Does CSS position effect the value of a link?
-
For example, take a look at http://www.dueds.com and scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. See the link in the bottom left? Does the fact that it is pushed all the way down to the bottom make the link worth less than if it was directly under the social media buttons?
-
Links in footer is probably the worst place to put them. Links in sidebar are also of less value. Links are best in the content of a page.
There is a body of evidence that for links based in the content portion of a page, the higher the link the more value it has. Such that, if the content is 3 paragraphs, P1 is better than P2 and P2 is better than P3.
I know there is a good evaluation on this I read about 5 - 6 months ago and if I can find in under 5 minutes, I will edit in the url.
-
Here's a piece of authentic information if you like videos and Matt Cutts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0fgh5RIHdE. Just as miss M. -J said, links in footer do carry less value.
-
What I do believe I know about link position is that the first link on a page has more value than the second, etc. The principle upon which Google's "link popularity / PageRank" algo was based on the 'random surfer model. So a link that is more likely to be clicked is more valuable. This is not to say that Google's PR algo has not evolved, but I am sure this principle is still in significant play.
I think most professional SEOs would also agree that footer links have less value than other links - though I am less certain of that than my first point.
I think Matt Cutts would say, try to think like the user. Is your visitor less likely to find and click on the link than if it were near the social media buttons? If so, it is likely to get less traffic.
Not all links can be the first link, but I would be sure to have any important link be "above the fold" and barring that, with a feature that would be likely to attract the eye of the user.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Google Does not find Internal links
Hi guys I involved in difficult situation. in google webmaster tools -> internal links some important pages doesn't have any links from all pages. for example home page just have 9000 internal inks but there are 29000 indexed pages by google and some not important pages have 27000 internal links.(more than home page) Site made by angular v1 Is there anyone can help me why google could not find all internal links?
Technical SEO | | cafegardesh0 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Followed Linking Root Domains and No Followed Linking Domains
If you have more NoFollowed Linking Root Domains than Followed Linking Root Domains is that a problem?
Technical SEO | | INN0 -
Links from Instructables.com?
This is a silly newbie question. But will posting on www.instructables.com with some valuable content and url link back to my site help with "linking"? Or do they put a no-follow on all links on their site? Thanks for answering! Ron
Technical SEO | | yatesandcojewelers0 -
Too many links? Do links to named anchors count (ie page#nameanchor)?
Hi, I have an internal search results page that contains approx 200 links in total. This links to approx 50 pages. Each result listing contains a link to the page in the format /page.html and also has 3 more links (for each listing) to named anchors within the page. eg /page.html#section1, /page.html#section2, /page.html#section3 etc. Should i remove the named anchors to keep my links per page under the Seomoz suggested max of 100? Will it impact crawl-ability or link juice being passed? Thanks in advance for your response.
Technical SEO | | blackrails0 -
Do links hold there value after 12 months?
Hello, We need to find out if links that we setup, which are older than 12 months hold any value? Do new links hold more value than old ones and therefore should we let the old links become inactive? If we do let the links become inactive after 12month will that effect the PA/DA of the site?
Technical SEO | | Entrusteddev0 -
Redirection help to retrieve broken links
Hi, my hosting company after they updated my joomla website lost thousands of pages of content, i am now searching for all broken links and re doing the content to get my links back, but i am having a problem understanding how to redirect these links. For example, i have now managed to retrieve this page http://www.in2town.co.uk/news/have-your-say/liberal-dem-leader-says-he-will-be-the-next-prime-minister-what-do-you-think but the old url for this page was http://www.in2town.co.uk/Have-Your-Say/Liberal-Dem-Leader-says-He-Will-be-The-Next-Prime-Minister-What-Do-You-Think/menu-id-4953 i do not have the unfriendly url for this page, so what i am trying to find out is, how to tell google that the above page is now http://www.in2town.co.uk/news/have-your-say/liberal-dem-leader-says-he-will-be-the-next-prime-minister-what-do-you-think in my joomla site. if anyone could please explain how to do this with joomla 1.5 then you will make me very happy as then i will be able to retrieve some of my lost links
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
How to find artificial or unnatural links in OSE?
Hi, I just got a message from Google Webmaster Tools telling that there are "artificial or unnatural links" pointing to one of my subdomains, and that I should investigate and submit my site for reconsideration. The subdomain in question has inbound links from 4K linking root domains. We are a certificate authority (we provide SSL certificates) so the majority of those links come from the site seal that customers place on their secure pages. We sell certificates to a full spectrum site types, from all sizes of ecommerce sites to .edu, .gov, and even adult. That said, our linking root domains have always been a mixed bunch, which tells me that these offending links were recently added. Here are my questions: Is it possible to slice my link reports with some sort of time element, so that I can narrow the search to only the newest inbound links? How else might I use OSE to find these "artificial or unnatural links"? Are there any particular attributes I should be looking for in a linking root domain that might suggest it's seen by Google as "artificial or unnatural". Any help with any aspect of this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dennis p.s. I should probably state that I've never bought links or participated in link schemes.
Technical SEO | | dennis.globalsign0