Backlink Analysis Strategy

[achronister]

Hi all. Right now I am working on doing a full analysis of my backlinks and I'm curious what everyone thinks about this scenario.

I can get the following data: linking url, linking domain, linked to url, and anchor text.

What I'm wondering is if you would base your anchor text percentages on linking domain or linking url?

(example: I have a few sites with sitewide links. Would you count the entire domain as one, or would you assign weight to each individual page?)

Aaron

[brian.mark]

I'd only count one per domain, unless you're looking at this from an MSN perspective. They are the only ones that seem to give you any form of link credit for every link on a site (such as forum signatures.)

Brian.

[digitallabz]

I'd only count one per domain, unless you're looking at this from an MSN perspective. They are the only ones that seem to give you any form of link credit for every link on a site (such as forum signatures.)

I agree with Brian.

Article Submission
Powerpoint Templates
Submit Articles

[Chris]

good to see you aaron. missed you in chicago.

i agree w/counting the one domain as well.

[achronister]

I'll go with the one per domain and see what I come up with. It should be easier on the crawler I wrote to parse the links anyway. Thanks for the feedback.

Chris - I'll be in NY in Feb for that one, we'll grab some beers this time.

[ADAM Web Design]

I'd only count one per domain, unless you're looking at this from an MSN perspective. They are the only ones that seem to give you any form of link credit for every link on a site (such as forum signatures.)

Brian.

http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/resul...nto+web+design

Keep it down, dude. That's working for some of us. ;)

Seriously, I too am finding 1 per domain seems to be about the limit for big G.

[sandis.viksna]

I disagry a bit,

First of all, it depends does the links goes to your home page, or your internal pages as well; if all links to your domain, then it is not too good since of dupe anchor text, but if your website gots bunch of different links with different texts to different parts of your site and is within the scope (subject), then this makes lots of sense and relevance!

Second thing, PR... is on-page factor that is being splited between links that are on the exact page so it should five you some bits of this too, especially if linked to different parts of site;

[sem-seo-pro]

Hi

I would have to say studying backlinks is a waste of time. Ssince nobody has a clue as to which links Google is going to give which value, what exactly are you studying?

Next the links were built in the past...even if it was an hour ago it's still in the past.. and as we all know you cannot go back and replicate the past.

Next while you are studying the past in a way... the present is reshaping... and changing the future.. tomorrow is the today you dreamt about yesterday..news happens, pages fall offline, servers crash, new sites are added, new pages are added, new links are built, others fall offline and all of which then changes the mathematics applied at the time to calculate the score, and since all of these factors are instant at the time of occurance, the scoring is impossible to determine exactly, and thereby leaves us to best guestimates....

To the extent that anyone could use the data to move pages to the front of Googles listings, by the time all the factors were considered, things would have changed again.

Dog chasing tail...??

There was a time the Internet could be best described as an animate static item that could be replicated for results, however those days are gone.. the Internet of today is alive as much as any of us are....what is there now will change soon.. it is invetable.. and all the supposition in the world won't change that.

Reciprocal links are dead.. would you agree?

So the only real valued link is a one way link??

Given Google has told us links age and lose value, then how do you determine the depreciation factor??

(Sounds IRS like.. ugh :-| .. )

Seems the best thing to do is produce quality content that sites will want to link to by themselves, as this is how the web was built, and how Google seems to be viewing things based on Historical Data Retrieval.

Happy New Year!

Clint

[achronister]

I would have to say studying backlinks is a waste of time. Ssince nobody has a clue as to which links Google is going to give which value, what exactly are you studying?

I'm using the Yahoo Site explorer API

Next the links were built in the past...even if it was an hour ago it's still in the past.. and as we all know you cannot go back and replicate the past.

I can use this data going forward

Reciprocal links are dead.. would you agree?

Agreed, but irrelevant. I didn't say I was looking at reciprocal linking partners, I am looking everything.

Given Google has told us links age and lose value, then how do you determine the depreciation factor??

Since when?? That's a whole different argument anyway, and I certainly don't recall Google telling anyone that old links count for less.

The goal of this exercise is to look at the total inbound links for a certain page on my site, and find out what anchor text is being used for each link. Say for instance I have a page with 600 inbound links, and 12% of them are using the same anchor text. I don't need to worry about this one as much as a second page with 75% identical anchor text. The point is when I go out to secure new links, I will know when and how to alternate my anchor text. If you don't think you can use data like that, I'd have to disagree.

Seems the best thing to do is produce quality content that sites will want to link to by themselves

Sure, that is always a goal. In markets like mine, and yours presumably, this strategy alone will not work to achieve the desired results. Linking currently is, and I believe will be very important in 2006. Linking strategies will have to become all the more creative.

Aaron

[amabaie]

Say for instance I have a page with 600 inbound links, and 12% of them are using the same anchor text. I don't need to worry about this one as much as a second page with 75% identical anchor text.

In either situation, you have obviously not been esuring enough variety. I would spend less time analyzing, and just keep doing what makes sense to do, regardless of the history.

Yes, sem-seo-pro makes some pretty outrageous claims, but the core message is sound. My personal opinion is to forget analysis and do what makes the most sense on its own.