How much does the context of a link really matter? In today's Whiteboard Friday, Rand looks at on- and off-topic links to uncover what packs the greatest SEO punch and shares what you should be looking for when building a high-quality link.
For reference, here's a still of this week's whiteboard!
Video Transcription
Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're going to chat a little bit about on-topic and off-topic links. One of the questions and one of the topics that you see discussed all the time in the SEO world is: Do on-topic links matter more than off-topic links? By on topic, people generally mean they come from sites and pages that are on the same or very similar subject matter to the site or page that I'm trying to get the link to.
It sort of makes intuitive sense to us that Google would care somewhat about this, that they would say, "Oh, well, here's our friend over here," we'll call him Steve. No we're going to call him Carl, because Carl is a great name.
Carl, of course, has CarlsCloset.net, CarlsCloset.net being a home organization site. Carl is going out, and he's doing some link building, which he should, and so he's got some link targets in mind. He looks at places like RealSimple.com, the magazine site, Sunset Magazine, UnderwaterHoagies.com, Carl being a great fan of all things underwater and sandwich related. So as he's looking at these sites, he's thinking to himself, well, from an SEO perspective, is it necessary the case that Real Simple, which has a lot of content on home organization and on cleaning up clutter and those kinds of things, is that going to help Carl's Closet site rank better than, say, a link from UnderwaterHoagies.com?
The answer is a little tough here. It could be the case that UnderwaterHoagies.com has a feature article all about how submariners can keep their home in order, even as they brunch under the sea. But maybe the link from RealSimple.com is coming from a less on-topic article and page. So this starts to get really messy. Is it the site that matters, or is it the page that matters? Is it the context that matters? Is it the link itself and where that's embedded in the site? What is the real understanding that Google has between relationships of on-topic and off-topic? That's where you get a lot of convoluted information.
I have seen and we have probably all heard a ton of anecdotal evidence on both sides. There are SEOs who will argue passionately from their experience that what they've seen is that on-topic links are hugely more beneficial than off-topic ones. You'll see the complete opposite from some other folks. In fact, most of my personal experiences, when I was doing more directed link building for clients way back in my SEO consulting days and even more recently as I've helped startups and advised folks, has been that off-topic links, UnderwaterHoagies.com linking to Carl's Closet, that still seems to provide quite a bit of benefit, and it's very had to gauge whether it's as much, less than, more than any of these other ones. So I think, on the anecdotal side, we're in a tough spot.
What we can say is that probably there's some additional value from on-topic sites, on-topic pages, or on-topic link connections, that Google has some idea of context. We've seen them make huge strides with algorithms like Hummingbird, certainly with their keyword matching and topic modeling algorithms. It seems very unlikely that there would be nothing in Google's algorithm that looks at the context or relationship of content between linking pages and linking websites.
However, in the real world, things are almost never equal. It's not like they're going to get exactly the same anchor text from the same importance of a page that has the same number of external links, that the content is exactly the same on all three of these websites pointing over to Carl's Closet. In the real world, Carl is going to struggle much harder to get some of these links than others. So I think that the questions we need to ask ourselves, as folks who are doing directed marketing and trying to earn links, is: Will the link actually help people? Is that link going to be clicked?
If you're on a page on Real Simple that you think very few people ever reach, you think very few people will ever click that link because it just doesn't appear to provide much value, versus you're in an article all about home organization on Underwater Hoagies, and it was featured on their home page, and you're pretty sure that a lot of the submariners who are eating their subs under the sea are very interested in this topic and they're going to click on that link, well you know what? That's a link that helps people. That probably means search engines are going to treat it with some reverence as well.
Does the link make sense in context? This is a good one to ask yourself when you are doing any kind of link building that's directed that could potentially be manipulative. If the link makes sense in context, it tends to be the case that it's going to be more useful. So if Carl contributes the article to UnderwaterHoagies.com, and the link makes sense in context, and it will help people, I think it's appropriate to put it there. If that's not the case, it could look a little manipulative. It could certainly be perceived as self-serving.
Then, can you actually acquire the link? It's wonderful when you go out and you make a list of, hey, here's the most important and relevant sites in our sector and niche, and this is how we're going to build topical authority. But if you can't get those links, hey that's tough potatoes, man. It's no better than putting a list of links and just sorting them by, God knows, a horrible metric like PageRank or Alexa rank or something like that.
I would instead ask yourself if it's realistic for you to be able to get those links and pursue those as well as pursuing or looking at the metrics, and the importance, and the topical relevance.
Let's think about this from a broad perspective. Search engines are caring about what? They're caring about matching the content relevance to the searcher's query. They care about raw link popularity. That's sort of like the old-school algorithms of PageRank and number of links and that kind of thing. They do care about topical authority and brand authority. We talked about on Whiteboard Friday previously around some topical authorities and how Google determines the authority and the subject matter of a site's authority. They care about domain authority, the raw importance of a domain on the web, and they care about things like engagement, user and usage data, and given how much they can follow all of us around the web these days, they probably know pretty well whether people are clicking on these articles using these pages or not.
Then anchor text. Not every link that you might build or acquire or earn is going to provide all of these in one single package. Each of them are going to be contributing pieces of those puzzles. When it comes to the on-topic/off-topic link debate, I'm much more about caring about the answers to these kinds of questions -- Can I acquire the link? Is it useful to people? Will they actually use it? Does the link make sense in context? -- than I am about is it on-topic or off-topic? I'm not sure that I would ever urge you to prioritize based on that.
That said, I'm certainly looking forward to your feedback this week and hearing about your experiences with on-topic and off-topic links, and hopefully we'll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.
Rand, I hate to break this issue down in such simplistic terms, but I think the question is not that complicated if one starts to think more about good, old-fashioned marketing and less about SEO -- which I frequently argue that we need to do as Google gets scarily smarter and smarter and whose rankings in the SERPs more and more reflect the results of (in part) doing good marketing and PR.
(Why? To quote Alan Bleiweiss: "SEO is Google's algorithmic attempt to emulate user experience." If your website delights your target audience on a personal and technical level, Google will reward you.)
Here's the question I use: Is this website read by my target audience? If the answer is yes, then you want mentions and/or coverage -- i.e., that which results in links -- on that website. It's as simple as that.
A basic example: If I sell camping equipment, then I want mentions and coverage on sites that are read by camping enthusiasts. I could care less about getting a mention on a website about knitting -- no matter what its Domain Authority may be. The time spent to acquire the link on the knitting website could be spent on getting a mention on another camping website -- see the economic principle of opportunity cost.
In a general context, a lot of Moz Q&As are on the topic of what types of links to "get." Here are the three additional questions that I suggest that people ask themselves:
1. Would I want this link if Google did not exist? (i.e., would the link send me valuable referral traffic anyway?) This is another way to look at the "do my target customers read this website?" question.
2. Is this link on a page and site that is curated by a human who is an expert in the field and who does not accept each and every submission? (Such as: Is it an exclusive, short list of the best local restaurants or an article by a reporter or blogger who is an expert in the field, industry, or sector?)
3. If this link is being paid for, does it not pass PageRank (i.e., is it a no-follow link that adheres to Google's guidelines as such)?
If the answer is "yes" to all three questions, the link is usually safe and good to get.
But in the end, my best advice for people who want to get links is this: Stop thinking about links! If you start thinking -- yes, again -- like good, old-fashioned marketers first and foremost, the best and greatest numbers of links will come as natural by-products.
Stop thinking about how to get links directly and think about how to do marketing, PR, publicity, and advertising that will result in links naturally. Otherwise, you're thinking about the destination and not how to get there.
Good points, well made. I'm just hesitant to the fact if you told SEOs to "stop thinking about links" half of them wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
Well, as I outlined in a recent Moz post on the marketing department of the future, I highly suggest that SEOs start to learn how to do PR and publicity. (I included some resources in the post.) :)
That's the reason why my SEO agency hired me, I didn't have a clue about SEO (except for what it stands for) but I'm a PR professional with a journalism degree. I just focused on creating a PR campaign in the digital space for each client and has resulted in some really good links and in turn rankings.
From my point of view, which is certainly biased since I work for a (primarily) link building firm, I think your mostly on point Samuel. I've seen the SEO/link building industry shifting away from a pure link or technical focus to more holistic marketing for inbound traffic growth. If you look at the presentations at SMX West, seems like half of them were "content marketing" focused - including ones put forth by myself and coworkers.
But I disagree that people should "stop thinking about links." I do agree that good SEOs need to be thinking more like marketers, but marketers need to be thinking more like SEOs as well.
When brainstorming content, you should be doing the audience research and part of that audience research should be looking for people and websites that may want to link to the piece of content you're producing.
When you're making the piece of content, you should make it visually appealing, easy to read, informative, with a clear URL structure, optimized title/header tags, internal links, etc - so that people feel good about linking to it, and when they do your site can get the maximum benefit from those links.
And finally when you promote your content (which is tying into your points on PR and publicity), you should be outreaching to those people you identified in your audience research and that you made the content for with the intent and hopes that they will share and link to your piece of content.
As Rand said in this whiteboard friday on audience research, (bolding is my own) "...It's probably going to help with links. Links will lead to rankings. Rankings will lead to being higher up in search engines when professional meteorologists search for precisely, "I'm looking for weather tracking software or weather notification software." So these kings of things are long term and indirect. You have to make sure you're tying together all of the benefits of content marketing with your business goals that you might achieve..."
TL;DR - So to sum up this comment that got way too long... I disagree that we should stop thinking about links or link building. Link earning and building should be an intentional part of a content marketing strategy. I do agree that SEOs need to be thinking more like marketers, and I definitely agree with the three questions you ask yourself. I use variations of the same when vetting sites for links.
I do agree that good SEOs need to be thinking more like marketers, but marketers need to be thinking more like SEOs as well.
I concur. But here's the issue. A lot of SEOs are being unintentionally disingenuous when describing what they do.
In a similar thread on another website, I described publicity and PR as doing this:
Audience research and identification > Media outlet research > Messaging and Positioning > Press release and pitch creation > Pitching > Measuring results
In response, someone replied: "That just sounds a lot like linkbuilding." (Others say "outreach" or whatever buzzwords are popular now.) And I almost threw a digital fit. That process existed for decades long before the Internet ever existed. It's called "doing publicity." But today, I see "linkbuilders" attempting to do something similar and then selling and calling it "linkbuilding" as though it were something entirely new.
And that's why it's unintentionally disingenuous. "Linkbuilders" are actually (in part) doing publicity -- not the other way around because publicists existed long before "linkbuilders." And that's disrespectful to the PR industry that has spent decades crafting strategies and doing research into how to get publicity and coverage -- and, yes, links as by-products today.
That's why I'm so passionate about encouraging our industry to call it what it really is. It's being honest. But I fear that "linkbuilders" don't want to rebrand as publicists because then they'd have to compete with publicists that have done what they do for decades. The alleged unique-value proposition then disappears.
Almost any "white-hat" linkbuilding method that anyone describes to me is actually publicity by another name. If you are communicating with someone to get attention on a website (or media coverage or whatever), you're actually doing publicity.
Over the years, I've seen and done both PR and "linkbuilding" (the latter via the old and new methods everyone here surely knows). My recommendation to clients today is that they hire publicists over most "linkbuilders" any day of the week. If you're going to end up doing publicity (by any name), it's best just to hire PR experts who have done it forever.
Here's why. A client at a prior agency hired us for both SEO and PR. The SEO work was to start a month after the PR work. What happened? The entirely-new website ranked at the top of the second page for a competitive, short-tail keyword solely as a result of the PR work during the first month that resulted in major news coverage. And that was before I had even touched the website.
PRs and SEOs are both a part of content marketing when we're talking about internet marketing, which has a goal to build brand awareness and online engagement. Link builders are a part of SEO, who specialize in being able to point links back to a piece of content or website for the purpose of improving online search engagement.
Do PRs/publicist do that as well? Sure. But links usually are a by-product and not a focus, which leaves a lot of room for improvement and why it's great to see that the SEO and marketing industries are finally starting to work in tandem more.
I just don't understand the idea of "stop thinking about links" and the "if you build it they will come" mentality. Whoever is doing the work should be thinking about links as a piece of the content marketing pie. Notice I say a piece. Link building is no longer a stand alone endeavor and slamming links just feeds the misinformation and FUD that surrounds SEO.
And I would argue that if you had done the SEO for the client first and gotten the website in order it might have been in a better position to capitalize on the PR efforts and the site could have ended up on page one after the PR initiative... especially if part of that PR initiative included getting links ;)
And I would argue that if you had done the SEO for the client first and gotten the website in order it might have been in a better position to capitalize on the PR efforts and the site could have ended up on page one after the PR initiative
I agree! But the decision over what the client would do and when was "above my pay grade." :)
I'll reply more tomorrow since it's late here in Tel Aviv.
Are you seriously thinking that SEO is part of Content Marketing?
That is wrong as it is saying that Content Marketing is part of SEO.
Madre mia, I think we are confusing too many things.
As an industry (of digital marketers), we do throw many terms about without ever agreeing on what those terms actually and specifically mean. :)
Gianluca, was just trying to say that we're working under the same banner, we're just calling it different things.
Surely... But I think that "words" are important. If we are not clear even between us, then how can we pretend that clients can understand the difference between one thing and the other, and the relation between different digital marketing disciplines, and how to use them synergically?
are you agreed with me that nowadays to talk of back-links sounds like the topic"how to kill dinosaurs" during the Ice Age?
IMHO if Google wants to deliver better and better results it will need to leave behind back-links and all the digital PR activities, like SEO factors.
Back-links and any signal from PR activities are easy to manipulate and won't indicate either the topic or real value of the content. The New Scientist reported that a Google research team illustrated a search engine structure based on (KBT) Knowledge Based Trust. This will be our future: SEO will work on I.A. (information architecture), mark-ups (schema.org) and entities based page optimisation.
specialize in being able to point links back to a piece of content or website for the purpose of improving online search engagement.
By doing what, exactly? Please be very specific. Almost every specific form of "linkbuilding" that I have seen has been marketing, PR, public relations, publicity, or advertising by another name.
But links usually are a by-product and not a focus [of PR], which leaves a lot of room for improvement
Improvement in what, exactly?
I like your camping example, but what if the knitter that links to you is talking about camping when making the link? If we really distill what a link is--a recommendation, a reference, a resource, a read further--we get to what made Back Rub so powerful in the first place, it was an algorithmic way of saying, "Hey, see this thing here? It's pretty good."
At present Google has gotten better and better at associating more variables and signals into those traits that were proxies for trust and reputation. To a large degree Google 'knows' how reliable and factual a site or blogger is. Is the knitter and knitting websites gong to make up the bulk of camping sites links? Doubtful. But a one off link saying, "I used this camping thing from this camping store and it was great while knitting outdoors this weekend" from a high trust source goes in the great link column of my book. There's still a science to it, but it's getting closer and closer to human expectations all the time.
Thumbs up for a great response! Yes, I think you are correct.
My hypothetical example was just in general terms. If you sell X, then you want mentions and coverage on sites that are visited by people who like X. BUT -- this is where research and strategy comes into play.
In my prior Moz posts here and here on (in part) PR and outreach, I discuss media research. Part of the process is researching what websites (and what specific writers, reporters, and bloggers at those sites) are relevant to you. The research may, in fact, reveal that writer X at the knitting website is also personally interested in camping. If that's the case, then I'd certainly suggest pitching that specific writer as far as coverage or whatnot.
Thanks again!
You're welcome Scott. Like I said I enjoyed what you brought out in your example, in general terms. True. The tweak I made was that the link was editorial in nature because the knitter made it as an aside, but to be a little less so it wouldn't be horrible if the link was part of a conversation from a commentator asking her about her camping weekend either, again if legitimate. Even still I doubt a site like that would land on the radar for the camping site's outreach strategy and wouldn't target it as such myself. It's just fascinating that the science behind Google and SEO is at the point where the machines have a level of trust, turthiness, and reputation associated with sites and authors that would still qualify the knitter's link as a good one.
It's an interesting intersection that I tried to expand on more in my overall comment on this post, "I had my, 'EXACTLY!' moment at 4:30 in..." where it's the consideration for the people on the other side of the screen that really does make the difference. The tweak there? The better Google's machines become, the more personable their results.
Hi Samuel, I think your reply to Rands blog is right on the dot. Things are going to get simpler and simpler but that doesn`t mean it is getting to be easier. It just make more sense that "SEO is Google's algorithmic attempt to emulate user experience."
Hi Rand,
nice topic for a WBF.
Personally, if I have too choose between on-topic and off-topic, I'd choose on-topic links, especially because of the semantic consistency between linking and linked web sites, not just because of internal topical matching, but also because of the topical nature the link profile of the linking site may have.
On the other hand, I do also have a wide definition of on-topic, as I do not consider on-topic only websites, for instance, strictly about Paella/Cooking if I'm trying to earn links for a "Paella-Infographic". On-topic would be also cooking sections in web sites that have a broader topical spectrum (i.e.: a news site).
This is also the philosophy behind the Topical Trust metric of Majestic (and that is why that is a good starting metric to use).
However, I think that we should not discard (maybe with a crazy disavow syndrome attack) links that are apparently off-topic.
For instance, if that Paella Infographic is linked by a travel blogger, who loves Spain and decided to use it for celebrating the amazingness of that Valencian recipe, I'd highly value it, because it would be surely contextually correct and, more over, it wouldn't be really off-topic because cooking is also culture and a strong facet of tourism too, therefore it still has a sense also for topical models Google may have and entity recognition. Finally, if that post also offers Google great engagement signals, even better.
I am fully agree with wide definition of on-topic. I don't care about what the domain is about, I only care about the context of that web page from where my link is coming.
But to be honest, all these arguments coming to one point, is the link adds value there or not? Simple! Rand has done a White Board Friday on value adding content. The same thing extends to value adding links. Is the link helps reader to know something or do something regarding the context? If yes, then it is quality link.
But when you are earning links, you never know or control what kind of links is coming. So I value all my links and I think somewhere they are helping me in ranking because no one knows how Google algorithm considers co-citation and co-occurrence. We all know "Google Bomb" (a classic case of bad co-occurrence)
I will try to further expand the on-topic thing, and introduce another variable in the equation. The ideagraph. If blog about e.g. fishing get link from blog about SEO, that's off-topic link. But if Google's ideagraph shows that people who like SEO also like fishing, how will Google consider such link? Probably relevant (relevant for users).
Very interesting WBF, Rand.
In my opinion we are confusing two different things: off-topic domains and off-topic content.
If we need to answer the three questions posed by Rand, we can conclude that we 'need' to place our link on an on-topic content, but this does not mean that the entire web where is found that on-topic content has to be also on-topic.
That is, we should base this searching for on-topic links on a content criteria better than on a domain criteria.
And if we add Gianluca's contribution about the semantic benefits of on-topic links, I think we can say we prefer, of course, on-topic links than off-topic links.
Thanks for starting an interesting discussion.
I agree - it seems that "off-topic" in this sense is being conflated with something much more old school/black hat. My company ran a competition for law students and the page we created for this has gained numerous links from universities as a result.
We're not an educational institution and we have no dealings with that sector on a day-to-day basis, but the links were undoubtedly on-topic in context even if our respective domains would appear completely different at first glance.
I think making sure you can answer positively to one of those 3 questions posed by Rand (particularly the first two) you'll be on the right track.
Interesting discussion. We actually *heavily* tested this last year and found that there were 4 categories of results:
1) On Topic, Strong Links
2) On Topic, Weak Links
3) Off Topic, Strong Links
4) Off Topic, Weak Links
We also found that the actual overall strength was 1, 2, 4, 3. Off Topic, Weak Links still added some value. But the stronger the off topic link became, the worse effect it had.
Category 3 actually started taking sites DOWN with it. If we had a strong but off topic/spammy link, it hurt the site more than helped. We tested a few "generic PBN" sites that had decent effect on some sites, negative effect on others. It seemed to stem from relevance with what went up & down.
So yeah - in our experience weak off topic links help you. But a PR5 PBN with articles around construction will hurt a photographer more than help them (tested, repeated twice.)
Hi Matt,
Sounds fascinating and scary too! I would love to see this published as a case study.
I have so many case studies to write up but I always end up running another test instead of writing up the results. haha It has to be one or the other with as busy as I am. You're correct, though - would make a great post.
Matt, I think would make a fascinating YouMoz write up -- if you ever have the time, I'd certainly consider it! :)
Thanks for the info and sharing the results. Appreciate the heavy lifting you did there for us.. the test must have been extremely time consuming.
Intriguing WBF. My experience is to educate and implement as per WBF - only way to do it - regardless of what works at present as I believe as google continually refines the algorithms it will get to the state where it can differentiate between on-topic and off-topic links. Why set yourself for a downgrade. That said off-topic links from high domain authorities even out of context I find still have strong positive impact. Keen to hear other views.
Popover video does not work very well for some of us down here in South Africa. The speed is very slow, please give us the option to run the video in a smaller block as you usually do.
Thank you.
My rule of thumb is - if you belive you are getting in front of your audience with a link you expect people to use to cone to your site then it is a good link. Users first then google
I agree with David on Users first then Google.
Great post!
All of us thinks yes but is necessary this kind of analysis.
i agree with you... jose
Definitely agree on the angle of attack with On-Topic links. Most blended sites, such as newssites and magazine sites, will have a bunch of different content, and off course, a link should come from a relevant area IMO.
I hope that Google makes On-Topic links more valuable than Off-Topic. A link should off course contain the basic relevance to the content, but it is not always black and white.
Thank you for a good WBF Rand!
I had my, "EXACTLY!" moment at 4:30 in Rand. Being able to honestly answer the question, "Will the link actually help people?" is key to any link building efforts. Even better is when you're getting the link editorially in these scenarios, and even more so via positive reviews, as you're likely to see referrals AND conversions from that variety... Still being able to add, "We've done some research on this here and found this conclusion," on a page that furthers the conversation for a given topic is likely to bring in referrals just as much as it's likely to add value in the search engines.
Hi Rand..
First let me say thanks for this WBF..
Rand, I want to go in depth with this on topic & off topic links..
Like I have a website offering website design & SEO services for business all across the UK. Now My target audience is small to medium business who can get benefit of digital world. So I have decided to contribute a series of articles industry wide( e.g. Travel & Hospitality, Fashion & lifestyle, home decore etc...) Now If one of my article( published in website blog) liked by a travel entrepreneur or travel business guru and he shared it in his website. Then the link I will get from his website is On-topic or Off-Topic?
Is Google consider such link as a valuable link? where no one article related web design or SEO.
I am sure people who are in travel business or willing to start travel business read my article. But will Google give me credit for my effort?
Thanks #Rand Fishkin for this white board. i was looking for this.
As you told relevant inner linking plays vital role in SEO. so, i want to know what if a site based on News articles or something other where all the articles are totally different to each other. Let's see here is the example page https://howpk.com/how-to-rotate-video-in-vlc-media-player/
you can see it is a multi niche website mostly related to news articles and tech stories. but their inner link are not too much relevant...so i want to know is it impact on my site SEO negatively or not?
It's pretty much on topic every time for me.
Consider this, my cousin was travelling from the UK on her own to go backpacking around Australia, being in her twenties I can imagine it would be an exciting opportunity although a scary one in the same instance. To cut a long story short she did a lot of research about backpacking in Australia prior to coming out ensuring she wold be covered from all angles whilst also knowing the great places to go and stay.
Would you really want a link from a knitting company or someone who sells cars in the UK, or, would you want a link from the likes of trip advisor or a backpacking company or other travel bloggers that specialise in backpacking/travel.
The only reason I would consider a link from an un-related niche was if it was ranked real high and they had recently wrote a viral article of some sort related to backpacking, but would it be worth the trouble you may ask yourself.
Comment marketing is real ? I always treat it as spam.
"Comment marketing" (though I hate that phrase) is very real -- but it's probably not what you think it is.
It's not posting spammy links and trying to sell stuff in comment threads. It's something else.
Here's a personal example. Whenever I see a Moz essay from the community that touches upon a topic that interests me, I take the time to write a lengthy, thoughtful response here -- the goal is to help the community and not promote myself. I only very, very rarely cite something that I have written -- and only then when it's very relevant to the topic at hand.
The goal of my comments -- I hope, at least, because I know I'm a bit controversial -- is to encourage and foster real discussion on the issue at hand.
And you know what? I've gotten a lot of benefits from doing what I do -- but those benefits are just nice, indirect, by-products that are nothing I even pursue directly. One comment of mine led to a Moz staffer inviting me to write a YouMoz post to expand more on what I was discussing. I wrote the post, and it got attention that led to speaking engagements, consulting offers, website traffic, social followers and more. (Because people are interested and check out my community profile to learn more about me.)
But that was never my intention in the first place. It was just a nice by-product. If you contribute to a community -- whether it's Moz or anywhere else -- out of a genuine desire to help the community, the community will reward you tenfold.
And "comment marketing" is just one way to do that.
Fantastic Article! It’s a very good topic,I learn a lot of from it.Thanks, keep writing!
The old question about causation. Well I guess like Rand said correctly: It is basically to complex to know the correct answer. The better question is: If I would be Google, what would I do? It is a bit of guess work but this is what we are left with. I think if I would be Google I would check the surrounding text and if it is on topic I would rank those Links higher. And if the whole site is on-topic I would give it an additional bonus. But how much would this bonus be so that it can not be so easily manipulated? I guess if it would be a lot we would have a more definite answer to the original question of this White Board Friday.
I'd agree that asking whether the link is useful to people (and will generate clicks) is the most important question to ask. If it's useful in that location, then it's relevant and valuable. Google is smart enough to look at the surrounding text to see if it makes sense there or not (regardless of the topic of the site overall).
Thanks rand for explaining about off topic and on topic links smoothly, I wonder that how you manage to post such great post on different topic on every Friday, hats-off for that. i think link that pass value to the reader will also have the green light by crawlers..
Usually I stick with the on topic approach, coming from a fearful background knowing that on topic should stay future proof, whereas off topic may work for a while, until the big search engine decides otherwise. But the realist approach for building the links for the now, while be it off topic but beneficial is maybe a bit more risky but definitely realistic approach at least as it seems from your findings Rand. Hmm...
Vadim - I think if you're "building" links in the old school way (i.e. finding places on the web to submit, doing things like guest posting and article marketing, etc) you're at risk no matter what. On-topic links that are "built" but not truly editorially endorsed or ones that come from sources clearly meant to manipulate/influence the link graph rather than provide user experience value are still probably targets for Google's webspam team in the long run.
What I'm saying in this WB Friday is that if you are "earning" links (see this WB Friday), worrying about on-topic is probably too limiting, and there are plenty of reasons and plenty of value in thinking broadly about where links, endorsements, shares, and connections can be made.
Yeah I was thinking about the old school ways when I said that. But "earning" off topic links is not completely risk free and future proof either, right? I guess that where I am coming from, but thinking this way is not practical either, and I understand that.
Thinking broadly, I think is spot on though when it comes to link building, and should be the name of the game.
I disagree - I think "earning" editorial links of any kind, on-topic or off, has no long-term risk from Google. If you do something that others feel is worthy of sharing/linking, you're doing something right and no matter where those link come from in relation to your site's topic, there's value.
Rand, If you remembered than couple of months ago someone has manual penalty issue and unfortunately the link has been earned from Moz blog. So, What's you thoughts on same as you stated that editorial links has not long term Google risk!
Hardik, I'm not Rand (of course), but I just wanted to jump in.
I'd suggest that you read Danny Sullivan's comment on the post that discussed the situation in question. I'll excerpt here (emphasis in bold is mine):
The fact a link comes from Moz isn't an issue in this. Nor is it fair to say that Google wants sites like Moz to nofollow all guest links.
If Moz was the issue, Moz would have gotten a penalty or seen some decline in its rankings, in the way that some guest blog networks have. That hasn't happened to Moz.
More important, the notice you got says nothing about Moz being bad. In fact, if it were a Moz thing, people who guest post on Moz would be inundated with such emails. Moz has hundreds of guest writers over the years, but there's no sudden storm of such notices.
The problem is with your site, scottwyden.com. Google doesn't like it, in particular because there seems to be a pattern, from what Google sees, of unnatural linking.
What I have observed in most of the cases, On-topic links bear more importance then the other ones. Anything that can help a reader digest fruitful information in a better way, in our case a relevant link, can matter in ranking. I have experimented with different types of link building which has backfired a number of times but this is how I managed to learn that an On-topic link always give you fruitful results.
I'd be happy to say this is very nice blog which will help many SEO professional for customize a better "Linking" page strategy. I think by this linking process, Links are evaluated before they are posted, so you will not see your link immediately on the links page.
Great WBF Rand! I'm happy to see that your thoughts on on vs. off topic sites align with mine (mostly cause it makes me feel smarter :-).
When talking about this subject with clients, I usually throw out an example like NY Times or Huffington Post--examples of sites that Google probably wants to trust THE MOST in terms of an editorial link, and also LEAST likely to be seen as being on the same topic as, well, pretty much anything they write about.
I just can't see Google giving any extra credit for links from a site that's on a similar topic--however, I can definitely buy that Google would care that the PAGE was talking about similar topics.
Let's presume that as part of Google's relevance (or Panda, maybe) algorithm, they use presence of commonly co-occurring terms as a measure of how relevant that page is for a given term (and/or how likely the page is crappy, over-optimized, keyword-stuffed-till-your-eyes-bleed spam). It would make a ton of sense to use that same bit of logic to decide if there was a decent intersection between the topics and commonly co-occurring terms between the two pages. Think of how good a job that would do at separating out real, useful recommendations in things like forums from plain old forum comment spam, for example.
Great WBF! I think the question, "Will the link help people?" is a great rule of thumb for link-building. This prevents you from becoming spammy/selfish.
Hi Rand,
It's a great post. I prioritize links on the basis of users, when I have to choose one link from the two sources like your example I ask myself which link will provide more quality users? The link which will provide more quality users is the more authority link. For me, it's less about the site relevancy vs. the page relevancy, it's more about the user quality.
I would be looking forward to your feedback.
Rand, this was one of the funniest presentations I've seen from you. It was also intensely enlightening and educational as always. It's interesting to see what the comments focus on and the rift in opinions about link building. What you present in this WBF is very straightforward and clear: if it's useful and contextual (and possible)--do it. If not, don't. Not super complicated.
Thanks again.
Hi Rand,
What if we are building content in our niche in order to create landing pages for the queries that visitors ,might be searching for and not creating any keyword based targeting? Google Humming bird is clever enough to grab the intent of the search query and show pages which are relevant to that. So building just topical links is not the only way to think in 2015. We all need to answer the queries related to our niche and that's the only way we add value to our profession and clients. I also agree that we need to have topical links if you really care about Keyword ranking. Topical trust metric discussion is something I have yet to explore. What do you think?
Yup... what you describe is correct, but actually not the topic of this WBF, which about the value of link in external sites, no about creating topically optimized content in our own site.
And links, whatever some people say, still matter a lot in how Google determines the value of a web document.
As Gianluca said, links still matters. First page of SERP has only 10 listings and what if 20 websites have optimized their content nicely? Links and other off-pages signals are as important it was. Off-page signals and their weightage change but still must to rank.
Rand, I am confused in "content relevance to the searcher's query" and on-topic. I mean, if we publish contents or links on-topic, the rate of content relevancy will increase and better chances of getting organic traffic instead of using off-topic.?, I like the point you raised in this whiteboard, that people do not actually focus on if we post contents on-topic because they are already have the information but still the rate of relevancy factor is ticking in my mind. I'd be glad if you could tell me?
Thanks for a new topic on which i was not actually focusing on.
So in a nutshell:
Raw off-topic, trusted links help significantly, but on-topic, trusted links help even more.
Article very nice! Matt-pop is right!
Sorted by rilevance:
1) On Topic, Strong Links
2) On Topic, Weak Links
3) Off Topic, Strong Links
4) Off Topic, Weak Links
For me 2 particular things seem to be the most interesting out of all this information.
#1 engagement metrics (whether this link will be clicked or not).
#2 links from high authority and high traffic websites can be more important than links from niche pages or niche websites.
Breaking down the value for the user and if the link would feasibly occur naturally are factors that we lend more emphasis to - if these are covered off they tend to be on topic anyway!
Your hair! :)
Thank you for this. It's good to see what other SEOs experience. From my experience website authority and trust matters the most. If you get a link from CNN, it doesn't matter if its relevant or not it will help you regardless.
My immediate thoughts on this relate to the local search landscape. At SMX West, Andrew Shotland (@LocalSEOGuide) said that "Local Directories are still hanging in there post-pigeon, but niche local directories have exploded." - via @ShahMenz
I think this illustrates the importance that Google is putting on being more relevant (on-topic) to your niche. Being linked to from your industry and your general location will continue to help you rank better in local search as well as regular search in the future as Google continues to evolve.
Hey Joseph, I think the term "exploded" may have been taken out of context. What we did see is that the niche directories tended to do better than the general directories and in one case there was definitely an "explosion".
Certainly no one has ever suffered from being super-focused on their main topic.
Well tweets are meant to be exaggerated, aren't they? ;-P
I think the niche directories are overlooked because they are not usually integrated with the big local submission platforms, thus giving them more differentiation power.
Hi Joseph,
The key is to be aware of the context of all of what Andrew was describing (along with other speakers Adam Dorfman and Greg Gifford). The session was specifically about the changes seen with the advent of "pigeon" and correlation between links within targeted localities and visibility. As I remember there was actually mention during that session that off-topic links from within the specific locality could be considered helpful in reinforcing local relevance as opposed to building topical relevance.
Thanks vrisko for clarifying. While I hope to accurately convey what speakers are sharing when I live tweet, takingstatements at face value can definitely be a limitation. Anyone interested in digging deeper can take a look at all of the presentations from the session here:
Andrew Shotland: How to Turn Pigeon Poop into SEO Gold
Adam Dorfman: Pigeon Droppings and Onpage Performance
Greg Gifford: Learning to Live with Pigeon Poop
Sha
Hey Sha, thanks for the clarification. Interesting point about local off-topic links, which could have been another point for this WBF.
Don't worry, no one takes tweets as 100% accurate, especially live ones! No one can listen/comprehend/tweet perfectly on the fly! Thanks for bringing some of the #SMX knowledge to the rest of us.
Yes, On-Topic Links are Important for SEO Point of View......Because relative on topic links only increase the click through rate.....Thanks for Nice WBF Rand.....
Very spot on WBF rand! I agree on not signing either of the 2 theories.
Topical links/mention are certainly good especially when authorities within your vertical recommend your site. I personally find great value on off-topic links. Let's forget for a second about links and Google algorithm, the reason why they are so valuable to me is because they can help to grow the awareness of your brand in niches which may not be your core market.
In looking a this mentions/links I very much very much consider if the site that is referring to the brand shares somehow the same values and how the mention adds value for both the site and the brand target audience. As you said not every site if the same and not all the links are the same, off-topic useful mentions/links offer the opportunity of having brand coverage where direct competitors are not competing.
Excluding any doggy tactics, the ways to get to this links/mentions can vary a lot, I thinks the best way to earn them is to forget what we know about Google algorithm and do some healthy marketing.
In my experience, both types of links have their own pros but what you really have to do is step back from the SEO perspective and look at it from the business perspective. So you build some sort of directory link that has nothing to do with what the company does (just an example. We all know that's a no go) and then build some sort of local sponsorship or an association related to the service. With the local/association link, you are not only adding to the authority of what your site does or where it's located, you are also increasing the type of relative traffic that your site is obtaining which makes it way more valuable.
Hello!
A link on-topic usually more valuable than an off-topic link. On a page that is dedicated, for example, car sales, a link to a page replacement tires will be more relevant if we put a link to a page of gardening.
Once in my business offered me put a link to it had to do with the topic of my business. At first I hesitated, but then I decided to try to see how it went. The following month, the employee, told me to remove it because it did not get the clicks he thought. Personally I do not like putting on my page things that are not somehow related. And after trying this time I decided that I would do it.
That does not mean that an off-topic link does not work. But from my point of view, it is better not to do, or at least, not abuse.
Big Whiteboard Friday!
The post appears to be "interesting" but seamlessly dangerous the way Google is turning up these days. Link does make difference but then your website, its content and its usability to the target audience matters a lot. I own a website go4hosting.in, and we keep building links in its niche domain every day, and the ranks keeps deviating each day.
1) Can anyone help with an idea how to keep your ranks stable ?
Google still looking for quality backlinks. So anyone have idea how we can generate quality backlinks without spamming.
Something new at whiteboard Friday. It is catchy Thumbnail. I think links that coming from on topic is more valuable than off topic because it looks more realistic with full off related content.
I am confused to understand this topic.. I have a question that getting on-topic content links or getting related domain links?
Please give me a suggestion.
Thanks!!
Thanks for your post! It is very interested.
Great article!
The problem of Off Topic links is that most of the cases they do not look natural and if your website is manually checked they could penalize your domain because of "Artifical links".
I found much more value in on-topic backlinks than others.. actually, on topic links were much more valuable in pretty similar contexts (new pages, first backlink, etc.) .. This is why, in my modest opinion, I suggest, when possible, using on topic links inside well written articles and authoritative websites (ie article marketing). thanks for this great wbf!
Hmmm... I'd generally suggest avoiding article marketing. See this WB Friday on the topic. I have no doubt that if you're doing old school link building (like submission sites, article directories, article marketing, guest posting, etc) you're seeing better returns with on-topic vs. off-topic links, but IMO, long term, those tactics as a whole are risky, and Google's trying to shut them down.
I guess 'guest posting' still works if done on on-topic (from same vertical) websites and we get links in same manner.
"Guest blogging" only works if you do it with a purpose.
Are you publishing short, crappy posts in countless places -- topical or not -- merely for the purpose of getting links? If so, then you are a spammer.
But are you contributing valuable, original articles to authoritative websites that are read by your target audience? Then, you're doing actual marketing -- even though such articles were called "by-lined articles" long before the Internet existed and SEOs renamed them as "guest posts."
Google / Matt Cutts was teaching us ( The Poor SEOers) with their algorithm/Update and announcement time to time that please stop old School Link building ( Directory submission, Article Marketing and yes Guest Blogging also)
Ummm...mmm! Then what about Youmoz author links, Rand? :)
Youmoz has the purpose to let people know more about the author of the post. That, IMHO, is enough for making that link contextual. Then Moz could decide if making that link follow or nofollow, and there it comes the "merit" consideration. If someone is able:
then that author have more than proved that he is an authoritative source, hence the followed link.
I agree and I never have any doubt about Moz and its content quality and link policy. But still it happened that one of the author got warning. To be honest, what I believe is, Penguin is more about link patterns in bulk instead of ethical or not. And yes of-course about those link networks which was helping in bulk linking.
Not necessarily, Penguin can detect single unusual link too, you need to think with a reader's perspective if a links fits within the context it is a legit one.
You're still doing "article marketing" in 2015?
That's why I stopped telling people a long time that I do "SEO." It's things like this that will always cause people to view "SEOs" as spammers.
I agree, it is scary that some of the old ways still exist. I also wish that clients didn't ask for these methods. I feel like I spend just as much time explaining and defending white hat tactics as I do implementing them.
We stopped saying we do SEO as well.
And that's so sad and somehow meaning surrendering to the snake oil sellers
That's the point, Gianluca. I'm proud to do SEO and if I have to educate customers explaining them the whole meaning of that word, it's not a problem for me; I understand it as a part of my work.
Abel and Gianluca, here's what I mean.
Whenever I meet with a potential client to talk about "SEO," he or she always opens with "how can I rank first in Google for X"? Every single time. (Granted, this is Israel -- it might not be true where you are.)
I say, "OK, wait a second!" I want to discuss their marketing strategy, branding, messaging and positioning, and unique value proposition first. But they always come back only to ranking first in Google. Every single time.
I politely decline to work with them. I stopped branding myself as an "SEO" and saying I "do SEO" (which is a bad phrase anyway because SEO is not a verb). Today, I talk with potential clients who say they are interested in "marketing" and/or "communications."
Sadly, by taking "SEO" out of the equation, it just saves me a lot of those headaches. I don't like that fact, but it's a fact -- at least where I am.
And I really think it's partly our fault. SEO, we must admit, began years ago as, yes, a way to rank highly in Google. But the smarter that Google got, the more we are thinking like traditional marketers. But that initial industry branding will always remain.
I do the same, but explain what SEO really means and always meant, and that their idea of SEO isn't really SEO, but looking for trick.
And I commit myself to same educational procedure when it comes to social media, saying that engagement isn't the same as saying collecting Likes.
Or that content marketing is not about producing an infographic because all like infographics.
I am an SEO and Inbound Strategist, and very proud of being both and to have both in my "professional title". And that's because I always put users at the center and because my "tagline" is SEO = Search User Optimization since much more before people like Matt Cutts made it mainstream.
Gianluca, if you have the patience to educate people on what "SEO" really means -- then you have even more of my respect! :)
Unfortunately, I don't have the patience. I've talked with people here for hours over several days, and they still refuse to change their mindsets. So, I've moved on from "SEO" gigs here because it's just not worth the time.
And it does make me sad.
Again, it's just my experience. Everyone's mileage may vary.
I agree with Gianluca. One of the biggest problems we SEOs must face is about educating our clients and make them understand that SEO, in the actual moment (but I like to say always), is more about build trust and authority than just ranking. I know it's difficult, mainly because it is more difficult to establish its value from an economic point of view, but we must not give up, because, in my opinion, a well educated customer is someone who knows to value your work better.
Yes, am agreed article marketing is not much workable now days. But guest posting is helpful but on relevant topics or blogs...
https://www.ytssolutions.com/Custom-E-Commerce-Services.php
LOL... What about "comment marketing"?
not comment marketing "comment spamming" :)