Inbound link from home page or secondary page - which is better

[danieldot]

I feel that it is good to go ahead on creating natural links instead of creating site wide links. In recent updates Google has strongly said that it is not a good practice to dump your links site wide, especially in footer. It matter where you are you place your link. Think in this way, you are getting links from home page and in general home will have more URL when compare to other pages. Ideally you link will get less amount of credit.

If you get links from inner pages the link will be natural and it may get more credits when compare to the links from home page.

[LD]

In recent updates Google has strongly said that it is not a good practice to dump your links site wide, especially in footer.

Please supply a link to the page where this is stated.

[emils]

Please supply a link to the page where this is stated.

I have found this related article:

http://www.inc.com/aaron-aders/what-...in-update.html

Fragment from the page:

Site-wide links are typically links found in a footer or header of a website that appears on every page on the website. These links are considered untrustworthy by Google since these are typically from company-owned domains (not a true third-party referral) or paid link relationships. Matt Cutts adds, "We've done a good job of ignoring boilerplate, site wide links. In the last few months, we've been trying to make the point that not only is link buying like that not doing any good, we're turning the dial up to let people know that certain link spam techniques are a waste of money

Edit: But still looking for some video of Matt Cutts actually saying this.

[LD]

Site-wide links are typically links found in a footer or header of a website that appears on every page on the website. These links are considered untrustworthy by Google since these are typically from company-owned domains (not a true third-party referral) or paid link relationships. Matt Cutts adds, "We've done a good job of ignoring boilerplate, site wide links.

Even so, the key here in what Cutts is saying is that they are "ignoring boilerplate, sitewide links". This is not a penalty or significant devaluation by any means but more in line with a small calculation adjustment pertaining to on-page factors, if anything.

Really, if Google suggest a limit on the amount of links on a page (read somewhere it was around 100 links per page), how is a dozen links in the footer going to hurt a site? As long as the navigation structure is "sensible" (not keyword stuffed, does not contain dozens and dozens of link etc.), why not supply links to your visitors to allow them to traverse your site without having to scroll or click to the top of the page to click on a main navigation link?

[deepsand]

I feel that it is good to go ahead on creating natural links instead of creating site wide links. In recent updates Google has strongly said that it is not a good practice to dump your links site wide, especially in footer. It matter where you are you place your link.

The important distinction between internal and external links must be made.

Think in this way, you are getting links from home page and in general home will have more URL when compare to other pages. Ideally you link will get less amount of credit.

Having made such distinction, and understanding that the number of internal links on a page have an impact on the amount of PR passed by any link that is the equal of that of external links - i.e., it is the total number of links, without regard to what the target pages are, that determine the PR share allotted any individual link - it cannot be said that there will necessarily be more links on a home page than there will be on an interior page.

If you get links from inner pages the link will be natural and it may get more credits when compare to the links from home page.

In addition to to an interior page not necessarily passing more PR, for above stated reason, a link on an interior page is not necessarily more "natural." In fact, there is no objective measure of "natural."

In summation, it cannot categorically be the case that links from interior pages are superior to those from a home page.

[deepsand]

I have found this related article:

Fragment from the page:

Site-wide links are typically links found in a footer or header of a website that appears on every page on the website. These links are considered untrustworthy by Google since these are typically from company-owned domains (not a true third-party referral) or paid link relationships. Matt Cutts adds, "We've done a good job of ignoring boilerplate, site wide links. In the last few months, we've been trying to make the point that not only is link buying like that not doing any good, we're turning the dial up to let people know that certain link spam techniques are a waste of money

An example would be the links embedded in boilerplate templates, such as WordPress themes.

But still looking for some video of Matt Cutts actually saying this.

There is no video, as it was a remark made by Matt at an SMX Advanced conference.

[Fraggler]

As for being "natural," that is not a quality to be defined by an SE, but rather one to be discerned from its observations of real pages created by real people for use by real people..

But we are real people and can only judge based on perception, especially when little is revealed by how the search engine reacts to data. If the algorithmic changes over the last 24 months are anything to go by then Google is trying to pragmatically determine quality based on the real world.

...place the link where it will be most useful to your visitors.

Exactly!

[C0ldf1re]

... if Google suggest a limit on the amount of links on a page (read somewhere it was around 100 links per page)...

That was true once. According to a video I saw starring Matt Cutts (and naturally I don't remember the link to the video), that limit is long obsolete.

[LD]

That was true once. According to a video I saw starring Matt Cutts (and naturally I don't remember the link to the video), that limit is long obsolete.

If and when you do happen to find that video, please repost the link, with thanks.

[deepsand]

But we are real people and can only judge based on perception, especially when little is revealed by how the search engine reacts to data. If the algorithmic changes over the last 24 months are anything to go by then Google is trying to pragmatically determine quality based on the real world.

Absent true Artificial Intelligence, which first requires sentience, no machine can match human perception.

Google has a mess of its own making, and is flailing about desperately, trying to hold it together with chewing gum and twine.