I'm back home from a day's trip to San Francisco. Despite the 3:30am wakeup time, it was a good day - 8 hours of talking SEO with some very smart, talented people. One of the many subjects we discussed was passing link equity and I think there are valuable lessons to be learned for everyone in the search marketing (and web development) space.
Let's start with a look at the typical patterns of external link equity that flows to sites:
From experience, most of are familiar with this pattern. Our best content (or at least, our most Linkerati-appealing content) receives most of the inbound links. Meanwhile, more e-commerce or business focused pages receive very little link love. A great example is SEOmoz itself. Our premium membership page might be a page we'd like to be popular and rank well for queries (still need to do the KW research for that) but, it doesn't attract many external links, while our Page Strength Tool (which doesn't target any particular search phrases) has thousands of inbound links.
Of course, not everyone's site falls into these patterns, which isn't neccessarily problematic, but can be an indicator of less-than-positive traits.
As you might imagine, the pattern above could be a red flag to the engines that something's "funny" with the site. Maybe it's just a very small site (a restaurant or a local business), in which case the patterns might make sense. However, if it's a large e-commerce or content site, a pattern like this suggests that there's a lot of "link building" to the home page, but not much interest in the content from the linking community.
The key takeaway is twofold, first - to build up a link profile that shows that both your site (homepage) and content (deep pages) are interesting to linkers and second - that those "mountains" of link-rich pages need to help their link poor, "valley" friends with some internal link juice love.
In order to help these valleys, the mountains need to link, but how? where? when? Let's take a look:
As you can see from the diagram, PageRank, the classic model of link flow through pages on the web, doesn't work the way it used to. The toolbar is an awful predictor of PR flow, and even though some remnants of the PR model may be in use at Google (and similar algorithms at the other engines), it's certainly not the end-all, be-all of linking practices. However, we still want something like this:
Here are the "best practices" on the subject from my perspective:
- Use Google's Webmaster Central to sort link numbers to your site's page - make a list of everything that gets more than "X" links (in our case, we'd probably use something like 500, but for less-well-linked-to sites, that number might be 10
- Determine the "valley" pages that need link juice and their relevance to your various "mountain" pages. You don't want to add links that are completely irrelevant and off-topic, and ideally, you'd even want to convert visitors from those link-rich pages into viewers of your link-poor pages.
- Use relevant, accurate anchor text from the "mountains" to the "valleys"
- Double-check with an outsider - do those links still look relevant and valuable to visitors? If not, refine and try again. You want to pass the link-juice, but not at the price of losing usability & potential inbounds to link-rich pages.
In the old days of SEO, this practice meant linking from every page on the site to help pass the maximum PageRank, while limiting the total number of links on a page to as low as possible (to take advantage of the odd weighting system of the PR algo). Nowadays, a system like the one above will produce far more positive results.
Obviously, at SEOmoz, we're doing a generally terrible job of following our own advice on this issue, but we'll get there :)
p.s. For anyone who's emailed me since Saturday, I do apologize for the slow response - been very busy dealing with re-building a presentation, booking a single-day rountrip flight and giving a seminar. I'll be back to my usual responsive self by the end of today (only 132 emails to go!)
if you wear a sombrero de negro, you'd link bait a page for blue widgets content, get some links and then down the road 301 it to the page where you sell those blue widgets
I have been thinking about this a bit recently because while I would like 301s to 'just work' so that moving domains and pages is easier, I think this kind of thing is just a bit too easy.
If I were working on a search engine algorithm, I think I'd be looking at the rate of link acquisition before the 301 and afterwards to see if it was legitimately moved or re-worked or if something darker in colour was afoot.
I'm assuming from your comment that you are still finding this is working fine at the moment? I keep being tempted to dabble.
Must. Stay. Away. From. The. Dark. Side.
Worked perfectly during the dave P thing a few weeks back.
Yeah - fair point. Thanks.
Thumbed up for "sombrero de negro." :D
A similar approach may be to identify feeder pages that could draw links, an interim between the home page and ideal target page.
It may be too challenging to get an IBL to one specific deep page, but a page or two up from there, might be easier and make more sense.
Say you have a tool or article that you would really like to get links to, but maybe it isn't compelling enough to get others to link to it. It might make more sense to suggest they link to your main tools page or a sub-topic page for articles that their audience might find particularly interesting. You could at least then funnel some of this attention to your target page through internal links.
Rand... forgot, maybe you need to create an affiliate program for Premium Membership.... that ought to boost your IBLs to the Premium Content page quite a bit ;)
Here's a great tool idea (and this one's free :) ).
Rand, that mountain peaks illustration is a great way of visually seeing what's going on with the links on your site.
It would be cool if there was a tool that would check the inlinks to a site and build a graph with peaks like that to show peaks and valleys.
You guys at SEOmoz could probably easily put it together and add it to your collection of tools.
Great idea! Feel free to email your future stuff to me!
That tool would be nice, but if Vanessa Fox of Google is reading this, she will probably create one in like two seconds for webmaster tools :)
hehe, hey feedtehbot, do you live on this site or what? you have the most comments here i think.
for those of you reading the spanish blogosfere as well, I translated this post with the permission of Rand, and you can find it here!
https://bloggerprofesional.com/2007/05/23/crea-un-resumen-semanal-e-incrementa-el-pr-de-tus-paginas/
I've been away for a month with our new baby, so I'm joining the thread late, however, the reality is that both Rand and Matt are right. You can improve rank of interior pages via better on-site link flow, but this will not work for every site in the same way, or at all, and you need to be careful about how you do it, becasue it can send a signal of manipulation if overdone. It's a case by case, site by site thing. I can say from experience that some sites can dramatically impact search rank using on-site link flow only, while others can't, and others will need more tusted IBLs or it wont matter what they do on-site. While it would be nice to be able to define a set of metrics and absolutes for concepts like link flow, you really can't without taking into consideration many other factors. Link flow is like tapping a keg of link juice. You can point the tap at someone who is already drunk or completely sober, but drink too much link juice and you could end up at Krystal at 3am with the cops after you...
See "Are You In The Circle Of Link Trust?"
Eric Ward aka LinkMoses
Been an active reader for a while now, but finally created an account :)
In anycase... I work for a company that has listings for some 70000 buildings in Oslo, Norway. In order to get the site on search engines I created a sitemap (https://www.igglo.no/sitemaps.xml) and an HTML-version (https://www.igglo.no/sitemaps/). Building + Ad pages have been turning up on Google (and friends), so things seem ok.
Most of these pages probably never will have any links to them ++ our search is 100% AJAX (at the moment). We've only been active for a few weeks or so, but the only incoming links we're getting is to the front page.
Do you thinks such a site could be problematic?
I can't see many people linking to their own home house (stalkers, man!), but I think a natural way to increase links to building pages would be to encourage businesses, etc. to use our page as directional pages.
This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately with a client's ecommerce site. As Google starts penalizing (or, at least, de-emphasizing) search results within search results, we need to target searches more and more to our "product" pages (events for us, property listings for you). Of course, since those bits of information, while content-rich, appeal to only a tiny number of people, link-building can be tricky. We used to co-brand our search, but not only did that meet with limited appeal, but it led to duplicate content issues. I'm now exploring creating very targeted subsets of featured results and delivering those to niche sites (say, events in a specific industry near a specific city for a chamber of commerce site). I'm not quite sure how that translates for you, but there must be something equivalent.
I will say that the benefits of this sort of deep link-building are becoming readily apparent. I've managed to get Google to search directly on some of our product pages, and the long-tail results are very strong. Google gets the direct information it wants to display, that information is appealing to users, and they end up jumping into our site 2-3 levels deep, increasing their conversion rate. This process isn't easy, but it's worth the trouble.
Janit, I share similar experiences with you. Again I have ensured for a leading games site, we have created individual xml and human readable sitemaps not only for the site as a whole, but for content heavy areas also like games news. Due to pages being updated more often than others, we discussed having one large sitemap and felt having a general sitemap for the main site and having a specific sitemap for frequently changing pages would be a better approach. Been running for a few months now with positive results.
A truly excellent post. I tend to side with Rand in the Rand v feedthebot discussion (and not just because ftb is creeping up on my Moz-point score way too quickly).
There's definitely a benefit in implementing ideas like this whilst still keeping one eye on how algos may change (as Rand mentioned, the old site wide links scheme just don't seem to work anymore) - but if this is done with the user in mind as much as the SEO (as Rand recommends), it has got to be worth doing.
Anyway, gotta go - need to work out where to put those links!
PS - Rand; did any canny marketers from Puma get in touch? If they were following Will's advice on conversation monirtoing they'd have been on it like a rash. But then my experience of trying to get a new Yahoo! pen (no, really) suggests that a lot of people don't practice what they preach...
RE:
Obviously, at SEOmoz, we're doing a generally terrible job of following our own advice on this issue, but we'll get there :)
This seems to be true for most facets of business. When I worked lawn maintenance, I never mowed my own lawn. Now I am working diligently on freelance style SEO services, and my site is the worst I ever see.
I appreciate the guideline on targeting trouble points. So simple, and I never thought about it.
It's like they always say
"The shoemakers kids go barefoot."
And your lawn? mowed weekly now?
Sorry, just had to ask :)
I totally agree with you. I dont understand why this is though.
Okay. I get it. Thanks!
hi everyone,
Can anyone recommend a tool (free or not) that provides a great visualization of internal links on a site?
Best,
Gradiva Couzin
Nice article, not quite what I was looking for, but that is probably down to my poor search engine usage!
I was looking for a succinct definition of 'Link Juice' to pass onto a client and typing link juice into Google got this lovely number 2 result -I have a well-honed phobia against number 1 results :-)
Obviously, using my 'vast' experience of long tail searching (practice what you preach) I should have typed 'short link juice definition'.
So, now having not actually saved time by writing the definition myself, I have also added on 10 minutes reading this article and actually making a verbose comment in response.
But love the mountain analogy, so I say it was worth it and will definitely use in my next client meeting!
Very relevant advice. Really inspirational.
Nice Post Rand..
Thanks for sharing. But I would like to ask one thing here that I didn't understand the recent Google PR tool update in which all the PR checker tools stopped working. What was all behind this??
Good article Rand. The mountain analogy is so true. But I'd pick you up on one thing (which is my personal approach to these things and highly debatable)...
You say that you should use a link juice heavy page and use it to link to a "poor link" page which you want to promote. Whilst I agree with that (the logic stands up and the spread of link juice is likely to help the poorer page). But I would strongly suggest that people work out why others are linking to one page over another and use those reasons (usually assumed) to improve the quality of the poorer page.
Your heavy linked to pages (despite not being key phrase targeted) tend to carry tools - hence why people link to them directly. A promotional/sales page is less attractive by its very nature.
Using the SEOMoz tools (via Link Juice App if you're on an iphone!) people can work out what's working and whats not with a mixture of anchor text and inbound link volumes to particular pages. The anchor text is a great give away to how someone describes your content.
Love this blog and the writing style. Keep up the good work.
You always amaze me with the quality and depth of knowledge in each and every article. I have a question about PR and link-juice.
I just purchased a PR6 rank site with approximately 16K inbound links indexed by Google. We will call this site "A". I have a second site that is an ecommerce site (Site B - the money site) that I want to improving its ranking in Google and Yahoo. It's inbound link strength is poor, but it has over 250K pages indexed in Google and over 2M pages indexed in Yahoo.
Would it be better to link from Site A to Site B, or redirect all links from Site A to Site B?
Sould I be more concerned with maintaining Site A pagerank or links to the money site?
Thanks again.
Hey Rand,
Thanks for the great post. It's been a while since I've read a really solid yet basic approach to spreading page rank through a site.
I think most sites these days and unfortunately a lot of SEO's still use the old method of spreading PR and trying to get deeper pages to rank well.
The diagrams are also pretty killer.
Scott iSearch Media
Thanks for the reminder Rand. I have several posts that have gotten some link love over the months, but I haven't taken advantage of those pages by spreading the links around. I think in my case it's just a case of laziness in not wanting to go back into old posts and edit them. You've got me thinking, though about where those pages could best link to.
On one of my sites I have a small area at the bottom of each page that lists 3 random links to other pages in the same category. The reason I implemented this was to try and get visitors to read more pages per visit. The problem that I see (maybe it's not a problem) is that each time the search bots fetch my page the links will most likely be different than the last time they fetched my page. Is this a bad way to implement rand's advice? Should I choose 3 specific pages that relate the most and leave the links alone?
Hi, thanks for sharing, this article was very interesting for me.
I'm not sure how relevant this is, as I think you are focusing on direct links, but what is the effect of linking to every page from every page via a site map? Could this just dilute page rank (i.e. and extra link), or does this do a worthwhile job of spreading 'link-love'?
Regarding a page with 10,000 links spreading it's link-love - when linkbuilding, is it better to focus one's efforts on one page, which links to other key pages, or to divide your efforts among the key pages?
Cheers.
Thanks Rand - very useful info. Duncan and I were discussing this very thing yesterday because we are getting in-links to our blog posts (e.g. top 10 strategies to improve your online reputation) when we really want inlinks to the reputation monitoring tool in all honesty.
I think this also combines with your advice earlier about keyword cannibalisation - if you set up your information architecture right, a lot of this should follow, right?
Following the comments above about the colour of hat here, I think this is an area where intent is all and the most important thing for me to know is your experience that this works - which I can combine with common sense about how Google may or may not view it.
Wow, great looking site, I was about to write a youmoz entry about how to listen, and apply the things you hear in a community like SEOmoz. One of the main points I was going to make was about how so many people don't do simple things like looking at the profiles of other members of the community.
I enjoy your comments, and yet I had not looked at your profile which makes me dummypoo.
I look forward to going through your site at length. I am going to go practice what I, er, was thinking about possibly preaching and check out everyones profiles.
Thanks ftb. Hope you enjoy looking around - give me a shout if you have any questions / suggestions for our tool. I am always loathe to link to my own stuff off the comments here (even though they're nofollowed) because it's a bit self-promotional but I know I don't get into people's profiles as often as I'd like so sometimes it's good to have direct links out of the comments.
I am glad you did
Seriously man - what time-zone are you in? Isn't it the middle of the night in the states?
;)
It is 3:30 here, I have had my 45 minutes of sleep, I am ready for a new day :)
Told you - a machine.
Totally....
For me 3:30 AM is still the same day. The new day doesn't start till sunrise. Of course I've often found myself still up at sunrise and then it gets really confusing which day it is.
Great post Rand!
I have been working on building links from backdoors which are "mountains" and then link from there to my target "valleys".
I second the idea of creating a tool that shows this "landscape" as far as links go for a given site. Also to be able to track the evolution of links over time for particular targets.
Rand your website has been a great help to get my feet wet in the world of SEO. I had the opportunity to attend the conference in NYC, and I learned a lot. Now I just have to figure out where to start. We definately need help in the linking cateogry. This was a great Post!
Cferrier,
If you need help understanding/strategizing/implementing link popularity, then I really do suggest becoming a premium member. The article on link-building alone was worth the money. Pair it with some really amazing tools (though there seems to be a slight problem with the crawl tool) it is definetely money well spent.
Thanks JGar,
I will definately take that information into consideration. (i.e. ask my boss)
Rand are you saying that intra site links can balance extra site links (inbound links) from external sites?
So if i got 10,000 links to my homepage by hook or by crook, all i need to do is spread the internal links in my site to make all pages more equitable?
This is not a long term tactic Matt Cutts would recommend.
cvos - Matt probably wouldn't recommend it, but I do - it works! I doubt SEOmoz would be a particularly valuable place if I only shared things that the search engines themselves would share :)
"Matt probably wouldn't recommend it"
Here's a Cutts quote for you Rand:
"typically the depth of the directory doesn’t make any difference for us; PageRank is a much larger factor. So without knowing your site, I’d look at trying to make sure that your site is using your PageRank well. A tree structure with a certain fanout at each level is usually a good way of doing it."
Well said, halfdeck.
Sometimes people concentrate on link-building (or -baiting) and ignore the flow of value within their site.
Of course you need incoming validation, but if you apparently don't think certain pages on your own site are valuable, then why should the engines?
This is some really really really nice information here! really easy actually but i think much of us started to think about things like this again! i love the way you are explaining it!thanks for the info
The way I solve this problem on my blog is using the daily posts to link to static pages throughout the site.
Because the static, deep pages are often hard to get external links to, the daily posts are a great medium for relevant anchor text. And with the added exposure daily posts get from submission to social media and web 2.0 sites, it works out nicely.
Rand, you made no mention of targeting the same keyword over and over to the same page in anchor text. Your friend over at textlinkads.com seems to think targeting one specific word or phrase repeatedly can be seen as spammy and possibly backlash.
What's your take on that?
Really great article. I am surprized you are awake and writting after the weekend you had, I hope you are well and that the presentation went well too.
I would recommend using the way links are coming to your website to improve your website, not to improve your pagerank or rankings.
Look at what is getting links and observe why they are getting links, and if this process highlights something that can be improved for your users, then do something about it.
Link manipulation (placing links with the sole motivation of pr or ranking) will bite most smaller sites in the butt now and will bite most large websites in the butt later.
The behavior you are suggesting is against the Google guidelines and pretty much an outright an attempt not to improve your website, but to give a false impression to a search engine.
Google and their employees have stating pretty strongly that links are tricks or schemes unless there is an useful element to the links you create (navigation, recommended site, or illustrating a point).
I like your article as it really illustrates a way to look at and examine our websites. It illustrates it using a great analogy and rockin graphics.
But I disagree with what you suggest to do with that information.
I do recommend looking at what pages within your website are well linked to, and using that information to make better webpages.
I don't recommend creating links for the sole reason of search engine manipulation ever.
A) I think you're a bit too puritanical-white-hat in your thinking. If you believe that Google cares that you're linking to pages on your own sites to "spread link love" even if it's only relevant for a small percentage of your audience, you're a bit tin-foil-hatted, IMO.
B) Did you read the part where I said:
I think we agree here. But, even if you don't follow that advice and are linking to totally off-topic stuff internally, just for the link love, I still think you're well within search guidelines (at least, those guidelines that are possible to regulate).
Remember - I DO on occassion disagree with the engines about tactics. I don't think they should be able to control how you link on your site, and this is a case where I think it would be utterly impossible to penalize the action alogrithmically.
BTW Rand, while you were away, feedthebot practically overtook you in mozpoints. I think when you get your yellow shoes back, you might have to loan them to him. He's a machine (sorry. That's another thread).
A) People have gotten sunburns from the glow and brilliance of my whitehattyness
B) I did read that and think we agree too, which makes me happy since you offer incredible and reliable info and have formed a sucsessful business and income from it, whereas I am just an observer who enjoys farting way too much.
I hope you know everytime I point out a difference of view from yours it always has a taste of where Adam Sandler in Happy Gilmore is saying to one handed golf dude...
"you are right, I am wrong; You are wise, I am a dumbass"
And quite frankly, the reason I am creating content on this site as much as I am is out of respect to you. (part of longer story that will have to wait to be told)
I enjoy watching and observing the things that Google does to improve their results, I enjoy watching what people are doing to rank websites well, I also enjoy really long setences where some elements are repeated.
I have a great place to view these things from and my ability to predict certain things is becoming better (for example in "Blades of Glory" I totally knew who would win) and I introduced the argument of link manipulation for a specific reason.
From my view, it actually seems that Google has used (and algorithmicly detected) internal linking patterns for quite awhile. A big factor of way multitudes of site do not rank well for their keywords is the manipulation and over use of those keywords in their internal navigation.
You Rand are very smart and sucsessful guy, I am a very smart unsucsessful guy. People in general should listen to you.
Your graphics are superior than mine, as are often your analogies.
The mountain and valley example//comparison is friggin superb btw.
But the exact same responce that you gave me on this issue has been given over and over in responce to other factors that used to not matter but now do. It is worth a thought, because it seems completely algorithmicly detectable and penalize-able.
Or do you see a difference between this and the internal keyword abuse-affecting-ranking thing I mentioned above?
This seems extremely hard to penalize for... very subjective at least.
Who is to say what pages of a site a webmaster should have links to or not? If you had a link to page Z from page A, I think it would be hard for the SE to say, no, that's wrong, you should have linked to page Z via X, R, and L first.
Now, if your site was about blue widgets and page Z was about ringtones, I think the SEs are going to consider that less relevant and give it less weight, but if page Z was related to blue widgets, all should be fair.
I agree that focus should be on your visitors, but if page Z is important to them, whose to say having a link to it from page A or any other page would be wrong?
Good internal link management should be just as important as developing good content to begin with.
Rather than looking at it from a SEO/link juice perspective, think of it in terms of a marketing effort.
You've got all these great testimonials (links) that publicize the value of the free tools you've got. Consequently, there are a lot of visitors arriving at SEOmoz via those pages.
You would be doing a disservice to your guests if you didn't make them aware of your other offerings ('if you think this is cool, you really ought to see our premium tools').
For Google's sake: Tweak these link-rich pages in order to target visitors who may be interested in your premium membership. Include a brief pitch that passes some link love to the page you want to pimp.
For the visitor's sake: They've come for the tools, so a marketing message on the high traffic pages may not convert well.
Instead, let them use the tools, and put the marketing message on the results pages.Unless you're in it for the warm fuzzies.
This is a fantastic article. I have been working on a website for a long time, the subject of my website is creating a website to make money<A HREF="https://www.2create-a-money-making-website.com/make-money-online.html.com">my website is making money online</A> . Unfortunately as of yet I only get limited amounts of visitors. I think that your website has given me a good taste of how to improve my website to make it more 'traffic friendly'.