (he made a track about me being an internet nerd) by putting a link on my cash cow home page. I used his pseudonym as the link text and linked to the home page of a gay hip hop site (im not homophobic but he is!).

As i was pretty sure that my link was the best quality link he had online (with his pseudonym as the link text) the idea was that this gay hip hop site would appear when you googled his name. As he googles his name quite a bit this would have been hilarious and the perfect revenge!

Within 3 days the link had been picked up and my home page appeared number one for his pseudonym! He saw it, spotted the link, followed it and fully clocked my plan! Game over.

Note Janeth has her first / second internet home at the home of PageRank (PageRank Explained and how to make the most of it - link above), so she knows everything about that:shock:.

[ctabuk]

Maybe Janeth would care to take it up with
Finding Link Sources & Building Topical Authority Links : SEO Book.com (http://www.seobook.com/archives/001930.shtml)


Or even better
SEOmoz | Nailing the Coffin Shut on the "Don't Link to External Sites" Philosophy (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/nailing-the-coffin-shut-on-the-dont-link-out-to-anyone-ever-philosophy)

[janeth]

Note Janeth has her first / second internet home at the home of PageRank (PageRank Explained and how to make the most of it - link above), so she knows everything about that:shock:.

That means nothing at all.

The content on the site ranked for a non competitive keyword. What does that prove?

[inertia]

How Good Is The Mainstream Media At Linking Out? (http://www.seoco.co.uk/blog/2008/07/16/how-good-is-the-mainstream-media-at-linking-out/)

This is quite interesting!

[janeth]

Maybe Janeth would care to take it up with
Finding Link Sources & Building Topical Authority Links : SEO Book.com (http://www.seobook.com/archives/001930.shtml)

SEO Question: Many people tell me to get authoritative links. How do I find authoritative links? SEO Answer: It helps to get links directly from sources that would be considered trusted seed sites in algorithms like TrustRank or topical hub and authority sites in Topic Sensitive PageRank.



Or even better
SEOmoz | Nailing the Coffin Shut on the "Don't Link to External Sites" Philosophy (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/nailing-the-coffin-shut-on-the-dont-link-out-to-anyone-ever-philosophy)

Arguments against linking out to other sites:

1. If the original PageRank formula holds true, and no other algorithmic elements are in place to benefit sites and pages that link out, you could be costing yourself a small fraction of potential link juice.
2. Visitors might click those links and never come back to your site.

[inertia]

you could be costing yourself a small fraction of potential link juice.
But what you loose in PR (minimal) you gain in topical relevance and trust?


Visitors might click those links and never come back to your site.
Target blank and you wont!

[ctabuk]

Janeth - please read the whole article - those are called 'rhetorical questions'

[kgun]

That means nothing at all.

The content on the site ranked for a non competitive keyword. What does that prove?

You refer to this


I used his pseudonym as the link text and linked to the home page of a gay hip hop site (im not homophobic but he is!).

Within 3 days the link had been picked up and my home page appeared number one for his pseudonym! He saw it, spotted the link, followed it and fully clocked my plan! Game over.
My bolding.

[janeth]

But what you loose in PR (minimal) you gain in topical relevance and trust?


Target blank and you wont!

A second ago you were doing SEO for clients without knowing that linking out to them caused you to loose PR.

I'm guessing that you now understand that part.

The topical relevance and trust theory is getting on out there.

Let's see

1. Topical relevance. My site is not relevant to a topic until I link out? Not sure I understand.

2. Trust, Screw the text, design and everything else. You only build trust by who you link to. Your site visitor is so stupid that if you link to a .gov site they will think you are the gov and hire you.

Hell link to the FBI and you can scare them into becoming a client.

[daniboy]

Arguments against linking out to other sites:

1. If the original PageRank formula holds true, and no other algorithmic elements are in place to benefit sites and pages that link out, you could be costing yourself a small fraction of potential link juice.
2. Visitors might click those links and never come back to your site.


They're week arguments really when considering the plus points.

It seems to me (my opinion from reading this thread) that you're just taking what you want from all this information just to try to cause a "going nowhere fast" argument and ignoring the balanced facts.

Janeth 1 v's Rest of the world 6,602,224,175

[janeth]

You refer to this


My bolding.

Yes, that is correct.

[janeth]

They're week arguments really when considering the plus points.

It seems to me (my opinion from reading this thread) that you're just taking what you want from all this information just to try to cause a "going nowhere fast" argument and ignoring the balanced facts.

Janeth 1 v's Rest of the world 6,602,224,175

Yes but I don't trust most of the world.

Dear SEO Community, It’s Not Me, It’s You - Sugarrae (http://www.sugarrae.com/dear-seo-community-its-not-me-its-you/)

[inertia]

A second ago you were doing SEO for clients without knowing that linking out to them caused you to loose PR.

I'm guessing that you now understand that part.

The topical relevance and trust theory is getting on out there.

Let's see

1. Topical relevance. My site is not relevant to a topic until I link out? Not sure I understand.

2. Trust, Screw the text, design and everything else. You only build trust by who you link to. Your site visitor is so stupid that if you link to a .gov site they will think you are the gov and hire you.

Hell link to the FBI and you can scare them into becoming a client.

janeth did you read my first post?


Its obvious that PR is passed through links or why would we all try and build the damn things but as far as outbound links being "holes in a bucket" then I'm not buying it.

When you refer to PR leaking through outbound links i think youre thinking of it being something like the hole in the titanic!

[inertia]

Yes but I don't trust most of the world.

Dear SEO Community, It’s Not Me, It’s You - Sugarrae (http://www.sugarrae.com/dear-seo-community-its-not-me-its-you/)

Plenty of outbound links on that page! Aargh! What are you doing sugarrae!??

[kgun]

2. Visitors might click those links and never come back to your site.
There are many ways that can happen.



Target blank and you wont!


As far as I remember, usability guru Jacob Nilsen do not reccomend that model: How to Write for the Web (Full Paper) (http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html)

I can not remember where I saw it, may be you find it in some of the references (links) at the bottom of that article.

[kgun]

The content on the site ranked for a non competitive keyword. What does that prove?
That it is easy to dominate the SERP's with a non competitive KW in the anchor text of an IBL. It has even been observed / claimed that semantic links with relevant anchor text can outrank on site content.

Since the KW was non competitive, it would not hurt his site, but may be his ego.

P.S. If I linked to a site with a word that was only only found in that anchor text, the target would naturally get SERP postion # 1 for that word.

[janeth]

janeth did you read my first post?



When you refer to PR leaking through outbound links i think youre thinking of it being something like the hole in the titanic!

It would depend on the number of outbound links to fully understand the damage that could be done.

[janeth]

No Janeth - you have yet to disprove anything - you find one site - just one with authoritive links in and out that is not doing well in SERP - you contradict yourself - over and over again - it reads like 'Do as I say - not as I do'. You link out - how's your SERP????

The question the original poster asked was can outbound links hurt me.

I answered that and was correct in my answer. You answered that was incorrect in your answer.

Outbound links can hurt you. Not only can they hurt you but they can get your site banned.

[janeth]

2 questions:

1. does having a page with a lot of outgoing links weaken my site?
2. if i have reciprocal links with sites of my industry, is it worth something for ranking or does google ignore it?


Here where the questions.

[janeth]

Well I think you will find that Phil Craven had a few problems with a certain Michael Martinez over that post and the questions he raised were never replied to. Linking to authoritive sites is excellent SEO.

Can you prove any of that?

[kgun]

Back to square one: http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/69469-do-all-bad-obls-hurt-you.html#post377256

[janeth]

That it is easy to dominate the SERP's with a non competitive KW in the anchor text of an IBL. It has even been observed / claimed that semantic links with relevant anchor text can outrank on site content.

Since the KW was non competitive, it would not hurt his site, but may be his ego.

P.S. If I linked to a site with a word that was only only found in that anchor text, the target would naturally get SERP postion # 1 for that word.

If you linked to a site and was the only one using that keyword out of the whole internet or had very little competition then of course. Or had a very strong site you were doing the linking with.

[janeth]

Back to square one: http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/69469-do-all-bad-obls-hurt-you.html#post377256

The question was rather all OBL's hurt you and the answer is yes.

Rather the good out weighs the bad was not the question and would take some testing.

[kgun]

It need not be strong if Google index the content (find the word).

is outgoing links weakening me ?

I do not see fundamentally new arguments in this thread that was not discussed in the one I cited above.

[inertia]

The question was rather all OBL's hurt you and the answer is yes.

Rather the good out weighs the bad was not the question and would take some testing.

That was the original question but the discussion has developed since then. You claimed that you add nofollow to all outbound links and that statement created the majority of the conversation since? If everyone nofollowed all their outbound links to stop "PR leak" then where would be? That is bad advice for all concerned!

[janeth]

It need not be strong if Google index the content (find the word).

is outgoing links weakening me ?

I do not see fundamentally new arguments in this thread that was not discussed in the one I cited above.

I've not spent the time to go to the one that was cited. But will do so now. And I didn't look but I believe the site in question belongs to a very well know person.

[janeth]

That was the original question but the discussion has developed since then. You claimed that you add nofollow to all outbound links and that statement created the majority of the conversation since? If everyone nofollowed all their outbound links to stop "PR leak" then where would be? That is bad advice for all concerned!

I did not say that I add outbound links to all my links. I said if you wanted to link out and did not want to loose PR juice you could use outbound links.

But please do tell why that is such bad advice. I'm no SEO expert nor do I do it for a living like yourself so please explain more.

[crankydave]

2 questions:

1. does having a page with a lot of outgoing links weaken my site?
2. if i have reciprocal links with sites of my industry, is it worth something for ranking or does google ignore it?

thanks

lenny

1. It *may*. There's a whole lot of factors to take into consideration and many/most have already been mentioned. If you only link out where and when appropriate for the sake of your visitors you'll generally be fine. Linking out to try and create some sort of "value" for yourself for the SE's benefit is not something I'd recommend.

2. Depends. Nothing wrong with good reciprocal links when and where appropriate. It may or may not be discounted. Again, if you link with your visitors in mind then any *value* you may receive from a SE is simply a bonus.

@kgun... There is some information/studies out there about users not liking links that open in a new window. However, most of what I've seen or read is prior to the more widespread use of tabbed browsing so I'm not sure if the same holds true today.

Dave

[inertia]

I would link out to the sites that I felt would benefit my customers but would use a nofollow tag to keep from giving them PR.

So you dont follow your own advice? If we all nofollowed outbound links to preserve PR then the whole PR concept would be useless. We shouldnt encourage people to use nofollows IMO.

Im no "SEO expert" either, more an "up and coming SEO apprentice". But i do have a logical thinking and logically nofollowing relevant outbound links does not make sense (unless they are paid or un-checked by the webmaster).

[kgun]

@kgun... There is some information/studies out there about users not liking links that open in a new window. However, most of what I've seen or read is prior to the more widespread use of tabbed browsing so I'm not sure if the same holds true today.

Hopefully not, since I use it much on my sites when I find it relevant. It is also easy to give the surfer and option (check box) to check if (s)he prefer either way.

[janeth]

So you dont follow your own advice? If we all nofollowed outbound links to preserve PR then the whole PR concept would be useless. We shouldnt encourage people to use nofollows IMO.

It depends on what I'm doing as to rather I use nofollow tags or not. And since the safest bet is to use them the correct advice is what I gave.

You feel that if everyone starts using nofollow tags then PR would be useless. Maybe you should take your case up with Google since Google encourages people to use it.

But your argument is really lacking.


Im no "SEO expert" either, more an "up and coming SEO apprentice". But i do have a logical thinking and logically nofollowing relevant outbound links does not make sense (unless they are paid or un-checked by the webmaster).

If you are talking with someone and have no idea of what they know or do not know, telling them to use a nofollow tag on all outgoing links is good advice.

Bad advice is telling them not to use it.

Have you checked the sites he is linking to or do you know the number of outbound links he will be using on that page?

Do you know the number of internal links that he will be linking to from that page?

Do you know for what keywords he is trying to rank or how the links are set up on hist site?

And if you are charging someone for doing SEO work and giving SEO advice on forums then I'd say you no longer consider yourself an apprentice.

[janeth]

Hopefully not, since I use it much on my sites when I find it relevant. It is also easy to give the surfer and option (check box) to check if (s)he prefer either way.

I hate when I'm reading advice on a blog and click a link they link to for more information and it opens in the same page. Many times I've not finished with the first site yet.

I think all outbound links should open in a new window.

[kgun]

I think all outbound links should open in a new window.
I disagree.

Example: Meta Search Engine and search resources: SurfToolbar.com (http://www.surftoolbar.com/)


Click "start" on the toolbar and "submenus" of that option.
Then click on the other options and submenus.
Do you see a semantic reason why I disagree?

[janeth]

I disagree.

Example: Meta Search Engine and search resources: SurfToolbar.com (http://www.surftoolbar.com/)


Click "start" on the toolbar and "submenus" of that option.
Then click on the other options and submenus.
Do you see a semantic reason why I disagree?

That would be different as the two sites are linking back and fourth to each other.

But I guess there are cases where it would not be a good idea.

[inertia]

And if you are charging someone for doing SEO work and giving SEO advice on forums then I'd say you no longer consider yourself an apprentice.

I give advice when i have an opinion or experience on the matter. You know as well as I do that i start lots of threads on this forum; in an effort to learn and progress. So my activity on here would suggest that i am still a rookie. I work for a general marketing company and I... god damn it why am i explaining myself?!:confused:


If you are talking with someone and have no idea of what they know or do not know, telling them to use a nofollow tag on all outgoing links is good advice.

Bad advice is telling them not to use it.

Why not tell him, erm:


Only link out to relevant sitesWhats wrong with that?

[crankydave]

Hopefully not, since I use it much on my sites when I find it relevant. It is also easy to give the surfer and option (check box) to check if (s)he prefer either way.

I do too kgun. Just like most things, I think there appropriate times to do it. A link to copyright info or a chart or graph within the context of an article might be an appropriate time to open in a new window. Links to the citations at the end of an article may be better served by not opening in a new window.

@inertia... Aren't blogger and wordpress blogs all nofollow by default? Also, I'm of the belief that if you're going to allow a link on your own site, you ought to be checking them. Granted, in some instances it's easier said than done. As far as encouraging or discouraging the use of nofollow, here's a hypothetical example...

A page has 50% internal links and 50% external links. All the external links are good relevant resources for the visitor. Now because 50% of the PR ("juice") is being passed "externally" and therefore some of the deeper pages within the actual site are now not getting indexed and or ranking well would you recommend a nofollow? Removing the links? Something else?

Dave

[janeth]

I... god damn it why am i explaining myself?!:confused:
8)




Why not tell him, erm:


Only link out to relevant sitesWhats wrong with that?

nofollow tags allow you to control the way link juice flows through your site. By using the nofollow tag you're able to send more juice to your external pages and none to sites that could be your competition.

Since most of those sites are not linking back, why should he give them link juice that could be used on his own internal pages?

Matt Cutts said

"The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level."

Why not use it to control the flow of juice on your site?

Done correctly you can increase the ranking of different pages on your site.

You should feel free to use nofollow for all links you don’t want to receive link juice.

additional navigation

links to RSS feeds

affiliate stuff

By controlling the PR on our own sites and controlling the PR we are sending out of our site we can increase out sites ranking.

[janeth]

A page has 50% internal links and 50% external links. All the external links are good relevant resources for the visitor. Now because 50% of the PR ("juice") is being passed "externally" and therefore some of the deeper pages within the actual site are now not getting indexed and or ranking well would you recommend a nofollow? Removing the links? Something else?

Dave

I want to make sure I understand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a site about motor bikes with lots of articles. I link out to other motor bike sites that also have lots of articles.

My links are causing their pages to outrank my own. As I'm going broke and watching the other site owners buy new cars and houses (that are a direct affect of my passing PR to their articles and causing them to outrank my own) Should I add the nofollow tag and direct that lost juice back into my own site and in affect cause my articles to outrank there’s and allow myself to buy a new house.

Of course not, it would ruin the internet and stop the flow of the PR juice.

[inertia]

nofollow tags allow you to control the way link juice flows through your site. By using the nofollow tag you're able to send more juice to your external pages and none to sites that could be your competition.

Who links to there competition?

I use nofollow on internal links to login, shopping cart pages etc but not much else. So i may sound a little hypocritical but the nofollowing that were talking about is on external links. People adding them to safe guard their own PR is fundamentally wrong and i see it being beneficial for the reasons already stated. If you cited it then give it some PR, its not goin to hurt.

@dave. Yep they are nofollow by default and thats a shame coz i think (and correct me if im wrong) most bloggers dont know or care what the nofollow attribute is all about so they leave it. I think it would be better off by default.

[janeth]

Who links to there competition?

I do and how do you know the above poster is not.


I use nofollow on internal links to login, shopping cart pages etc but not much else. So i may sound a little hypocritical but the nofollowing that were talking about is on external links. People adding them to safe guard their own PR is fundamentally wrong

And why is that?

Whose making up these rules?



and i see it being beneficial for the reasons already stated. If you cited it then give it some PR, its not goin to hurt.

It could and it does. What part of links leaking PR do you not understand?



@dave. Yep they are nofollow by default and thats a shame coz i think (and correct me if im wrong) most bloggers dont know or care what the nofollow attribute is all about so they leave it. I think it would be better off by default.

And most bloggers can't tell a spam post from a regular post and if it was off by default there would be a ton more people spamming the blog comment sections.

[inertia]

I do and how do you know the above poster is not.
Why would you do that?

And why is that?
Whose making up these rules?
Its the way the internet works. If every webmaster was you there would be no PR and the whole system that google created would be useless.

It could and it does. What part of links leaking PR do you not understand?
I know PR flows but what im saying is it doesnt leak anywhere near enough for you to nofollow the link and discount it from your external link profile - which we have already established is beneficial to your SEO efforts. Look at the many links that have been provided from myself and others to reputable sources claiming this.

And most bloggers can't tell a spam post from a regular post and if it was off by default there would be a ton more people spamming the blog comment sections.
Instead those people focus on the few hundred blogs that have turned the nofollow off and forums. We'd be better off having 1000 spammers hitting 1,000,000 sites than 1000 spammers hitting 1000 sites, if you see what i mean?

[janeth]

Why would you do that?

Because some of them are my friends and others I wanted to help.


Its the way the internet works. If every webmaster was you there would be no PR and the whole system that google created would be useless.

And you're here to protect Google?

I'm sure Google will give you a cookie.


I know PR flows but what im saying is it doesnt leak anywhere near enough for you to nofollow the link and discount it from your external link profile

How do you know this?

No one, No one, No one, other than Google knows the amount of juice each link is sending out. Without that information you have no idea how much damage is being done.


- which we have already established is beneficial to your SEO efforts. Look at the many links that have been provided from myself and others to reputable sources claiming this.

You've established nothing. How can you establish something that no one knows.


Instead those people focus on the few hundred blogs that have turned the nofollow off and forums. We'd be better off having 1000 spammers hitting 1,000,000 sites than 1000 spammers hitting 1000 sites, if you see what i mean?

They are bots, they hit all the sites and could careless about the nofollow tag.

[crankydave]

lol @ Janeth... That's one possibility. It's also possible that if you pass too much "juice" externally that some of your own pages suffer and slip into the supposedly nonexistant supplemental index and cause them not to rank as well as they might.

@ inertia... I don't disagree that it should be "off" by default however, the fact that it isn't is more or less "promoting" the idea of nofollow don't you think? And since Blogger is a Google property aren't they promoting it as well?

Dave

[janeth]

lol @ Janeth... That's one possibility. It's also possible that if you pass too much "juice" externally that some of your own pages suffer and slip into the supposedly nonexistant supplemental index and cause them not to rank as well as they might.

Or you link to someone that is not your competition site A and they link to your competition Site B and the PR that you pass to site A passes that PR to site B. And then you drop because of the lost PR from the link you passed and the competition rises from the PR you lost.


@ inertia... I don't disagree that it should be "off" by default

Dave

Nofollow Tags Are Good For the Internet

With dynamic publishing technology improving and more and more people launching blogs daily having the ability to control who is and who is not getting the juice from links is a good thing.

Wordpress coming with the nofollow tags already in the comment sections prevents unknowing bloggers from passing PR juice to spammers helps everyone. If it was not the case more and more people would be using bots to make spam comments and be beating out the legitimate sites in the search results.

[inertia]

Dont you think its a bit odd linking to your competition coz theyre your friends but nofollowing that link? You dont mind loosing your visitors to your competitors but you want to keep the small amount of PR?


I'm sure Google will give you a cookie.

Don't patronize me. Im sticking up for the page rank because it makes search results better does it not? Would you prefer to go back to content based results?

Ive read all the evidence which has been posted and i think linking out is a good thing to do. You think it does jack. That part of the discussion will not be resolved.

Fair enough about the blog spammers.

[inertia]

@ inertia... I don't disagree that it should be "off" by default however, the fact that it isn't is more or less "promoting" the idea of nofollow don't you think? And since Blogger is a Google property aren't they promoting it as well?

Dave

Point noted. I think its kind of counter productive on their part. If we added nofollow to all external links by default, they'd be screwed.

[janeth]

Dont you think its a bit odd linking to your competition coz theyre your friends but nofollowing that link? You dont mind loosing your visitors to your competitors but you want to keep the small amount of PR?

I don't nofollow the links. As a matter of fact there are only a couple links on my whole site that are nofollowed.

I've told you this lots of times but you just don't seem to get it.



Don't patronize me. Im sticking up for the page rank because it makes search results better does it not? Would you prefer to go back to content based results?

lol,

It will never go back to content, it can't go back to content.



Ive read all the evidence which has been posted and i think linking out is a good thing to do. You think it does jack. That part of the discussion will not be resolved.

I don't know what doing jack is but I do know that I didn't have to read the information being posted.

I tested it for myself and know what the results can be.

I don't believe anything I read, or, for that matter, anything I hear, unless it is consistent with what I already know to be true, or unless I've taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to my satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

I've been making my living online for a long time. And I make my total living off the sites I build. No cold calling or anything else.

[janeth]

Ive read all the evidence

Let me take a look at what has been posted

Arguments for linking out to other sites:

1. You tend to get more links coming back in (evidence)
Most people have no idea rather you have used the nofollow tag or not.

It would work regardless of rather you use it or not.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


2. Your domain and pages appear in the referral analytics of other sites, inviting site owners (who are often very likely "linkerati") to check out your site

And you will appear in the same spot even if you use the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


3. The search engines have at least looked into algorithms that reward external linking behavior (like HITS)

Looking into stuff does not mean it affects your ranking. But I would say you would be rewarded more for the nofollow tag than the non use of the nonfollow tag

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


4. Karma - and not just the invisible, metaphysical kind - bloggers really do look at who links out and who doesn't and they tend to reward the more generous

Again, the only people that understand the nofollow tag are SEO’s. Most people in the real world do not have a clue about it. If it will work without it, it will work with it.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


5. In any type of "neighborhood" link analysis model, a site's outlinks can be used as a good predictor of a domain's relative trustworthiness

Does not have anything to do with ranking in the major search engines and really have no idea what it would be used for but it would work Works with or without the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


6. Readers and web visitors can derive value from the links you point to, and they can help to prop up the credibility & association of your own site. Note this research about memory association & repetition (and apply it to the marketing world rather than the political)

Works with or without the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


7. Sites that don't link out are extreme outliers on the web's link graph and thus, may fall more easily into negative classification schemes (particularly if they're run by overzealous, over-optimizing SEOs) :-)

A lot of things might happen in life, although your more likely to get hit by lighting.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.


8. Never linking out doesn't keep visitors on your site any longer, it simply means they'll jump away via the back button, bookmarks, a browser close, or a typed-in address

This has nothing to do with nofollow tags.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

And the really sad part is that the article you guys used for the proof has nothing to do with using the nofollow tag.

The name is Nailing the Coffin Shut on the "Don't Link to External Sites" Philosophy

It has nothing to do with nofollow tags and everything it talks about will work with or without the nofollow tag. Yet it convinced you that nofollow tags were bad.

I'm amazed.

And even more amazed that a mod. used this for proof.

[kgun]

Maybe you should start by reading this

Pagerank Explained. Google's PageRank and how to make the most of it. (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html)

Now, I wonder, have you read it yourself?

More info here:

Google PageRank - Introduction (http://pr.efactory.de/)
How Google crawls my site (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=8843)Can you explain exactly what rel="nofollow" does?

Since so few know the attribute, can it end up as a sort of segregation?

[inertia]

1. You tend to get more links coming back in (evidence)
Most people have no idea rather you have used the nofollow tag or not.

It would work regardless of rather you use it or not.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag except for people, and there are some, who know you arent passing link juice and dont feel obliged to link.


2. Your domain and pages appear in the referral analytics of other sites, inviting site owners (who are often very likely "linkerati") to check out your site

And you will appear in the same spot even if you use the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag. Agreed


3. The search engines have at least looked into algorithms that reward external linking behavior (like HITS)

Looking into stuff does not mean it affects your ranking. But I would say you would be rewarded more for the nofollow tag than the non use of the nonfollow tag

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

I makes sense in my mind and it has everything to do with the nofollow tag where google is concerned. The link is completely disregarded in googles link profile. Why would they reward you for using nofollow? Looks like your selling or cant vouch for your links.

The spiders follow the link and find relevant content to your site and visitors, which equals valuable resources for your visitor, which equals trust and topical relation, which (if the other site is linking well) puts you within a network of relevant sites, all equaling in a high level of relevant content and resources associated with your site.


4. Karma - and not just the invisible, metaphysical kind - bloggers really do look at who links out and who doesn't and they tend to reward the more generous

Again, the only people that understand the nofollow tag are SEO’s. Most people in the real world do not have a clue about it. If it will work without it, it will work with it.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

OK, nothing to do with nofollow but you are still alienating the ones who do know, without it you alienate no-one.


5. In any type of "neighborhood" link analysis model, a site's outlinks can be used as a good predictor of a domain's relative trustworthiness

Does not have anything to do with ranking in the major search engines and really have no idea what it would be used for but it would work Works with or without the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

Answered above.


6. Readers and web visitors can derive value from the links you point to, and they can help to prop up the credibility & association of your own site. Note this research about memory association & repetition (and apply it to the marketing world rather than the political)

Works with or without the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag. Agreed.


7. Sites that don't link out are extreme outliers on the web's link graph and thus, may fall more easily into negative classification schemes (particularly if they're run by overzealous, over-optimizing SEOs) :-)

A lot of things might happen in life, although your more likely to get hit by lighting.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

Your opinion, same answer as above from me.


8. Never linking out doesn't keep visitors on your site any longer, it simply means they'll jump away via the back button, bookmarks, a browser close, or a typed-in address

This has nothing to do with nofollow tags.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag. Agreed.

And the really sad part is that the article you guys used for the proof has nothing to do with using the nofollow tag.

The name is Nailing the Coffin Shut on the "Don't Link to External Sites" Philosophy

It has nothing to do with nofollow tags and everything it talks about will work with or without the nofollow tag. Yet it convinced you that nofollow tags were bad.

I'm amazed.

And even more amazed that a mod. used this for proof.

As you can see not all of these points are nofollow matters but some are and i would class them as more important in ranking than the tiny page rank leak that your talking about. From my experience i have never seen anything but good things happen to sites with plenty of resources. I provide valuable resources for my clients site visitors and i want google to know.

[janeth]

Now, I wonder, have you read it yourself?

Yes


Can you explain exactly what rel="nofollow" does?

Since so few know the attribute, can it end up as a sort of segregation?

It's nothing more than a tag that tells Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines not to consider the link in their ranking system.

Because Google has forced it on so many sites it could never be segregated.

[inertia]

From my experimenting, google completely disregards the link. Yahoo doesnt. MSN does.

[kgun]

It's nothing more than a tag that tells Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines not to consider the link in their ranking system.

It is an attribute and not a tag. There is a great difference between a tag and an attribute in the W3C DOM standard (http://www.w3.org/DOM/), the core standard for hyper linked documents.



Because Google has forced it on so many sites it could never be segregated.
My bolding.

Aside from Blogger sites, which?

[janeth]

1. Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag except for people, and there are some, who know you arent passing link juice and dont feel obliged to link.

In the SEO industry only.


2. Good



3. I makes sense in my mind and it has everything to do with the nofollow tag where google is concerned. The link is completely disregarded in googles link profile. Why would they reward you for using nofollow? Looks like your selling or cant vouch for your links.

The spiders follow the link and find relevant content to your site and visitors, which equals valuable resources for your visitor, which equals trust and topical relation, which (if the other site is linking well) puts you within a network of relevant sites, all equaling in a high level of relevant content and resources associated with your site.

I want debate something that Google is not even using. And since Google is not even using it how the Hell do you know how it works.

IT'S NOT BEING USED. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU OR I THINK.



4. Karma - and not just the invisible, metaphysical kind - bloggers really do look at who links out and who doesn't and they tend to reward the more generous

Again, the only people that understand the nofollow tag are SEO’s. Most people in the real world do not have a clue about it. If it will work without it, it will work with it.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

OK, nothing to do with nofollow but you are still alienating the ones who do know, without it you alienate no-one.

We agree it has nothing to do with the nofollow tag. I know all about the nofollow tag but have never looked to see who uses it and who does not.





5. In any type of "neighborhood" link analysis model, a site's outlinks can be used as a good predictor of a domain's relative trustworthiness

Does not have anything to do with ranking in the major search engines and really have no idea what it would be used for but it would work Works with or without the nofollow tag.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

Answered above.

Answered what above. Your answering questions that you have no way of answering. Therefore you can not be correct.



6. Agreed.

Good



7. Sites that don't link out are extreme outliers on the web's link graph and thus, may fall more easily into negative classification schemes (particularly if they're run by overzealous, over-optimizing SEOs) :-)

A lot of things might happen in life, although your more likely to get hit by lighting.

Has nothing to do with the nofollow tag nor is it talking about the nofollow tag.

Your opinion, same answer as above from me.

Again you are trying to debate something that does not exist.



8. Agreed.

Good



[COLOR=seagreen]As you can see not all of these points are nofollow matters but some are and i would class them as more important in ranking than the tiny page rank leak that your talking about. From my experience i have never seen anything but good things happen to sites with plenty of resources. I provide valuable resources for my clients site visitors and i want google to know.

Your are trying to claim that something the author himself says has nothing to do with getting ranked in Google is more important than the most important thing in getting ranked in Google?

PR and the way it is used is the single most important factor in getting a site ranked.

[inertia]

Its about relevance and trust not pr. These are huge factors in ranking. Bigger than the minimal pr leak youre talking about.

[janeth]

This Is About Relevance And Trust, Not Pr! The Pr Leak From An

The topic continues to change.

Now you are trying to say that by linking out it builds trust and this trust helps you rank?

[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?

[janeth]

Its about relevance and trust not pr. These are huge factors in ranking. Bigger than the minimal pr leak youre talking about.

Are you making this up as you go along.

First you have no way of measuring the PR leakage. So how would you know how big it is or is not.

Second can you show me some proof that the sites you link to builds trust and that trust is used some where in Google's algo?

And carries more weight than PR.

[janeth]

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 agree 100% with it.

[kevsta]

lol i know you do Janeth ;) we sing from the same hymn sheet. I should have phrased that as "who here apart from Janeth..."

seriously is anyone actually going to disagree with that advice?

heavy use of nofollow will not (currently) hurt your rankings, I don't state much as fact, but i will that.

happy to provide examples.

[janeth]

lol i know you do Janeth ;) we sing from the same hymn sheet. I should have phrased that as "who here apart from Janeth..."

seriously is anyone actually going to disagree with that advice?

heavy use of nofollow will not (currently) hurt your rankings, I don't state much as fact, but i will that.

happy to provide examples.

It's sad the lack of knowledge from people who are doing SEO work on other people's sites and charging them money for it.

The original poster said


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

Notice the words a lot.

I said yes and then the SEO experts wanted to debate the whole link juice thing thing that Matt Cutts has already confirmed.



Its obvious that PR is passed through links or why would we all try and build the damn things but as far as outbound links being "holes in a bucket" then I'm not buying it.

The the original poster asked this question


would you reccomend to avoid it?
even if i miss incoming links?
or should i put outgoing links only if the other site links back?

I posted the simple answer, not knowing how many outbound links, only that there was a lot. Nofollow the links.

You'd thought I'd talked bad about Obama after that one. People throwing links at me and saying things like


That is bad advice for all concerned!

When it calmed down I went back and looked at all these articles and none of them had to do with nofollow tags.

That seemed to upset the SEO experts. The articles were to prove their pointing and reading them would so their ignorance of not knowing what the article was about, so they turned around and said it is no longer about link leakage or the nofollow tag.

"It's all about trust. And linking out to sites build trust and that is worth more than incoming links PR or anything else. "

I guess they take pride in being ignorant.

[kgun]

So now SEO is also about the optimal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute.

[janeth]

So now SEO is also about the optimal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute.

It would really depend on the site. Most sites would not benefit from it at all.

Where a really large site or a site with lots of internal and external links might.

[kevsta]

So now SEO is also about the optimal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute.

i don't see a question mark? is this a statement?

IMO in a lot of cases, rightly or wrongly, it is a factor, yes.

edit, lol @ woopra lighting up, this is obviously contraversial stuff.

[janeth]

The trust theory

About a year or so ago a lot of the SEO’s thought that placing a couple outbound links on their site with relevant anchor text and linking to high PR sites would somehow give them a boost in the rankings.

It was talked about on several forums and stated in many places as fact. And lots and lots of people followed along and started linking out like crazy.

After several months and not seeing any change the whole thing was laid to rest. As far as I know Google never used anything like this in their ranking and all the SEO’s stopped talking about it.

And if you look around you can find people that dropped in ranking from doing this.

Not sure who started the whole thing and I’m sure that person does not want to take credit for it either.

And it’s why it’s so important to test things and not take everything you hear or read as fact.

[chiron]

I tend to use the "test for yourself" strategy frequently. Things change, SEs shuffle, and truth is often simplified or intentionally manipulated.

Here's a fairly decent test case.

I have a PR 5 linking to two sites that were created and juiced at the same time (some years ago).

The recipient home page PR is thus: 4 and 3.

The recipients each have one IBL of note.

One site has a single OBL (no rel=nofollow) and one site has no OBLs.

The one with the OBL is the 3, no OBL is the 4.

It's not quite a perfect test, but it is indicative if not the last word on the matter.

[TryUsOut]

Interesting discussion. I would only like to state my opinion on the issue on employing a nofollow attribute to an outgoing link - this I think should be done when you don't want to vouch for a site (therefore passing PR). In the eyes of the search engine, a link is considered as a vote. For me, its only a fair practice to allow the leak of PR if such site is deserving enough - this should also be based on individual Webamasters.

[janeth]

I tend to use the "test for yourself" strategy frequently. Things change, SEs shuffle, and truth is often simplified or intentionally manipulated.

Here's a fairly decent test case.

I have a PR 5 linking to two sites that were created and juiced at the same time (some years ago).

The recipient home page PR is thus: 4 and 3.

The recipients each have one IBL of note.

One site has a single OBL (no rel=nofollow) and one site has no OBLs.

The one with the OBL is the 3, no OBL is the 4.

It's not quite a perfect test, but it is indicative if not the last word on the matter.

That's a little strange. As the links should affect the sites being linked to and not the sites sending the links.

I wonder if the position of the links on the PR5 site could be affecting the amount of PR being sent?

[Raybman]

To Google, a link to a site is vote for that site.

PageRank "leak" is a misnomer because you will not lose any PR due to the link, unless the link leads to a site in a "bad neighborhood" or is bouncing back to the same site (internal link). If the outbound links are simply reciprocal links, then neither site will gain any advantage.

If the sites you link to are related in some way (related business or subject) to your site, then these links could simply be considered part of your site's content, so no problems. Now, if there is a list of 50 links on the page, Google could very easily consider it a link farm and penalize the page, if not the site.

If you are not sure, just ask yourself if the link is adding quality content to your site, or simply to manipulate your PR or SERPs.

In the end, content wins.

[janeth]

Interesting discussion. I would only like to state my opinion on the issue on employing a nofollow attribute to an outgoing link - this I think should be done when you don't want to vouch for a site (therefore passing PR). In the eyes of the search engine, a link is considered as a vote. For me, its only a fair practice to allow the leak of PR if such site is deserving enough - this should also be based on individual Webamasters.

I agree 100%, my problem was being accused of giving bad information when I told someone to use a nofollow attribute after being asked what was the best way to link without loosing PR.

[janeth]

To Google, a link to a site is vote for that site.

PageRank "leak" is a misnomer because you will not lose any PR due to the link, unless the link leads to a site in a "bad neighborhood" or is bouncing back to the same site (internal link). If the outbound links are simply reciprocal links, then neither site will gain any advantage.


That is not correct at all. When you link out you pass PR and it is divided by the pages you are linking to.

And if the link is reciprocal both sites can gain from it. One site more than the other.


If the sites you link to are related in some way (related business or subject) to your site, then these links could simply be considered part of your site's content, so no problems.

Where are you getting this from?


Now, if there is a list of 50 links on the page, Google could very easily consider it a link farm and penalize the page, if not the site.

Are you just making this up as you go along?



If you are not sure, just ask yourself if the link is adding quality content to your site, or simply to manipulate your PR or SERPs.

In the end, content wins.

Content wins for the long tail but you want rank for a competitive keyword without links.

[DanLew]

Many things have to be considered when linking to other sites, whether the other sites has many broken links, or whether the site you are pointing to is new and of low page rank.

But in general there is nothing wrong with pointing to let say news.com.au which is a reputable site, in fact it is seen by Google as good that if you link to popular sites your site must be of value, and can help your own sites value to a degree in linking to some reputable high page rank sites.

[TryUsOut]

I agree 100%, my problem was being accused of giving bad information when I told someone to use a nofollow attribute after being asked what was the best way to link without loosing PR.
That seemed to be a very sound advice on the issue of not leaking out PR when linking to another site. I don't necessarily see the reason for such a long debate over that.

[janeth]

But in general there is nothing wrong with pointing to let say news.com.au which is a reputable site, in fact it is seen by Google as good that if you link to popular sites your site must be of value, and can help your own sites value to a degree in linking to some reputable high page rank sites.

And do you have any proof of this?

This is bad information and is untrue.

[janeth]

That seemed to be a very sound advice on the issue of not leaking out PR when linking to another site. I don't necessarily see the reason for such a long debate over that.

One would think so but there seems to be a lot of misinformed people out there.

[Raybman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raybman http://images.ientrymail.com/webproworld/vb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/71395-outgoing-links-weakening-me-3.html#post389706)
To Google, a link to a site is vote for that site.

PageRank "leak" is a misnomer because you will not lose any PR due to the link, unless the link leads to a site in a "bad neighborhood" or is bouncing back to the same site (internal link). If the outbound links are simply reciprocal links, then neither site will gain any advantage.

That is not correct at all. When you link out you pass PR and it is divided by the pages you are linking to.

And if the link is reciprocal both sites can gain from it. One site more than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raybman http://images.ientrymail.com/webproworld/vb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/71395-outgoing-links-weakening-me-3.html#post389706)
If the sites you link to are related in some way (related business or subject) to your site, then these links could simply be considered part of your site's content, so no problems.

Where are you getting this from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raybman http://images.ientrymail.com/webproworld/vb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/71395-outgoing-links-weakening-me-3.html#post389706)
Now, if there is a list of 50 links on the page, Google could very easily consider it a link farm and penalize the page, if not the site.

Are you just making this up as you go along?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raybman http://images.ientrymail.com/webproworld/vb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/71395-outgoing-links-weakening-me-3.html#post389706)
If you are not sure, just ask yourself if the link is adding quality content to your site, or simply to manipulate your PR or SERPs.

In the end, content wins.


Janeth,

Read Google Webmaster Central Blog and Guidelines, Matt Cutts interviews and blog, and HighRankings.com is also a good source.

The 50 links was just a number for an example, maybe I should have said, a whole lot, or numerous, or a huge amount of links....

[janeth]

Janeth,

Read Google Webmaster Central Blog and Guidelines, Matt Cutts interviews and blog, and HighRankings.com is also a good source.

The 50 links was just a number for an example, maybe I should have said, a whole lot, or numerous, or a huge amount of links....

I do not need to read any of those. I know what Matt says.

Matt said that PR Sculpting can work. PR Sculpting is using the nofollow tag to control the internal flow of PR juice.

And I do believe that Matt was the one that started calling it PR Sculpting.

Here is an article on it No Follow Tag | Internal Use of No Follow Tag (http://www.evisibility.com/blog/no-follow-tag/) and this article is linked to from sites like searchenginewatch.



The use of “nofollow” tags can serve many different purposes. They can be used to limit the amount of link juice that flows out of a page to external pages of different domains, or they can be used to control where the link juice will flow to within a site and its internal pages.

And since you brought up Jill Whalen here is what she and others said about PR Sculpting.

Organic Listings Forum : Google PageRank, Blogs and Paid Links (http://www.searchenginejournal.com/organic-listings-forum-google-pagerank-blogs-and-paid-links/6539/)

From SES New York, Greg Boser, Dave Naylor and Jill Whalen all said that Using NoFollow tools to scupt PageRank was a good thing to do.

Now according to you links do not pass PR and Matt and Jill are both on your side. Yet both of them say that PR Sculpting is a good thing. PR Sculpting is controlling the PR juice that you say does not exist.

Sounds to me that you might need some other people on your side.

[DanLew]

And do you have any proof of this?

This is bad information and is untrue.

Yes i Have proof that if you put 3 new links on the home page of your website pointing:
1. google.com
2. yahoo.com
3. msn.com

This will not affect you or weaken you at all, this is proof in itself.

[chiron]

I wonder if the position of the links on the PR5 site could be affecting the amount of PR being sent?

It's one after the other in terms of on-page appearance, but there are potentially other variables in the mix, as always.

But variables are what keeps these discussions lively. ;)

[ctabuk]

Well all of this has been most interesting - except for one little point. Here's another one of my link out pages.

http://www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/housing-in-the-uk-links.html

It's topic related to the theme of the site - but it's a huge source of information - and guess what?? They have been there for years and years and years - have they affected my SERP? No - Oh and Janeth if you post a reply and do a 'I removed the link' think on this - my market is UK based - if I place a link it is there not to champion my cause but there to demonstrate that linking out to authority sites is a worthy and worthwhile excercise and one that regardless of what you or anyone else can say - I will continue to do so.

[Webnauts]

hi
hi


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

It will not weaken your site if they are sites of your industry or in other words relevant to your site theme. If you call the page links.html, or you have that page in a directory which will look like /links/index.html, Google will devaluate it, if not totally, then to a certain degree. The higher number of links on the page, will reduce the PR juice to the pages you are linking to. I assume it is obvious to you that if you are linking to sites or pages dropped from Google, or they are identified as bad neighborhoods, there you can get harmed.


2. if i have reciprocal links with sites of my industry, is it worth something for ranking or does google ignore it?
Reciprocal linking is not dead. But still does not have the same value as one-way links. Both Google and Yahoo have begun to recognize such link exchanges, and have used this information to reduce the ranking of reciprocally linked sites in search engine results.



thanks

lenny
You are welcome

John

P.S. My apologies to all members in this thread if I am repeating something, but I have no time to read the entire thread.

[DanLew]

Reciprocal linking is not dead. But still does not have the same value as one-way links. Both Google and Yahoo have begun to recognize such link exchanges, and have used this information to reduce the ranking of reciprocally linked sites in search engine results.

I much prefer 3 way linking, but the thing is when exchanging links when do you put a stop to it. The idea is to exchange links in a smart way. I see many blogers get others to write about them and add links to their site for links back from one of their articles sites or any other site that they agree on.

[MuNKyonline]

I'm afraid guys that Janeth is completely correct. Using nofollow links to control the flow of pagerank from your site is called pagerank sculpting. Linking to more useful and higher pagerank pages has a better effect on serps. Controlling of pagerank can also be acheived with your own pages using the htaccess file to stop the pagerank from flowing to non-important thank-you pages etc.

Reciprocal linking is rubbish for SEO when both sites link to each other the power of the links is greatly reduced. IMO you want to get as many one-way links as possible. Ignore any directories that require a back link.

(I also havent got the time to read the entire thread/debate lol)

[ctabuk]

Darren you are missing the point - ignore for the time being the no follow - is linking out to authority sites good SEO?

[daniboy]

Using nofollow links to control the flow of pagerank from your site is called pagerank sculpting. Linking to more useful and higher pagerank pages has a better effect on serps.


That statement feels a bit like a contradiction .

Use nofollow for pagerank sculpting, but link to useful sites... with nofollow or not?

There's loads of arguments for and against nofollowing for this reason.

One that springs to mind are the people who nofollow terms and privacy pages... hence telling the SE's they don't trust their own content.

[Webnauts]

I much prefer 3 way linking, but the thing is when exchanging links when do you put a stop to it. The idea is to exchange links in a smart way. I see many blogers get others to write about them and add links to their site for links back from one of their articles sites or any other site that they agree on.
Oh, so you also a spammer? Good to know!

For the ones who do not like spamming, I recommend "trapezoidal link building".

[Webnauts]

Darren you are missing the point - ignore for the time being the no follow - is linking out to authority sites good SEO?
Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.

[Webnauts]

That statement feels a bit like a contradiction .

Use nofollow for pagerank sculpting, but link to useful sites... with nofollow or not?

There's loads of arguments for and against nofollowing for this reason.

One that springs to mind are the people who nofollow terms and privacy pages... hence telling the SE's they don't trust their own content.
I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute. But I still practice PR sculpting. There is a way to have pages like privacy policy, etc still indexed without sharing with them PR juice.

Does that make sense to you?

[inertia]

Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.

But, would you nofollow those links?

[daniboy]

I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute. But I still practice PR sculpting. There is a way to have pages like privacy policy, etc still indexed without sharing with them PR juice.

Does that make sense to you?

Sort of makes sense to me.

That will be my "think about it" for the weekend... Thanks

[MuNKyonline]

Oh ok I was only going from the first few posts. Well I think I see her point, just because its an authority site doesnt mean it will be the same theme or fully relevent, by using nofollow you still provide your visitors with helpful info but you dont pass/leak any of your sites pagerank to it. If its an authority site with good PR and relevent content then dont use nofollow.

I've got links to validators and such like on my site that I have nofollowed (well actually I should say stopped google from passing pagerank to the target page Wink ). They're w3c etc - some would say they're relevant because its the w3c but theres no point in passing PR to a validator results page.

[kevsta]

But, would you nofollow those links?

not generally, no.

[ctabuk]

Advanced Linking Strategies (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002357.html)

Within this well written piece you will find that the experts agree in linking out to related topic/ authority sites is recommended

[ctabuk]

Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.



Thank you John

[kevsta]

I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute. But I still practice PR sculpting. There is a way to have pages like privacy policy, etc still indexed without sharing with them PR juice.

Does that make sense to you?

John, being a high techie coder type i know you've developed your own way of doing the same thing, but ive always been curious what youve got against nofollow?

and also then, why you have it on your forum sigs? :)

[daniboy]

PageRank is green fairy dust.

Nice quote in there.

[MuNKyonline]

I'm really not getting what the argument is here lol.

Isnt everyone just saying the same thing??

YES link to authority sites (duh!)
Nofollow if it's not relevant to your site (if you dont want to pass page rank to the target page and/or you believe the nofollow actually does anything).

So whats the confusion about? Seems damn simple to me!

[crankydave]

Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.

Hey John :D

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

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

Dave

[inertia]

The "discussion" is about whether, on an algorithm level, relevant outbound links are beneficial to your sites performance?

[janeth]

Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.

And why is that?

Are you saying that linking out to authority sites will boost your ranking in the search engines?

[inertia]

She's up! Morning janet.

[janeth]

Advanced Linking Strategies (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002357.html)

Within this well written piece you will find that the experts agree in linking out to related topic/ authority sites is recommended

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?

[Webnauts]

Hey John :D

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

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

Dave
I did not try to define what an authority site is. I answered with that term as it was used all the time.

[janeth]

But, would you nofollow those links?

You should run for president you change like the wind.

Now it is only those links that no one knows whom are being linked to that is an issue.

[kgun]

i don't see a question mark? is this a statement?

IMO in a lot of cases, rightly or wrongly, it is a factor, yes.

edit, lol @ woopra lighting up, this is obviously contraversial stuff.

Google, please give me a webmaster tool (http://www.webproworld.com/google-discussion-forum/69831-matt-cutts-announces-nofollow-google-help-center.html#post379310) that optimizes the use of rel="nofollow" links on my site.

But if GoogleBOT learns to use that tool, may be ... ??

Related link: http://www.webproworld.com/seo-101/66407-nofollow-tag.html#post358400

[inertia]

You should run for president you change like the wind.

Why do you keep wandering off topic into these condescending posts? I didnt change my opinion, I ASKED FOR ONE FROM JOHN! Give me strength!

[crankydave]

I did not try to define what an authority site is. I answered with that term as it was used all the time.

I understand, but if you believe linking to "authority sites" is a good practice then I would think you would know how Google defines them. If you don't know how Google, or any SE for that matter, defines them how can one link to them? ;)

Dave

[MuNKyonline]

The "discussion" is about whether, on an algorithm level, relevant outbound links are beneficial to your sites performance?

Yes of course they are. Just dont over do the outbound links and use nofollow sensibly. It all helps to build trust rank as you will be making your site a more 'valuable resource' to your visitors.

Linking to harmful sites - such as nasty porn, sites known for spyware etc will have a negative effect on your websites performance.

[inertia]

Yes of course they are. Just dont over do the outbound links and use nofollow sensibly. It all helps to build trust rank as you will be making your site a more 'valuable resource' to your visitors.

Linking to harmful sites - such as nasty porn, sites known for spyware etc will have a negative effect on your websites performance.

Agree 100%

[janeth]

Why do you keep wandering off topic into these condescending posts? I didnt change my opinion, I ASKED FOR ONE FROM JOHN! Give me strength!

Then continue to argue it. Tell Webnats that anything he does to hinder the flow of PR juice is wrong.

Or go back to saying there is no PR juice.

[janeth]

I understand, but if you believe linking to "authority sites" is a good practice then I would think you would know how Google defines them. If you don't know how Google, or any SE for that matter, defines them how can one link to them? ;)

Dave

You seem to being ignored but it even goes further than that.

First they are unable to identify an authority site and second they have no way of knowing the amount of PR leakage or the amount of the trust being added with the (so called) authority site.

Even if it was true there would be no way of knowing if the link helped or hurt with out knowing all the variables.

[kgun]

I'm afraid guys that Janeth is completely correct. Using nofollow links to control the flow of pagerank from your site is called pagerank sculpting. Linking to more useful and higher pagerank pages has a better effect on serps. Controlling of pagerank can also be acheived with your own pages using the htaccess file to stop the pagerank from flowing to non-important thank-you pages etc.

Reciprocal linking is rubbish for SEO when both sites link to each other the power of the links is greatly reduced. IMO you want to get as many one-way links as possible. Ignore any directories that require a back link.


An deeper thread about PR Sculpting (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/67474-does-page-ranking-sculpting-work.html#post364746)

May be it is possible to come closer to the conclusion of this thread if you define:

semantical linking (http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/64120-semantical-linking.html#post344876)

[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!

[Webnauts]

I understand, but if you believe linking to "authority sites" is a good practice then I would think you would know how Google defines them. If you don't know how Google, or any SE for that matter, defines them how can one link to them? ;)

Dave
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.

[kgun]

Linking to authority sites which are relevant to your site theme is an excellent practice.
That is an example of semantical linking, a real vote / cite / reference and at the heart of Google's algorithm.

Put on your glass eyes and link to (vote for) related content.


Advanced Linking Strategies (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002357.html)

Within this well written piece you will find that the experts agree in linking out to related topic/ authority sites is recommended
I bolded what I regard as related to semantical linking.

[Webnauts]

Google says:

"A Google feature that helps determine the rank of a site in our search results. PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your searches."

Source: PageRank (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=49215&query=Page+Rank&topic=&type=)

So if OBLs harm, where do you see the democracy? If my site is linked from other sites, but I am not linking to anybody, is that what Google means with democracy?

[janeth]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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


Hey John :D
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]

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 (http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/)

[crankydave]

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 (http://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx)

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]

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 (http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/)

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]

Here's some info David...

help_qualify (http://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx)

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]

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]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme) My link is at the bottom and I get sales year in and year out.

[janeth]

You want proof !!!!

Right to buy scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme) 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]

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...



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". :D

Dave

[ctabuk]

Here's some info David...

help_qualify (http://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx)

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]

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 (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html)

[janeth]

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]

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]

Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html)

I have no idea what that proves.

[janeth]

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 (http://www.seobook.com/archives/000661.shtml)

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]

I don't see the links.

I wrote thread and not post.

[ctabuk]

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] (http://my9.statcounter.com/project/standard/project/standard/add_ip_address_label.php?project_id=432976&ip_address=62.231.143.90&return_url=%2Fproject%2Fstandard%2Fvisitor.php%3Fs tart%3D20)
www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-changes.html (http://www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-changes.html)
www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-news.html (http://www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk/right-to-buy-news.html)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme)

[crankydave]

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 (http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/enterprises/casino.htm)

Dave

[kgun]

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 (http://www.mises.org/story/2704)

[janeth]

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 (http://www.seobook.com/archives/000661.shtml)

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]

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 (http://www.mises.org/story/2704)

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]

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 (http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/enterprises/casino.htm)

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]

Now prove that linking to it will increase your ranking.
Where did I say that in this thread?

[janeth]

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. 8)

[MuNKyonline]

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]

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 (http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/enterprises/casino.htm)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://salfordspeaks.salford.gov.uk/PublicSite/bulDetails.asp?contentID=11455)

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

Dave

[janeth]

Note my bolding.

New information to me. Do you have a source?

I was wrong on that. Sorry.

[janeth]

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community (http://salfordspeaks.salford.gov.uk/PublicSite/bulDetails.asp?contentID=11455)

"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]

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community (http://salfordspeaks.salford.gov.uk/PublicSite/bulDetails.asp?contentID=11455)

"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]

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community (http://salfordspeaks.salford.gov.uk/PublicSite/bulDetails.asp?contentID=11455)

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well, how about this one...

Salford Virtual Community (http://salfordspeaks.salford.gov.uk/PublicSite/bulDetails.asp?contentID=11455)

"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]

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.

[janeth]

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!?

lol

Do you understand that linking out causes you to loose PR?

And that last year someone wrote a white paper about Trust Rank and no one ever proved it was being used.

[MuNKyonline]

I'm thinking that due to the fact that the TrustRank name is a few years old now and we've heard nothing new from Google on the subject that this is more of a label set by the internet communities to define a filter that search engines use to determine spam sites.

There is no patent for such a thing in the name of Google, there are only a couple of patents related to this subject that are owned by Yahoo.

So in terms of proof that it exists, its pretty likely, it may not be called trustrank but I believe that there has to be something, especially in Googles algorithm that will account for out bound linking and its relevancy to spam technques.

[janeth]

I'm thinking that due to the fact that the TrustRank name is a few years old now and we've heard nothing new from Google on the subject that this is more of a label set by the internet communities to define a filter that search engines use to determine spam sites.

There is no patent for such a thing in the name of Google, there are only a couple of patents related to this subject that are owned by Yahoo.

So in terms of proof that it exists, its pretty likely, it may not be called trustrank but I believe that there has to be something, especially in Googles algorythm that will account for out bound linking and its relevancy to spam technques.

Because you feel it is so, it should be so?

[kgun]

Some important post from this thread as I see it.


Maybe you should start by reading this

Pagerank Explained. Google's PageRank and how to make the most of it. (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html)


Now, I wonder, have you read it yourself?



More info here:
Google PageRank - Introduction (http://pr.efactory.de/)
How Google crawls my site (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=8843)Can you explain exactly what rel="nofollow" does?


Since so few know the attribute, can it end up as a sort of segregation?


Google says:

"A Google feature that helps determine the rank of a site in our search results. PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your searches."

Source: PageRank (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=49215&query=Page+Rank&topic=&type=)


So if OBLs harm, where do you see the democracy? If my site is linked from other sites, but I am not linking to anybody, is that what Google means with democracy?
If you read the article linked to in Janeth's post, you distribute away pagerank if you link out (at least without rel="nofollow") so you loose (unadjusted - if there is such a metric) pagerank.
But there may be what I will call an adaptive (adjusted) pagerank that dependes on
Note Johns post cited above, more precisely:Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your searches. (Is this only related to SERP's?)

[crankydave]

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?

Not at all David. I am remaining true to what I've said all along... link out only when and where it's appropriate and only for the benefit of your visitors AND that I'd personally not recommend linking out strictly for the "perceived" value a SE might place on the OBL.

The links I posted illustrate that it's not the extension of a domain that determines "authority" but the information that it contains.

Here is what you posted...


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?

You directly imply that "qualifying" to use a .gov extension "automatically" makes you an authority. I disagree and provided a couple of links that illustrate why I disagree.

Then you posted this...


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

Again, the direct implication is that a site with a .gov extension is "automatically" an "authority site". Which again, I disagree for the above reasons.

David... would you link to or want a link from either of the 2 pages I used to illustrate my position because they are "authorities" because of a .gov extension?

Dave

[kgun]

I'm thinking that due to the fact that the TrustRank name is a few years old now and we've heard nothing new from Google on the subject that this is more of a label set by the internet communities to define a filter that search engines use to determine spam sites.

There is no patent for such a thing in the name of Google, there are only a couple of patents related to this subject that are owned by Yahoo.

So in terms of proof that it exists, its pretty likely, it may not be called trustrank but I believe that there has to be something, especially in Googles algorithm that will account for out bound linking and its relevancy to spam technques.
Can I patent

Semantic Link Rank?


This http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/70607-advanced-semantic-linking-transclusion.html#post384523 is a semantic link (related to the topic discussed in this thread).
Is this an authority or trust or both link (http://www.google.com/)?

[inertia]

lol

Do you understand that linking out causes you to loose PR?

And that last year someone wrote a white paper about Trust Rank and no one ever proved it was being used.

I am leaving to bash my head against a brick wall. It will be more productive.

[crankydave]

Note Johns post cited above, more precisely:Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your searches. (Is this only related to SERP's?)[/LIST]

Yes, this is Google's premise for their PageRank however I don't see it as being automatically indicative of a "high-quality" site for this reason...

A site that recieves a single link from a PR6 page can indeed receive a PR5 as displayed by the toolbar. Is that site a high-quality site? Is it of higher quality than a site that receives hundreds of links but is only a PR3 as measured by the toolbar? Why?

Dave

[kgun]

Yes, this is Google's premise for their PageRank however I don't see it as being automatically indicative of a "high-quality" site for this reason...

A site that recieves a single link from a PR6 page can indeed receive a PR5 as displayed by the toolbar. Is that site a high-quality site? Is it of higher quality than a site that receives hundreds of links but is only a PR3 as measured by the toolbar? Why?

Dave


sophisticated text-matching techniques
may be (are according to the cited statement?) used to adapt / adjust the (final toolbar or internal) PageRank.
So the overall net effect of linking out may vary from context to context and be very difficult to measure. You know my opinion on univariate informal testing.

[janeth]

I am leaving to bash my head against a brick wall. It will be more productive.

I think for both of us, because for some reason you just don't get it. And thats really sad when you are charging people money for SEO work.

[inertia]

BASH BASH BASH!!!

Dont expand the issue by saying it's "really sad when you are charging people money for SEO work" based on one disagreement about outbound links! You are trying to damage my reputation by implying i shouldnt be selling SEO because we disagree about one thing.

I get what youre saying, outbound links loose your site PR - i agree! But i would rather google know I link out to valuable resources for my visitors than worry about some bloody PR!

Are you on drugs woman?!? Have you run out of glue to sniff?!

I think i should reiterate this point:

You are trying to damage my reputation by implying i shouldnt be selling SEO because we disagree about one thing.

[kevsta]

to be fair i don't think threads like this do anyone's reputation all that much good.

sure liven the place up a bit though... :)

[janeth]

BASH BASH BASH!!!

Dont expand the issue by saying it's "really sad when you are charging people money for SEO work" based on one disagreement about outbound links! You are trying to damage my reputation by implying i shouldnt be selling SEO because we disagree about one thing.

We are not disagreeing, I've tried to show you how the search engine work and what they are doing. You've argued with what you and others think might be true.

I would not want someone working off what they think or what others had told them. If they were working on my site. I would want them to work off what they know to be true.

You stated information as fact that was totally untrue and you do things on other people's sites because you think it might help.

But not understanding how thing work and letting your pride get in the way of your learning you stand a chance of doing more damage than good. The sad part is that it want be on your site but to a clients site.


I get what youre saying, outbound links loose your site PR - i agree! But i would rather google know I link out to valuable resources for my visitors than worry about some bloody PR!

When we started this thread you were linking out because you thought it helped your ranking.

You've made personal attacks and have accused me of things because you are unable to accept the fact that you had gotten some bad information.


Are you on drugs woman?!? Have you run out of glue to sniff?!

lol, I'd choose my words more carefully.


I think i should reiterate this point:

You are trying to damage my reputation by implying i shouldnt be selling SEO because we disagree about one thing.

We are not disagreeing, I've tried to show you how the search engine work and what they are doing. You've argued with what you and others think might be true.

I would not want someone working off what they think or what others had told them. If they were working on my site. I would want them to work off what they know to be true.

You stated information as fact that was totally untrue and you do things on other people's sites because you think it might help.

But not understanding how thing work and letting your pride get in the way of your learning you stand a chance of doing more damage than good. The sad part is that it want be on your site but to a clients site.

[crankydave]

sophisticated text-matching techniques
may be (are according to the cited statement?) used to adapt / adjust the (final toolbar or internal) PageRank.
So the overall net effect of linking out may vary from context to context and be very difficult to measure. You know my opinion on univariate informal testing.

This would neccessitate a change in the way PR is calculated. Since this statement by Google has been quoted verbatim since at least as early as 2003, using it as a citation for adapting /adjusting PR, internally or externally, would not be accurate IMO. That's not to say it's impossible for it to being done now just that the citation shouldn't be used for that basis since it's at least 5 years old.

Yes, I agree that it's possible the overall net effect of linking out can vary contexually and yes it is certainly very difficult to measure based on the information that is made available to us.

Dave

[crankydave]

I'm going to echo Mike's sentiments posted in another thread...

Play nice. I'll even say please... and thank you. :)

Dave

[kgun]

Yes, I agree that it's possible the overall net effect of linking out can vary contexually and yes it is certainly very difficult to measure based on the information that is made available to us.

I sign that quote with my WPW digital signature.

[janeth]

to be fair i don't think threads like this do anyone's reputation all that much good.

sure liven the place up a bit though... :)

I agree but since I'm not an SEO I've got nothing to loose. And I do enjoy a good debate. Although this one has about died out.

[janeth]

This would neccessitate a change in the way PR is calculated. Since this statement by Google has been quoted verbatim since at least as early as 2003, using it as a citation for adapting /adjusting PR, internally or externally, would not be accurate IMO. That's not to say it's impossible for it to being done now just that the citation shouldn't be used for that basis since it's at least 5 years old.

Yes, I agree that it's possible the overall net effect of linking out can vary contexually and yes it is certainly very difficult to measure based on the information that is made available to us.

Dave

I agree. Without all the information that Google is using there would be no way to test. And no way of knowing rather Google is using it or not.

As Dave has said before. I'd link out for my visitors and pass PR or not pass PR according to the way I feel about the sites I'm linking to.

As well as the number.

But I would not do it in hopes of getting an unknown boost on the rankings. Nor would I tell my clients it would help them to get ranked.

[Webnauts]

Am I also an authority site? Section 508: The Road to Accessibility (http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ServiceDetails&id=437)

Or check here some more: linkdomain:webnauts.net site:.edu - Yahoo! Search Results (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=linkdomain%3Awebnauts.net+site%3A.edu)

Hey, just kidding... :lol:

[Webnauts]

Hm, looks like Google are telling BS themselves: :lol:


"...Several people at the BlogHer session asked about linking out to other sites. Won't this cause your readers to abandon your site? Won't this cause you to "leak out" your PageRank? No, and no..."

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: BlogHer 2007: Building your audience (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/03/blogher-2007-building-your-audience.html)

I didn't say anything. Google did that. So please don't beat me up! :lol:

[inertia]

You've made personal attacks and have accused me of things

Cant find any, apart from my last post.




And you're here to protect Google? I'm sure Google will give you a cookie.

Are you making this up as you go along.

You should run for president you change like the wind.

Because for some reason you just don't get it. And thats really sad when you are charging people money for SEO work.


I apologise to all forum users for my last post, it was enticed by the generalised, off topic comments above. Apart from my last post I dont feel I made any personal attacks. Ill bow out now.

[janeth]

Hm, looks like Google are telling BS themselves: :lol:



Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: BlogHer 2007: Building your audience (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/03/blogher-2007-building-your-audience.html)

I didn't say anything. Google did that. So please don't beat me up! :lol:

It looks to me like an interview with Elise Bauer. I don't think Elise Bauer works for Google does she?

am I missing something?

[Webnauts]

It looks to me like an interview with Elise Bauer. I don't think Elise Bauer works for Google does she?

am I missing something?
Sure!!! Google is posting on their own webmaster central inaccurate information! Google, google ... :lol:

Sorry, but this is getting too ridiculous for me. In other words far below my level.

Anyway, I wish you all a nice discussion. :)

[crankydave]

Hm, looks like Google are telling BS themselves: :lol:


"...Several people at the BlogHer session asked about linking out to other sites. Won't this cause your readers to abandon your site? Won't this cause you to "leak out" your PageRank? No, and no..."

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: BlogHer 2007: Building your audience (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/03/blogher-2007-building-your-audience.html)

I didn't say anything. Google did that. So please don't beat me up! :lol:

LOL John...

But you left out this part of the quote that was in reference to "leak out"...


And PageRank isn't a set of scales, where incoming links are weighted against outgoing ones and cancel each other out.

Now, either the author doesn't understand what exactly PR "leak" is or they are addressing all those who misunderstand it and what a simple and very narrow concept it refers to. It's very easy to say it "doesn't exist" to all the folks that misunderstand it rather than to try and explain it. I've tried to do the latter but it's always turned into a full blown mess. Perhaps I'll try one more time for you John and see if it makes sense. :p


A page has a finite amount of PageRank it can pass to other pages.

That PageRank is passed via the links on the page.

Those links on the page can be external links or internal links.

Any amount of PR that is passed via external links is not passed within the site.

The amount of PR that is passed, or "voted" if you like, by the external link is commonly referred to as being "leaked" because it is not being passed internally.


Example 1... If all the links on a page are internal links then 100% of the available PR is being passed (voted) within the site therefore there is no leak.

Example 2... If all the links on a page are external links then all the available PR is being passed (voted) outside of the site therefore there is a 100% leak.

All a PR leak refers to is the amount of PR that is passed (voted) to external sites that is not being passed (voted) within the site. Anytime less than 100% of the available PR is being passed (voted) within the site, the amount that is not being passed (voted) internally is commonly referred to as a "leak".

Dave

[kevsta]

right, can we make this post a sticky for noobs please? this is the simplest most concise definition Ive seen.

i will be linking to this post and possibly plagiarising it for confused customers from now on ;)




A page has a finite amount of PageRank it can pass to other pages.
That PageRank is passed via the links on the page.
Those links on the page can be external links or internal links.
Any amount of PR that is passed via external links is not passed within the site.
The amount of PR that is passed, or "voted" if you like, by the external link is commonly referred to as being "leaked" because it is not being passed internally.
Example 1... If all the links on a page are internal links then 100% available PR is being passed (voted) within the site therefore there is no leak.

Example 2... If all the links on a page are external links then all the available PR is being passed (voted) outside of the site therefore there is a 100% leak.

All a PR leak refers to is the amount of PR that is passed (voted) to external sites that is not being passed (voted) within the site. Anytime less than 100% of the available PR is being passed (voted) within the site, the amount that is not being passed (voted) internally is commonly referred to as a "leak".

Dave

[janeth]

Sure!!! Google is posting on their own webmaster central inaccurate information! Google, google ... :lol:

Sorry, but this is getting too ridiculous for me. In other words far below my level.

Anyway, I wish you all a nice discussion. :)

You do not believe that links leak PR?

[Webnauts]

LOL John...

But you left out this part of the quote that was in reference to "leak out"...



Now, either the author doesn't understand what exactly PR "leak" is or they are addressing all those who misunderstand it and what a simple and very narrow concept it refers to. It's very easy to say it "doesn't exist" to all the folks that misunderstand it rather than to try and explain it. I've tried to do the latter but it's always turned into a full blown mess. Perhaps I'll try one more time for you John and see if it makes sense. :p

A page has a finite amount of PageRank it can pass to other pages.
That PageRank is passed via the links on the page.
Those links on the page can be external links or internal links.
Any amount of PR that is passed via external links is not passed within the site.
The amount of PR that is passed, or "voted" if you like, by the external link is commonly referred to as being "leaked" because it is not being passed internally.
Example 1... If all the links on a page are internal links then 100% of the available PR is being passed (voted) within the site therefore there is no leak.

Example 2... If all the links on a page are external links then all the available PR is being passed (voted) outside of the site therefore there is a 100% leak.

All a PR leak refers to is the amount of PR that is passed (voted) to external sites that is not being passed (voted) within the site. Anytime less than 100% of the available PR is being passed (voted) within the site, the amount that is not being passed (voted) internally is commonly referred to as a "leak".

Dave
I fully agree with your David. Very well explained. I hope you don't mind, but I had to give you a big Rep+ vote!

[Webnauts]

You do not believe that links leak PR?
I hope Kgun would have been here now. Maybe he will come later? Wait and see.
He will sure ask the question:

How came first? The chicken or the egg? :lol:

I think many here never understood what he always met saying that. But David answered that in his post above at point 1.

[janeth]

I hope Kgun would have been here now. Maybe he will come later? Wait and see.
He will sure ask the question:

How came first? The chicken or the egg? :lol:

I think many here never understood what he always met saying that. But David answered that in his post above at point 1.

I'm very sorry to be beneath you in my posting. I hope one day to be able to rise to your level.

[crankydave]

I fully agree with your David. Very well explained. I hope you don't mind, but I had to give you a big Rep+ vote!

Thank you John! I think this is the first time I'm been able to explain it where it made sense. :p


right, can we make this post a sticky for noobs please? this is the simplest most concise definition Ive seen.

i will be linking to this post and possibly plagiarising it for confused customers from now on ;)

And thank you very much kevsta! :p

Dave

[kgun]

right, can we make this post a sticky for noobs please? this is the simplest most concise definition Ive seen.

i will be linking to this post and possibly plagiarising it for confused customers from now on ;)
This is the traditional model and can be found in the important classic links about PageRank cited above. Pagerank is also nonlinear (logarithmic).

[TryUsOut]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. I respect each one's opinion and been wallowing on some good points that were raised throughout the discussions. However, this are all speculations for me (as we all don't exactly have all the facts there is to know on how search engine algo works) as I am not a firm believer of everything that I read. I do consider good points and some logical discussions - but I tend to weigh everything based on actual results.

Does anyone here has a site willing to make a little experiment on the following:
1. Linkout to so called "authority sites" or those that have a high trust factor (those having high PR) - so it maybe proven that linking out to such sites does or doesn't help in SERP
2. Do the same thing in number one and see after the next PR update if such links would affect the site's PR

This I think would be very interesting and should make a closure on some of the things that has been debated over this thread.

[kevsta]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. I respect each one's opinion and been wallowing on some good points that were raised throughout the discussions. However, this are all speculations for me (as we all don't exactly have all the facts there is to know on how search engine algo works) as I am not a firm believer of everything that I read. I do consider good points and some logical discussions - but I tend to weigh everything based on actual results.

Does anyone here has a site willing to make a little experiment on the following:
1. Linkout to so called "authority sites" or those that have a high trust factor (those having high PR) - so it maybe proven that linking out to such sites does or doesn't help in SERP
2. Do the same thing in number one and see after the next PR update if such links would affect the site's PR

This I think would be very interesting and should make a closure on some of the things that has been debated over this thread.

we're talking about the real PR flow which we cant see or measure, not toolbar which we can, but cant trust or believe, so it would prove nothing.

i have various experimental pages on my (mostly experimental) site where i've done this, and others where i haven't. but because they have different content and therefore compete in different searches and we cant measure real PR anyway its nigh on impossible to draw any firm conclusions.

i would say that linking out once or twice to wiki and the like doesn't hurt noticably. it may even help, but i doubt it.

i could remove the links, but one or two links would likely be too small a fraction of the available page PR to make enough difference to prove anything, especially with Google's permanent state of flux these days meaning the positions swing fairly widely day to day anyway.

i have PR4 pages with hardly any content performing in similar fashion to greyed out (toolbar) pages that have good content. (both launched same day strangely enough too)

all i can really state with confidence is that widespread use of nofollow in your own site doesnt seem to hurt rankings and occasional linking out to wiki and the like doesn't either.

you'd need a small site with a lot of external links off the index page to test this i think.