What Links Does Google Count?

[Dave Hawley]

Moderator Note: This thread has been split from Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks. In addition, other related threads on this topic worth reviewing are:

• What Does allinanchor Really Show?
• 10,000 Links or 100 Links...
• Can google stop link buying?
• How Fair is the Link Popularity Algorithm?
• Sig Link - Myth or Magic for Link Development
• Change To Link Bomb Sign Of New Link Analysis Shift?
• Link Building 101

It was really frustrating to real quality SEOs because they know all links are counted by google

If you mean counted toward PageRank they aren't.

[powerofeyes]

If you mean counted toward PageRank they aren't.

What do you mean??, Ofcourse all links are counted for Pagerank calculation, A pagerank 0 cannot transfer any pagerank but that doesnt mean it is not counted,

Do you have any proof for those words???

[Dave Hawley]

You can have 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) on the one site all pointing to the Home page of that site and you will only get PR passed from one of those pages. In other words, 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) coming from 10,000 different sites is worth much more toward PR than 10,000 from the same site.

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.

[powerofeyes]

Ok I just ignored those links when i replied, I should have said all links google knows about and values will pass pagerank,

we should exclude comment spam, guestbook links etc in that, Google had long back figured ways to ignore them,

Same sitewide links do pass pagerank but only a very little amount of PR which is negligible,

I am not sure about forums though i do see some forum signature links work still,

[Marcia]

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.

And blogs.

PR0 means less than PR1 if we're going by Toolbar PR, but 95 cents isn't all that much less than a dollar. If you save all your pennies and nickels in a big jug for a year, it may not add up to a fortune, but it's still a few dollars more when it's added up than when the jug was empty.

But it isn't all about PR, that's only portion of it; it's about anchor text. I've seen blog and forum spam where people posted links to their whole network of sites, including interior pages - all with the appropriate anchor text.

I've found a bunch of those links just recently checking sites' backlinks at Yahoo; the forum page itself had been pulled already so it was a 404, but the cached copy was still there and you could see the URLs when mousing over the anchor text links. Easy to see at Yahoo, they're relatively slow to update compared to MSN and even slower with purging pages that are gone.

Then there was the three-day wonder that did the quick Houdini disappearing act, with the PPC affiliate links and the blog links at the bottom that led to a whole network of blogs. There was a huge trail of anchor text, a whole network's worth, even with a smidgen of PR, or none that showed - which is another nifty tool for gaslighting SEOs.

[Dave Hawley]

I've seen blog and forum spam where people posted links to their whole network of sites, including interior pages - all with the appropriate anchor text.

Certainly no harm is doing that, but don't expect a boost in the SERP's from Google. Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.

Foum sigs and alike are totally self-serving and as such mean nothing for the SERP's. But hey, like I said, it's unlikely to do any harm and you may just get a customer to folllow the link.

[Chris_D]

Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.

Sorry Dave - could you clarify this for me? How do you actually KNOW that "the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text"? How can that relate to 'value'?

- If you buy a text link - then you usually get to specify the anchor text as part of the financial arrangement. Its usually a contract. Thats as direct as the site owner influence gets.

- If some one just gives you an inbound link for free without telling you - in my experience - they put your site name in the link anchor text (best case scenario) - or your URL - or worst case the anchor text is 'click here'. Value = Its free. Real value of inbound anchor text 'click here' ......

- If a personal friend puts a free link ftom his company's website to your company website - after calling you and asking you if its ok, and what you'd like the link to say.... then its also free = but it could also be valuable.

How does 'true value' come into this scenario Dave? What did you mean by "true value"?

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

You can have 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) on the one site all pointing to the Home page of that site and you will only get PR passed from one of those pages. In other words, 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) coming from 10,000 different sites is worth much more toward PR than 10,000 from the same site.

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.

PR may not be passed but backlinks sure are counted. Not all but some... have it happening to me from numerous places.

[Dave Hawley]

I said: Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text

Sorry Danny, if you please allow me to clarify this one point then I will drop it.

I'm am speaking in the context of forum signatures, Guest books, FFA site etc and any site where you can directly control your anchor text. These site will give little (more likely zero) PR and the anchor text will likely not help you in any Google SERP boost.

Now, for bought links etc, Google would undoubtedly have a job on it's hands trying to differentiate between natural links and those that have been bought for the sole purpose of PR and/or rank boosting. However, just because something is hard to do, one should never assume that Google do not try. As we are all aware now, Google is about the only SE that can/does freely deep crawl the web to the extent it does. It has pages in its database that other SE's simply cannot spider (for a number of reasons).

Google have (likely still do) invested BIG $$'s in PageRank and I highly doubt that they would simply throw their hands in the air over those that are buying links for PR and/or SERP boosting. I would hazard a guess that they have a small army of geeks working full-time plugging any holes that can cause the SERP's to become less relevant. SERP relevancy is the very backbone of Google.

PR may not be passed but backlinks sure are counted. Not all but some... have it happening to me from numerous places.

Yes, but counting backlinks alone does nothing toward SEO if the PR does not go with it. 1 million * 0 = 0

[Mel]

In my opinion I do not see PR as a necessary component of ranking in Google, sure it helps a miniscule amount, but I see no evidence whatever that the anchor text from a PR 8 page is ranked substantially different than the anchor text from a PR1 page. If anyone has some example that substatiates this suggestion I would be very interested in seeing it.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

any site where you can directly control your anchor text.

Dave, you may want to be careful making such broad unsupportable statements. Anchor text counts - the big issue is *how much* does it count. There are various apparent criteria in Google for evaluating the actual worth of any particular link - but claiming that such links have absolutely no impact on SERPs is a statement I believe many experienced SEO's here will flatly disagree with.

[Dave Hawley]

but claiming that such links have absolutely no impact on SERPs is a statement I believe many experienced SEO's here will flatly disagree with.

Yes I know that most SEO's will disagree (but not the wise ones), but I have proven it to myself many times over. Whether anyone else here agrees or not, is no skin off my nose. Besides, there is no proof being offered for most of what is posted here and other forums. Most statements (in regards to Google) come about as they have been said over and over so many times, those (that do not prove to themselves) start to think it's fact.

Believe or disbelieve, I don't care, but I will not be posting anything further on the matter in this thread at least.

[seobook]

>I'm am speaking in the context of forum signatures, Guest books, FFA site etc and any site where you can directly control your anchor text. These site will give little (more likely zero) PR and the anchor text will likely not help you in any Google SERP boost.

many search engines speak in ideals instead of how stuff actually works, but when it comes down to it there is no exact way to determine whether or not you control a link. if links were easily discounted based upon intent would Google Bombs still exist?

lots of sites have great ranking internal pages based on internal link structure. most pages are not strongly connected into the web. surely when possible search engines want to trust others more than what a webmaster says about himself, but they do weigh in many links that are obviously under the direct control of webmasters.

[Dave Hawley]

but when it comes down to it there is no exact way to determine whether or not you control a link

Perhaps, but perhaps not. I would say Google has no problems at all in distinguishing a FFA site, Guest Book, Forum Signature etc. I would also lean torwards them knowing a lot more about pages, sites, links etc that anybody here. SERP relevancy is their pride and joy and they have the resources and $$ to at least try and retain it.

if links were easily discounted based upon intent would Google Bombs still exist?

Google Bombs can exist on any page of any site, but whether they astually work depends on the page. For example, a Google Bomb will not work from a Forum Signature (I have tried at least 3 times).

lots of sites have great ranking internal pages based on internal link structure. most pages are not strongly connected into the web.

Unless there are no external links pointing to them and no text on the page, to these site you mention, how can you claim "great ranking" is due to "link structure" and not any of the hundreds of other factors Google uses?

surely when possible search engines want to trust others more than what a webmaster says about himself, but they do weigh in many links that are obviously under the direct control of webmasters.

Perhaps, but how much weight and which ones? I know that Forum sigs, FFA links and Guest Books are given zero weight.

If you were Google, and there is a 10,000 page site that has a link back to the home page on all pages (like most sites). Would you give credit for the anchor text and page PR 10,000 times over, or simply give credit once? I would give credit once based on the highest PR page.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

If you were Google, and there is a 10,000 page site that has a link back to the home page on all pages (like most sites). Would you give credit for the anchor text and page PR 10,000 times over, or simply give credit once? I would give credit once based on the highest PR page.

I think there is an inbetween. Search is not 100% binary.

some sites have recently ranked well in some major search engines based exclusively on guestbook links.

[Dave Hawley]

some sites have recently ranked well in some major search engines based exclusively on guestbook links

In Google? Is so can you send me the URL's?

[seobook]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

In Google? Is so can you send me the URL's?

I do not do tons of specific research on the various guestbook type techniques. the example I was thinking of was w MSN a few months ago, I have been told by some people that they are still effective in Google though...not for PageRank really, but for the effect of their anchor text on search relevancy. lots of various low power links add up in Google today.

[Dave Hawley]

Interesting. In the past, I have set up a page that is ONLY linked to via Guest Books and Forum signatures and used some very non-competetive anchor text. The page never showed in Google when searching for the anchor text.

I have been told by some people that they are still effective in Google though...not for PageRank really, but for the effect of their anchor text on search relevancy.

Don't believe all you are told, that includes me, set up your own controlled experiment and I think you will find Google totally ingores self-serving links when it comes to position in the SERP's

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

For example, a Google Bomb will not work from a Forum Signature (I have tried at least 3 times).

Interesting. In the past, I have set up a page that is ONLY linked to via Guest Books and Forum signatures and used some very non-competetive anchor text. The page never showed in Google when searching for the anchor text.

How much time did you give it, though? Time enough for indexing deep pages? How much did you consider sandbox issues? And from how many different IP ranges did you apply it to? Did you also remember to naturalise the anchor text?

[Dave Hawley]

How much time did you give it, though?

One was left for 3 months.

Time enough for indexing deep pages?

Yes, but it wasn't a deep page.

How much did you consider sandbox issues?

Yes.

And from how many different IP ranges did you apply it to?

One from myself. But there have been others that did a simliar test on other IP addresses.

Did you also remember to naturalise the anchor text?

Define "naturalise" ?

Care to share your answers to the exact same questions on your tests?