Page 4 of 7 First ... 23456 ... Last
  • Jump to page:
    #46
  1. No Profile Picture
    No SEO in New SEO
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Delhi India
    Posts
    2,786
    Rep Power
    201
    Himansu all are the org sites can you show me some of the examples from small corporate website they are doing good on google with their targeted keywords.
    You do your business I do mine, because you are you and I am I, If we meet it is nice.
    Starting a SEO Company | Some SEO Tips
  2. #47
  3. Roll the dice.. and live
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,526
    Rep Power
    2332
    Originally Posted by himanshu160
    Actually there is no niche which is fundamentally boring or intellectually primitive. It's all about your perception. Thing which may look boring to you, might be of great interest for someone
    Continuing on from the great points made by himanshu160…. A site is only ever competing against other sites. If you are truly in an industry that struggles to get links your competitors are also in the same situation.

    If you are in an industry where getting .edu links is easy then all your competitors have .edu links too. Your not competiting against the same sites.

    Also bait does not need to be completely relevant. Theme relevance that can get highly trusted links will help your whole site heaps.

    ie If for example you own the plumbing business you can have a section on your site about marine molluscs (you introduce it is your hobby and an area you love). If this is the best on the web and you get a few links from top university professors pages watch your sight climb in the SERPs. Theme relevance ie water, pipes, location, technology, environment, house building, marine life, small business, staffing, bird baths, bathroom humor etc

    Comments on this post

    • prasunsen agrees
    Live the moment
  4. #48
  5. shuffle up and deal
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,847
    Rep Power
    738
    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO
    Thanks, that would be great! And let me know if you have any criticisms. I will spend a few hours sometime soon improving the text based on all the feedback.
    Great read and great discussion.

    Perhaps your post has highlighted one very important rule when trying to gain natural one way links. Build quality on your own site and not others.

    You just gained at least 1 link for SEO chat!

    (great read btw)
  6. #49
  7. No Profile Picture
    No SEO in New SEO
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Delhi India
    Posts
    2,786
    Rep Power
    201
    Originally Posted by lewisdb
    Perhaps your post has highlighted one very important rule when trying to gain natural one way links. Build quality on your own site and not others.
    But only quality content will not enough for gaining links for any new website my concern is that how you do popular your quality content, I guess first you need to get ranking on your industries related keywords for that you need back links with your targeted anchor tag for that there are many aspects and also mentioned this thread now days I am following the bloggers and create a strategy for getting links from blogger with our desired anchor tag,
    Create a quality content and publish it SB sites like reddit, stumble upon, digg, linked your article or blog pages from home page, add on it rate this page, book mark this page, commenting option, add SB buttons, use rss feed.
  8. #50
  9. 魔鬼是我的背部
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Rep Power
    352

    Talking


    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO
    Several great contributions since this threads inception, and each one broadens my conception of things. Thanks to all, keep am coming.

    Himanshu, with your permission I want to quote your response and the plumbing example substantially in the original posts, with proper attribution.
    Yes. Go ahead
  10. #51
  11. 魔鬼是我的背部
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Rep Power
    352
    Originally Posted by Prof.stan
    Himansu all are the org sites can you show me some of the examples from small corporate website they are doing good on google with their targeted keywords.
    I didnt get you stan. R u talking about something like:

    http://www.plumbingworld.com/index.html


    I am not into the plumbing industry. Just used it as an example to prove my point.
  12. #52
  13. Philip@SearchBenefit.com
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    1010

    Link Relevance


    I am to rework my original posts here with the help of all the feedback I've got. But first, can we have it out on the value link relevance? It's a will-of-the-wisp subject here, comes up peripherally in a lot of threads but never gets resolved.

    When I wrote that link relevance is valuable, Channel5 disagreed, Fathom agreed that it matters "ABSOLUTELY," and gazzahk wrote a nuanced statement:

    Originally Posted by gazzahk
    I agree with you. Many miss understand relevance as related. What a SE sees as relevant is not the same as what a person sees as relevant. All links are to some degree are relevant by the very fact they link to a site makes them so. IMO a link brings the same thing to a site as the value is calculated when it leaves a site and not recalculated when it enters the new site. The benefit a site gets from a link depends on the site not the link itself.

    These things are most noticeable once you have established site strength. A strong site can grab new markets quite easily with no directly relevant links. ie if Microsoft wanted your market they would only need to put a page of relevant text and they would take it off you.
    On rereading, I don't understand most of this statement, though I think I understand the part about Microsoft. The statement has the form: "What a SE sees as relevant is not X" -- but I am not sure it says what what a SE sees as relevant [is]is[/i].

    But we know what Google relevance is, right? When we type something into Google, results come up that are relevant to the search. I am sure that when it comes to links, it's the exact same relevance (whether or not it contributes to link power) and not some different kind of relevance.

    It would be great if people further shared their opinions and also their reasons for holding them. BTW, this subject came up on the SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday blog yesterday (relevant and worth reading for its own sake), but if you'd care to go through the comments below the post, there is some pretty interesting discussion there.

    My take on the thing is that relevance has to count for something because it is the core Google value. I can't prove my speculations (can you prove yours?) but here is my thinking.

    Google is all about relevance. The very phrase "authority site" seems to have originated with Google, so far as I remember. The end product of the Google's algorithm is ranking according to relevance. Relevance calculated with respect to a search keyword. The thematic relationship of the linking page to a target page is a meaningful and computable signal. "This link is not just a vote but a vote from someone established in the same industry / field / subject." Shouldn't that count for something? Why would Google ignore it? If you were Google, why would you ignore it? Relevance is thematic.

    Hypothetically, all this is somehow affected by the computation of trust (the level of confidence that the site is genuine and spam free) and authority (the site's quality with respect to the search keyword). For purposes of an SEO discussion, though, we should think of trust and authority as intuitive ideas, not necessarily as separate or definite parts of the algo (there is no direct evidence that I know of that they are). The counterargument one hears is that link bombs from irrelevant sites work just fine. Disney ranks first for "click here" because of link anchor text and because of some relevance to "click here." OK, fair enough, but then, I am free to imagine that if there were an authority site on "click here" with a comparable number and quality of links, but largely from relevant sites, it would rank higher.

    I have no strong evidence that link relevance matters, but I suspect it does. Do you that it doesn't? Not even SEOmoz has performed any experimental study of its impact..

    But if you were Google, wouldn't you make it matter? If not, why not?
  14. #53
  15. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    15,156
    Rep Power
    1895
    Long posts tend to getting confusing and difficult to comment on because there isn't normally any single point.

    IF you wish me to comment on something specific I;m more than happy to... but I hate reading and detest typing (go figure why I'm still here).
  16. #54
  17. Philip@SearchBenefit.com
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    1010
    Originally Posted by fathom
    IF you wish me to comment on something specific I;m more than happy to... but I hate reading and detest typing (go figure why I'm still here).
    You and I believe that link relevance matters; SEOmoz influentially disagrees. No one is on record as having tested it. What's your evidence, if any?

    (How is that for brevity?)
  18. #55
  19. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Genius (4000 - 4499 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4,494
    Rep Power
    1899
    lol - nice executive summary hehe

    I personally take the stance of what I feel as trustworthy outside of the internet realm. I trust my friend. He is a plumber. If I ask him to recommend a good electrician, then I can trust him to do so.

    On the other hand, if he doesn't know anybody, I'll turn to someone that works as an electrician, and ask him if he knows anyone that can do the job.

    Is either opinion more important than the other? One comes from a friend that I really trust (but he's not relevant in the electrician field), while the other comes from a really relevant source (although I don't trust him as much).

    Same goes for websites and links - where could one ever draw the line as to which is more important?

    Trust vs. relevance. They both matter. One does not outweigh the other.


    To add my own kicker, I'll go for a trusted/authority link over a relevant link if it is not from a trusted source. Doing so adds to my own trust/authority, and thereby makes my own word more important (and more weight given to my internal linking/site structure).
  20. #56
  21. B afraid.. B very afraid!
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Land of enchantment... deserts of the Southwest
    Posts
    9,577
    Rep Power
    2293
    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO
    You and I believe that link relevance matters; SEOmoz influentially disagrees. No one is on record as having tested it. What's your evidence, if any?

    (How is that for brevity?)
    Rand Fishkin is a good guy. He learned a lot of what he preaches today right here at SEO Chat. It is a shame we did not teach him more about link relevance... Matt Cutts, in one interview alluded to the fact that link relevance affects link juice:

    'Eric Enge: I think a big component of that of course is how much greater the issue of relevance has become in evaluating link juice, right? We are far beyond the original definition of PageRank.
    Matt Cutts: Maybe it was Danny that said “If a link is good, do the link out; don’t worry about the Linkjuice.

    Eric Enge: Right, yeah. Well, I know on our own sites and the people we talk to, we encourage outbound linking without return links for a number of reasons. Without worrying about the algorithmic underpinnings, the reality is it should establish relevance if you link to authority sites.

    Matt Cutts: Exactly. And, if the user is happy, they are more likely to come back or bookmark your site or tell their friends about it. And so, if you try to hoard those users, they often somehow subconsciously sense it, and they are less likely to come back or tell their friends about it.'

    The primary separators from plain PR and link value has to be link relevance and link trust. Without it a link is just a link... Meaning... we should all just worry about PR?

    You can read the full interview here:

    http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-061608.shtml

    For the record, I have always been a proponent of link relevance increasing the juice from that link in the eyes of Google.

    Comments on this post

    • PhilipSEO agrees
    Last edited by SEO_AM; May 8th, 2010 at 09:02 PM.
    ...Never mistake activity for achievement...

    ...Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it....
    Benjamin Franklin
  22. #57
  23. Philip@SearchBenefit.com
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    1010
    Originally Posted by jsteele823
    To add my own kicker, I'll go for a trusted/authority link over a relevant link if it is not from a trusted source.
    "Trust/authority," with a slash, is SEOmoz language. But the two are different! Authority is with respect to a keyword, implies relevance. Can't be an authority on everything.
  24. #58
  25. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    15,156
    Rep Power
    1895
    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO
    No one is on record as having tested it. What's your evidence, if any?

    (How is that for brevity?)
    You'll have to start paying me to actually "see evidence".

    But answer this... why when you link develop for 1 targeted phrase do you rank for others - "RELATED" longtail phrases?

    ...you didn't target them specifically... and yet they happen.

    If "relevance" wasn't important - that wouldn't happen.

    Comments on this post

    • SEO_AM agrees : ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!
    • WhiteHatSEOMktg agrees : Relevance is very important. Site and page. That's the secret of my success.
  26. #59
  27. Philip@SearchBenefit.com
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    1010
    [QUOTE=SEO_AM]Matt Cutts, in one interview alluded to the fact that link relevance affects link juice:

    'Eric Enge: I think a big component of that of course is how much greater the issue of relevance has become in evaluating link juice, right? We are far beyond the original definition of PageRank.
    Matt Cutts: Maybe it was Danny that said “If a link is good, do the link out; don’t worry about the Linkjuice.

    Eric Enge: Right, yeah. Well, I know on our own sites and the people we talk to, we encourage outbound linking without return links for a number of reasons. Without worrying about the algorithmic underpinnings, the reality is it should establish relevance if you link to authority sites.

    Matt Cutts: Exactly. And, if the user is happy, they are more likely to come back or bookmark your site or tell their friends about it. And so, if you try to hoard those users, they often somehow subconsciously sense it, and they are less likely to come back or tell their friends about it.'[quote]

    I am not quote sure what to make Cutts's response. It's almost as if he evades by changing the subject to outbound links.

    In my translation:
    Q: So does relevance improve link juice?
    A: Don't worry about linking out (and hence losing PR) if it's relevant and good for your users. By linking to relevant sites you increase value for your users, so they'll like it and link to you. You will thereby be compensated for the PR lost by linking out.

    Hmmm.
  28. #60
  29. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    15,156
    Rep Power
    1895
    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO
    SEOmoz
    No disrespect intended but SEOMoz is about this: "sell the sizzle not the steak!"

    In the past I've seen great stuff from SEOMoz... now they shovel ****! ...because it sells.
Page 4 of 7 First ... 23456 ... Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. One way Link Building Tools
    By Seeker in forum Link Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jan 11th, 2006, 01:40 AM
  2. Link Building Questions
    By Dapperman in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan 7th, 2006, 07:21 AM
  3. Robot/spider question
    By charleslinden in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jan 27th, 2004, 10:10 AM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo