Does the Referral Traffic from a Link Influence the SEO Value of that Link?
-
If a link exists, and nobody clicks on it, could it still be valuable for SEO?
Say I have 1000 links on 500 sites with Domain Authority ranging from 35 to 80. Let's pretend that 900 of those links generate referral traffic. Let's assume that the remaining 100 links are spread between 10 domains of the 500, but nobody ever clicks on them. Are they still valuable? Should an SEO seek to earn more links like those, even though they don't earn referral traffic?
Does Google take referral data into account in evaluating links?
5343313-zelda-rogers-albums-zelda-pictures-duh-what-else-would-they-be-picture3672t-link-looks-so-lonely.jpg Sad%20little%20link.jpg
-
Haha brilliant! I'm totally with you on that. And since Matt doesn't tend to divulge much (and half of what he does is cryptic) that would put Rand as source number one, or I should say Rand & co... all the staff and associates, etc... on here are pretty much a fountain of knowledge. I'd be screwed if I didn't have SEOmoz to learn things from.
-
When I find conflicting expert opinions, I sort them out by date and source. For sources, I place Matt Cutts first, Rand second, then everyone else falls further down the line.
There are others in the SEO world who share Rand's level of experience and expertise, but there is something about seeing him bounce up and down on WBF videos, along with his intonations that just make viewers want to believe him.
-
Righty, I've been on a mission to clarify... it seems there's a lot of conflicting views on it. I mean I know there's conflicting views on pretty much everything but these views all seem to be from very good sources, so now I don't know what to think... I'm on the fence!
There's some discussion in here: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4176006.htm
Along with this: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/backlink-age-seo-factor/9943/
It's a difficult one, but it doesn't appear to be in the ranking factor survey, which is a shame as it would be interesting to see what level of agreement there is.
Anyway, Rand's is more recent than Ann's so I guess it would make best sense to follow his
Thank you for pointing it out, I would have been none the wiser otherwise!
-
Ah, okay. I've heard it said a few times and assumed it to be correct but clearly I should have questioned it. Thanks, I've learnt something new from that
-
Thanks Steve!
You got me thinking about a related issue -- if links that sent referral traffic were VALUED more than links that didn't, one could easily game the system by sending mechanical turk traffic through a link, or something similar... so if that's a factor, it's likely an irrelevant one.
Kind regards!
-
Thanks for the great feedback and advice - in particular, for separating the facts from the speculation (which was also good stuff).
Now, I just have to find that perfect image of Link building (something).... the one I attached to this comment just doesn't work without explanation... hehe
-
"We know for example that the age of a link counts, and an older link can be worth more."
Steve, my understanding is that a link's age has no direct bearing on a link's value. Can you possibly elaborate on why you feel otherwise?
My understanding comes from a few sources. One example would be: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/age-of-site-and-old-links-whiteboard-friday
-
I'm pretty sure that links don't have to actually refer any traffic to pass value. You'll probably find that the majority of links that aren't on new/fresh content sites such as news sites, etc... don't refer much anyway. We know for example that the age of a link counts, and an older link can be worth more. When you think of some of those static sites out there that never change but still have good authority (especially for their niche) but don't get tonnes of traffic due to their industry, demographic, speciality, etc... They can pass some great link value even though some of those links will simply never get clicked.
If Google were to assign higher value to links that got clicked more, we'd only ever see sites at the top of the serps that had links from news sites, other sites that might well be most relevant would be held down.
Take a website or page about something obscure, an interest that somebody might have in an uncommon area of archaeology or something. Now let's say the site has great authority in its obscure niche, but of course gets very little traffic due to its obscurity. That site linking to another similar site would be excellent in terms of link value for the similar site.
Usage data might come into it beyond us clicking from the serps, and going into it with us clicking through as referrals too, but I wouldn't think it would have that much effect.
-
If a link exists, and nobody clicks on it, could it still be valuable for SEO? Are they still valuable? Should an SEO seek to earn more links like those, even though they don't earn referral traffic?
Yes, the link has value for merely existing. That value is determined by the SEO metrics of the page and domain of the site offering the link.
I wouldn't focus on obtaining more links without referrer traffic per se. My focus is obtaining quality links, which usually means they are visible and will receive traffic. If I was offered a link on a site with good DA and PA that would never get clicked, would I take it? Yes. It will help my site rank higher which can lead to more organic traffic from search even if the link itself did not offer any traffic. It's the reality of how the system works.
This process is why many black hat SEOs grab links from dead blog pages, asian sites, or try to stuff links into
<noscript>and other unseen tags.</p> <p><strong>Does Google take referral data into account in evaluating links?</strong></p> <p>Google reveals as little as possible about their algorithm other then to say they list over 200 metrics and constantly adjust their metrics.</p> <p>Those are the facts involved with your question. If I was to speculate, I would think Google either has determined, or will decide, that a link with zero referrer traffic should be devalued. The challenge as always is obtaining clean data that cannot easily be manipulated.</p> <p>PS. Love the attachments :)</p></noscript>
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
FB referral combinations
Hi, I am somewhat confounded about the right set of channels to join All facebook referrals into one. In the wake of experiencing various renditions, not certain which one is right and will work A few adaptations state that Search string ought to be - ^.*facebook.com$ furthermore, Replace string ought to be - facebook.com While as per other Search string ought to be > .*facebook also, Replace string ought to be - facebook Kindly guide which one of this is right and will work? Much obliged
Technical SEO | | Aashish20200 -
Internal links of my website is taken as inbound link ?
Hi, I was checking my links in Open Site Explorer (http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=www.bons-plans-vacances.fr) this morning and i came up with this: My main domain is taken as outbound links ...! This link : www.bons-plans-vacances.fr/ Anchor Text : (img alt)100% Bons Plans Voyages From this URL : www.bons-plans-vacances.fr/ I have the same problem with my subdomains : voyage.bons-plans-vacances.fr/sejour/Toutes-Destinations I have that HTML code on the link : Any help ? This is very strange .. i have the same result in google webmaster tools. Thanks 🙂 eDE9b.jpg
Technical SEO | | BonsPlansvacances0 -
Forum Profile Links
Are they really important? Many preach they are, and there are tonnes of services out there who give you thousands of forum profile links in no time. I strictly believe in genuine links built the hard way, and definitely don't want to get into anything which is black hat. Please suggest if building several Forum Profile Links is an appropriate way of building links?
Technical SEO | | KS__2 -
No inbound links. Should I link-build or create new content?
I have a PR4 site with good traffic but the blog is not very popular--the posts do not generate any backlinks and hardly get any traffic. Yet, I continue to kick out a new post every week. Site: http://www.stadriemblems.com/
Technical SEO | | UnderRugSwept
Blog: http://www.stadriemblems.com/blog/ I keep posting content so that Google keeps crawling the site and viewing it as fresh (and yes, I'm posting for my human visitors' benefit too!), but I'm wondering if eventually this will hurt more than help if Google detects all these new pages are not being linked to, and therefore starts viewing the site as low quality and devalues it. So should I: Keep posting Stop posting and build links to the posts Try to promote my blog to get more traffic and hope people link to it Something else or some combination of the above0 -
Is there an onsite seo api?
Im trying to find an api which I can intergrate with my database for onsite keyword checking. Does anyone know if there is one available on the market? thanks, Chris
Technical SEO | | seomasters0 -
Advertising and negative impact on SEO
On one of my sites, I've been trying to get the word out by contacting blogs and asking them to share my site with their readers. This has resulted in some free publicity for my site, as well as quite a few paid reviews/sponsored posts. Note, however, that I've never paid for links, just reviews of my site... When I started this about 2 months ago, my site was a PR3 and getting fairly lowsy organic search traffic (i.e. 30-40 visits a day from Google). Then a few days ago, my PR dropped to 1. I didn't worry too much though, because my organic traffic was still around 30-40 visits a day. Now today, I checked and I only had 1 visitor the entire day from Google. Obviously I've been penalized. My most important question is, what can I do? Do I have an recourse, or do I need to just shut the domain down and move elsewhere? Second, wtf is Google penalizing this? I understand the argument against paid links, but should I not be allowed to advertise my site? Apparently I can buy links all day long through Google and they'll happily take my money, but the minute I pay some poor blogger to write an article about my site to their audience, I get penalized? Please help, I can't believe I just destroyed one of my sites like this!
Technical SEO | | dustin9990 -
External Links from own domain
Hi all, I have a very weird question about external links to our site from our own domain. According to GWMT we have 603,404,378 links from our own domain to our domain (see screen 1) We noticed when we drilled down that this is from disabled sub-domains like m.jump.co.za. In the past we used to redirect all traffic from sub-domains to our primary www domain. But it seems that for some time in the past that google had access to crawl some of our sub-domains, but in december 2010 we fixed this so that all sub-domain traffic redirects (301) to our primary domain. Example http://m.jump.co.za/search/ipod/ redirected to http://www.jump.co.za/search/ipod/ The weird part is that the number of external links kept on growing and is now sitting on a massive number. On 8 April 2011 we took a different approach and we created a landing page for m.jump.co.za and all other requests generated 404 errors. We added all the directories to the robots.txt and we also manually removed all the directories from GWMT. Now 3 weeks later, and the number of external links just keeps on growing: Here is some stats: 11-Apr-11 - 543 747 534 12-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 13-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 14-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 15-Apr-11 - 521 528 014 16-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 17-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 18-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 19-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 20-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 21-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 26-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 27-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 28-Apr-11 - 603 404 378 I am now thinking of cleaning the robots.txt and re-including all the excluded directories from GWMT and to see if google will be able to get rid of all these links. What do you think is the best solution to get rid of all these invalid pages. moz1.PNG moz2.PNG moz3.PNG
Technical SEO | | JacoRoux0 -
Internal Linking: Site-wide VS Content Links
I just watched this video in which Matt Cutts talks about the ancient 100 links per page limit. I often encounter websites which have massive navigation (elaborate main menu, side bar, footer, superfooter...etc) in addition to content area based links. My question is do you think Google passes votes (PageRank and anchor text) differently from template links such as navigation to the ones in the content area, if so have you done any testing to confirm?
Technical SEO | | Dan-Petrovic0