Forum Signatures.

[Dave Hawley]

Over the last few weeks there has been a "debate" raging http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=19547 over whether Forum Sigantures boost the Google ranking of pages that are linked to in the signatures. A vast majority (or at least a vocal majority) said that both anchor text and the link itself DO boost Google rankings in the SERP's..

I myself (it was me VS the world :) am far from convinced that they do and believe that Google would not use them to boost the ranking of the page (linked to in the forum signature) in the SERP's. My reasons are stated on about page 4 or so of the thread linked to above.

Two of the most vocal who state they do (Mel and Janeth) agreed to try an experiment. The experiment is simply this. Although they both insist they have already proven this to themselves.

Anchor Text = "Altavision"

URL = The one in my sig with the anchor text: Altavision

PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO THIS PAGE IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM AS THIS WILL RENDER THE EXPERIMENT NULL AND VOID

Google Search Query = Altavision

"Altavision" was picked by janeth and agreed to by myslf and Mel. It it also uncompetitive and not anyhere in, or on, the page being linked to. For the page to be shown in the Google SERP's for: Altavision Google would have to use the forum signature pointing to it. BTW, my post count here (over 400) is the number of forum signatures links pointing to the page.

Today I noticed that all my new pages were starting to show PR and a sample of links pointing to these pages. The one in question is showing quite a few on many of the major SE. Some are even showing 3 links to this forum site which can only mean they have picked up the anchor text and link. Don't simply take my word for it, see also here: http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=20906

However, there is still no sign of the page being shown on Google for: Altavision.

It might still be too early to say either way. However, it would appear something should have, or should soon, start to show should Forum signatures boost Google rankings.

BTW. I have no problems admiting if my theory is wrong and will do so here if it is proven.

[janeth]

Dave Hawley,
At this time it appears that you where 100% right and I was wrong. I have learned something new and I do agree that sig. links carry little if any power.

[Dave Hawley]

Hi Janeth

I honestly appreciate that you are willing to say this in this thread. However, let's wait another week, it's impossible to know just how Google works at times.

[Dave Hawley]

Your thoughts Mel?

[tiger1]

Maybe it has nothing to do with the text links being forum sigs. - rather that these forum pages have near to zero PR? And a whole lot of outbound links. Therefore links are ineffective - sig. or otherwise.

Although this page is showing PR3 - this is very likely to be a false reading.

As discussed here:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...er=asc&start=0

[Dave Hawley]

With 493 links pointing to the page, all with the very uncompetitive term "Altavision" in the anchor text, is unlikey to be anything other than, Google does not use self-serving forum sigs to boost rankings.

IMO Google is too smart to leave such a gaping whole in their multi million dollar algo.

Mel also insisted that ALL links from all pages were used by Google to boost rankings. This is simply NOT true.

[ADAM Web Design]

Wow. Reading this is like deja vu all over again, eh Dave? :)

I've personally suspected that Google has been diluting forum links since the Florida update. I do agree and disagree with the thought behind it; while forum links are self-serving for the most part, one who posts frequently to a site with a home page that has a high PR driven from primarily external links (again, since forum pages themselves are diluted) should have some sort of compensation for his/her time and trouble. I've always felt that Google, among others, should calculate something like this exponentially, where the curve really takes off after say 1000-2000 posts. This avoids the stigma of "1000 self-serving posts on 1000 forums with the sole purpose of backlink popularity in mind", while still rewarding those who contribute to various communities.

So yes, I agree that Google has patched a gaping hole in their algo, but may have gone a bit too far.

I also don't believe that it's forum sigs specifically that are being targetted, but forums in general. After the opening page, a good many forum sites seem to either end up with 0 PR or none at all (as in a grey bar). This doesn't just occur on the threads, but on the forum opening pages themselves, which usually have direct links from opening pages with high page rank (5 or above) as well as all links from the tops of all thread pages.

So Dave: I agree with you completely that sigs are being diluted, but it's not just the sigs that are the root cause of the issue. It's forums in general that seem to have been targetted.

By the way, that's a good idea you came up with there!

[tiger1]

<<<<<<<<
With 493 links pointing to the page, all with the very uncompetitive term "Altavision" in the anchor text, is unlikey to be anything other than Google does not use self-serving forum sigs to boost rankings
<<<<<<<<
You have proved nothing - other than possibly that 493 links from mostly PR0 pages have little effect - be they forum pages or otherwise.
And I doubt 49,300 links from PR0 pages would make any difference.

[greeneagle]

Gasping for air - tiger, I thought you noticed that most of the forums here have advanced to a PR3 recently?

Ken

[tiger1]

<<<<<<
I thought you noticed that most of the forums here have advanced to a PR3 recently?
<<<<<<
If you are referring to the "little green bar" saying 3 on this page - the reading is probably false. As the page is just over a day old.