Should I link to competitors?
-
Hi, I was wondering: we work in an extremely competitive market. There are 6 companies, offering the same service in my country: price comparison in a niche market. The competitors have hundreds of different websites, using iframe-techniques.
Would it be helpful for me to link to those 6 competitors, in a piece of content about our company strategies, USP's and overview of the market?
From a transparency point of view, i would prefer telling my visitors there are other competitors, which are undoubtedly performing very well, but we perform better on several aspects of the price comparison.
On the other hand, my competitors benefit from the backlinks as well. Is my gain bigger than the gain of my competitors do you think? Has anyone tested this once?
-
what does do not link site-wide means?? You mean i can only link to competitors on my home page?
-
Hi Bart
Here is a nice Whiteboard Friday on "Is External Linking Good For SEO? - Whiteboard Friday".. There is a good discussion on comments regd external links to competitors.
Hope this would helps.
-
Thanks for the answer. You wrote 'From my experience, this is the best practice'. What were your (statistical) findings from linking vs. not linking to competitors? Did it have a positive effect on your website ranking or metrics?
-
You can have 1-2 external links to your competitors, however, use only the official name of their websites as anchor text. Do not link site-wide, only from the homepage.
From my experience, this is the best practice.
It is up to you if you want to use dofollow or nofollow in the href.
-
Yes, you can link to them. It's not like you would be linking to them on a daily basis. As far as I know Google loves it when you link to relevant sites (outgoing links are valuable too). And what's better than competitors in terms of relevancy. And if they notice that you are linking to them, you could be making good connections with them and who knows, they might do the same. Everyone wins in long term.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
Do the back-links go wasted when anchor text or context content doesn't match with page content?
Hi Community, I have seen number of back-links where the content in that link is not matching with page content. Like page A linking to page B, but content is not really relevant beside brand name. Like page with "vertigo tiles" linked to page about "vertigo paints" where "vertigo" is brand name. Will these kind of back-links completely get wasted? I have also found some broken links which I'm planning to redirect to existing pages just to reclaim the back-links even though the content relevancy is not much beside brand name. Are these back-links are beneficial or not? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Nofolow links drive to losing ranking
Hello there,
Algorithm Updates | | Goran024
I am an owner of mobilnishop website. We selling mobile phones. As you know , new phones coming every few days and they starting to be old after 1-2 years. So I decided to all pages which present old (discontinued) phones make them "noindex". I this way I meant to to focus google on new pages ( for new phones). After 1 year I find a huge losing trafic and key word position on goole. For example, word :
"mobilni telefoni " from 2 place I move to 11. So what I find out is that I LOST LINK JUICE. Is it possible that google does not see given link of my noindex pages? It look that I made auto goal.
Any opinion? Suggest ?0 -
Links to category pages unnatural?
If people are linking to your site, it would seem natural that the vast majority of those links would point to the homepage, product page, or a article/content page. Let's say you have 100 links pointing to your site, and 40 of them are pointing to category pages. Would this seem unnatural? Does Google or other search engines have a way of determining this as a factor in ascertaining whether the links are natural or not? Is there a rule of thumb when it comes to the pages that are linked to on your site?
Algorithm Updates | | inhouseseo0 -
Are links from directories still good practice?
Ok, so I am new at "link building"....which of course I have read furiously on how that philosophy is changed, it's a goal, not so much a process. I am focusing on great content, social sharing, etc. BUT, I see competitors still getting links from some of the directories that I have found listed on Moz as being "good" directories to list in. For example, yelllow pages, manta, ibegin, hot frog, etc. Do I have the terminology totally twisted here? Is it still good practice to get a couple links from these directories. Or is this practice completely the wrong thing to do post Panda & Penquin. Thanks guys!
Algorithm Updates | | cschwartzel0 -
Content Caching Memory & Removal of 301 Redirect for Relieving Links Penalty
Hi, A client site has had very poor link legacy, stretching for over 5 years. I started the campaign a year ago, providing valuable good quality links. Link removals and creating a disavow to Google have been done, however after months and months of waiting nothing has happened. If anything, after the recent penguin update, results have been further affected. A 301 redirect was undertaken last year, consequently associating those bad links with the new site structure. I have since removed the 301 redirect in an attempt to detach this legacy, however with little success. I have read up on this and not many people appear to agree whether this will work. Therefore, my new decision is to start a fresh using a new domain, switching from the .com to .co.uk version, helping remove all legacy and all association with the spam ridden .com. However, my main concern with this is whether Google will forever cach content from the spammy .com and remember it, because the content on the new .co.uk site will be exactly the same (content of great quality, receiving hundreds of visitors each month from the blog section along) The problem is definitely link related and NOT content as I imagine people may first query. This could then cause duplicate content, knowing that this content pre-existed on another domain - I will implement a robots.txt file removing all of the .com site , as well as a no index no follow - and I understand you can present a site removal to Google within webmaster tools to help fast track the deindexation of the spammy .com - then once it has been deindexed, the new .co.uk site will go live with the exact same content. So my question is whether Google will then completely forget that this content has ever existed, allowing me to use exactly the same content on the new .co.uk domain without the threat of a duplicate content issue? Also, any insights or experience in the removal of a 301 redirect, detaching legacy and its success would also be very helpful! Thank you, Denver
Algorithm Updates | | ProdoDigital0 -
Outsourcing of guest blog articles and usefulness of links from guest blogging
I'm not the greatest writer but want to do some guest blogging for links and traffic. Are there any businesses out there that write world class guest blog articles for subjects that match my business? Also, i've read that doing this for links is really moot because the blog posts get archived and become pagerank "unranked" thereby offering little link value after about a month or so. Once they get archived do they still get counted by google and does the anchor text and page rank still count? Thanks in advance mozzers! Ron
Algorithm Updates | | Ron100 -
Will too many [img no alt-text] links harm a link profile?
Hi everyone. I have a client who has a lot of sponsorships etc and therefore a lot of inbound image links (many of them sitewide). Unfortunately most of these don't have alt text, and [img no alt-text] links now make up over 50% of their link profile. Should I be trying to correct this and requesting updates from the people who are linking? Obviously I wouldn't want loads of keyword stuffed alt texts, but maybe I should request alt texts on the brand name or URL instead. Do you think this would make a significant difference and be worth the time it will take to contact all these webmasters? Thanks in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | QubaSEO0 -
Infographics Links could get discounted in the future
Hey guys, I read this article this morning on SEL. Not sure what to think about it.. Matt did have a point that a lot of infographics are of bad quality (even with wrong information present at times) , and hence don't deserve to gain links from it. But how could Google possible know whether the infographic itself is of high quality or not?? http://searchengineland.com/cutts-infographic-links-might-get-discounted-in-the-future-127192
Algorithm Updates | | Michael-Goode0