#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Newbie
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Question on this theory


    Wanted to run a theory by you.....

    Let's say page A has 20 external backlinks to it and extensive internal linking pointed to this important page.

    The content is updated and changed substantially (same topic) and the URL is also changed. Internal linkage is immediately updated to reflect the new URL and a 301 is put in place to account for the incoming external backlinks. Page is submitted for re-indexing.

    IF the keyword rankings immediately jump up substantially, could it be assumed that this is a direct result solely of the content improvement and G likes it much better? Because it will take some time before the link equity (internal and external) is reassigned to the new page. Therefore, additional upward movement could be expected once that all shakes out.

    Agree or disagree?
  2. #2
  3. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gloucester (South West UK).
    Posts
    6,529
    Rep Power
    3520
    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    IF the keyword rankings immediately jump up substantially, could it be assumed that this is a direct result solely of the content improvement and G likes it much better?
    Yes... But then anything "could be assumed"!
    I would suggest that there are so many other factors at play in this scenario that assuming it's "solely" the result of anything would be foolish.

    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    Because it will take some time before the link equity (internal and external) is reassigned to the new page.
    What makes you assume that? (Sometimes it does, sometimes Google might surprise you)!

    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    Therefore, additional upward movement could be expected once that all shakes out.
    Agree or disagree?
    I disagree.

    You seem to be working on the assumption that the (gradually diminishing) link juice you are injecting into the page once Google have followed the 301 redirect from the (long trail of) previous URL'(s) will result in additional link juice and therefore rank improvement.
    There are a lot of problems with this theory, the most obvious of which is that the "power" behind a 301 redirect comes from the links aimed at the previous URL. If all links that used to point at the previous URL now point to the new one, what "link juice" is gained by the 301 redirect?

    The idea of constantly changing a URL is horrible! I don't get why anybody would do that.
    You end up with a huge list of 301 redirects (from URL's that no longer have any incoming links).
    Google has to do a ton of work to update it's indexing - of the new URL and it's incoming links - and of the loss of links to the penultimate URL in the 301 chain...
    During this process, making any assumptions about why google do what they do with your rankings is pointless in my opinion.
    ClickyB
    "The quality of the visitor is more important than the volume..." (Egol 22nd Feb 2008)
    [New to SEO/SeoChat?] [Canonical Problems?] [Forum Rules & Posting Guidelines]
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Newbie
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0
    thanks for your input Clicky B. I can't for the life of me figure out how to get the multi quote thing you did to work so I'll try to answer your comments/questions.

    1. "Yes... But then anything "could be assumed"!"

    absolutely, but that's all any of us are doing is theorizing and making assumptions and educated guesses.

    2. "
    What makes you assume that? (Sometimes it does, sometimes Google might surprise you)!"

    Because it's a brand new URL, until they at least re-crawl one of the external links to discover the 301, how could they possible know it's a 301?


    This is not a "long trail" of 301's it's one re-direct that had to be done for reasons not worth explaining. There is no trying to game the system here. Google has also pretty clearly stated in the last few years that 301's do not lose page rank and this was an old and outdated thing they used to do. It is however pretty clear that you can't redirect to a completely unrelated piece of content and expect that juice to carry over. In fact, it will be considered a soft 404 and you'll receive no link juice which makes sense. If someone linked to a soccer article that then later redirected to a weight loss pill page, that wouldn't be a good UX.
    Last edited by JackRemon52; Jul 13th, 2017 at 03:52 PM.
  6. #4
  7. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gloucester (South West UK).
    Posts
    6,529
    Rep Power
    3520
    Hi Jack,

    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    This is not a "long trail" of 301's it's one re-direct that had to be done for reasons not worth explaining.
    Yep- you're right... I misunderstood your first post!
    When you said:
    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    The content is updated and changed substantially (same topic) and the URL is also changed. Internal linkage is immediately updated to reflect the new URL and a 301 is put in place to account for the incoming external backlinks. Page is submitted for re-indexing.
    I thought you were saying this happens on a regular basis...
    (Maybe because I was being hassled by my wife to go eat dinner at the time)!
    However, now I'm "up to speed", I still think don't think I agree with you.
    It could be that Google likes it much better, but it could be other things too.
    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    Because it's a brand new URL, until they at least re-crawl one of the external links to discover the 301, how could they possible know it's a 301?
    Yes this often takes forever, but sometimes Google can surprise you.
    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    There is no trying to game the system here.
    That never crossed my mind.
    Originally Posted by JackRemon52
    Google has also pretty clearly stated in the last few years that 301's do not lose page rank
    OK, but bear in mind that the old URL has already lost some of it's page rank (prefer the term "link juice") because you removed all your internal links to that URL and re-assigned them to the new URL, so the "added value" from the 301 may not be as positive as you think.

    Moreover I find that making assumptions about early ranking positions for a new site (or page) is OK, but it can be dangerous to act on them.
    Better to let things settle for a while in my experience.
    Last edited by ClickyB; Jul 13th, 2017 at 08:07 PM.
    ClickyB
    "The quality of the visitor is more important than the volume..." (Egol 22nd Feb 2008)
    [New to SEO/SeoChat?] [Canonical Problems?] [Forum Rules & Posting Guidelines]
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Newbie
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm certainly guilting of overanalyzing the initial rankings. It's a habit of mine Thanks for your advice and input.

    Comments on this post

    • ClickyB agrees : Yeah, been there many a time back in the day; nowadays I take a "longer approach" :)

Similar Threads

  1. The theory
    By confiden in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Nov 26th, 2003, 04:34 PM
  2. New Theory
    By anthroa in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jul 8th, 2003, 08:01 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo