Would you advise removing a "links" page?
-
I'm doing a site audit for someone and they have a links page full of reciprocal links for other similar businesses across the country.
My gut instinct is to remove this page.
How would you approach this if this was your client?
-
Oooh. I like the idea of adding internal links to the page. Thanks.
-
Well put
-
The problem with this is that the link juice is still lost, if you have a link to the non indexed page it is lost.
-
Egol and Ryan both give good advice, they useually dont do any harm, but as Ryan said they can look out of place.
One thing you can do if the owner does not want to get rid of them, is to add a load of internal links on the page, that way you will be giving away less, most of the link juice will be recycled. Also dont link to the links page from your home page, link to it from a weaker page, that way it wont have much to give away anyhow.
-
The question is already answered satisfactorily, but thought I'd add my two cents as well.
In my opinion, the era of the reciprocal link relationship is over. Algorithmically and functionally it is simply far too easy for Google to find and diagnose. At best, reciprocal links will have a neutral effect, a sort of 'white noise' like most link buying programs produce. At worst, you end up linked to shady neighborhoods which influence your category and standing. Promiscuous link seekers can end up in some very interesting neighborhoods; I've done some due diligence on some in the past and realized that they brushed up against poker, pornography, adult dating, etc., all categories that I don't want to be linked to.
-
Any links pointing to authorative sites with good page ranks are fine. I would keep all the outgoing links but add the rel=nofollow syntax in the string on any completely (100%) off topic sites. Even though search are not suppose to follow them, they do anyway. I don't believe they'll penalize you in any way.
But i would definitely check out all links to see what you're linking to. broken links can hurt along with perverted sites and hacker sites.
If you really don't want the search engines to list the page, simply nofollow and noindex the page.
-
What's recommended is to create web pages which offer value to your site's visitors. If you wish to call them "link pages" so be it. The bottom line, Google is chasing the user experience. How you present your link page makes all the difference to users.
Example 1 - You have a vet website. You offer a "sponsors" page with 50 links. Most of the site's visitors would not have any interest in a sponsors page so the links will likely not be seen nor used.
Example 2 - You have a vet website. You offer a "Pet Travel" page which offers links to pet-friendly hotels, vets in major cities and other helpful information. This page is useful and would be of interest to visitors.
Your link page is content. The same rules apply. Present quality links in a helpful manner and you will be helping your site's users and improving the site's quality and usefulness.
-
Interesting!
Now I'm confused though. If it's good to have relevant links even though they are reciprocal then why don't we recommend creating a links page?
To be honest, I've always thought that there was no harm, and probably some benefit from a links page as long as it is not obviously spammy and excessive. One of our real estate sites ranks really really well and the only links coming to us are recip links.
-
I agree with most responses so far that links to relevant sites could stay, but any other should be removed. I also like the idea of making changes more slowly, one at a time, and measuring results. That way you know what is working and what is not. That's sometimes harder said than done, because when you see lots of changes needed to be made, there is the tendency to want to fix the site immediately, rather than tracking and measuring results.
-
**My concern is that Google can't really tell if it adds value to the customer. Rather, they just see a page full of reciprocal links. **
Google can tell a lot!
Google can determine if the links are relevant. A veterinary clinic can create a link to clinics in other areas which can be useful to users. Maybe a current patient is traveling or moving to a new area and looking for recommendations. I can certainly see the value in such a page. Google will recognize the site is linking to other sites which are highly relevant. On the other hand, if the site owner was linking from a vet clinic to a watch repair, car sales and other unrelated sites that would be a concern.
Google can also determine how often the links are used. If these links are rarely used, then they offer little to no value.
-
I have a few competitors who have "links.html" pages on their sites and they are still doing pretty good. So, I don't think that a links page is doing any damage to their rankings.
Do you know how the site owner feels about that page? It could have links on it to genuine business partners, cousins' businesses, etc. So, I would at least check before yanking it down.
I would also worry about the Curse of Maluk
http://forums.seochat.com/google-optimization-7/warning-ref-link-partners-5513.html
-
Thanks Ryan,
Ask "do these links offer a value for users?"
This is a tough question to answer! The site is a veterinary clinic. The page lists recommended veterinarians in other states. So, it could possibly add some value.
My concern is that Google can't really tell if it adds value to the customer. Rather, they just see a page full of reciprocal links.
Here's my current thought. I'd like him to make a bunch of changes that I am suggesting (i.e. title tags and internal linking structure, etc.) Then, after a few months when the rankings have settled we can try removing the links page and see over the next few weeks/months whether there is a difference.
What do you think?
-
I agree with your instinct Marie. Here is how I have approached the same topic with clients...
Ask "do these links offer a value for users?". If your website sells watches, then links to real estate sites and other unrelated sites clearly do not exist for a user's benefit.
If the page offers links to the repair pages for Seiko and other major watch manufacturers, then clearly the page does offer a value to users.
If the site owner disagrees as to the link value, you can use GA to analyze how often the links are used. A site owner may fear by removing these links their linking partner will do the same and their site will lose links. While that may happen, the value of those links is highly questionable.
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
-
Links
Hi, im wondering if links that is not exact anchor links gives any boost for rankings? Example if lets say somebody links to my site http://domain.com/category/article with anchor: domainname or url link.
Link Building | | Rob_I0 -
Are links from BBB on non-accredited business pages helping SEO?
I've been doing a lot of research on BBB and the site's value. I know you have to pay for accreditation as well as a link, and most search engine optimizers says it's worth it. I added a company to BBB in October, but I did not pay for accreditation or a link, and yet a link still appears on the business' BBB page. Is this link still a followed link? Does Google view it as an important link? If a non-paid link on BBB is still good, I don't see too many more benefits to BBB accreditation than the trust factor and possibly gaining an A+ ranking.
Link Building | | rcseo0 -
301 redirect lost page authority & total links how ensure it passes on.
hello, I recently changed from www to non www. I have redirected my whole website so if I type www. it goes to the non-www page. doing a open site explorer I noticed my www. still has the page authority 14/100 with 6 links. where as the non-www page has 1/100 page authority and no links. how do I get the www. to mirror the non-www links?
Link Building | | finnmoto
eg if you goto http://www.finnmoto.com.au/mens-motorcycle-kevlar-hoodie/ it will goto the non-www version automatically, so why does the non-www replicate the page authority / total links attached picture for reference.
Google webmaster has been selected for non-www, its been about 2 weeks.
my domain authority i think about about 21 or more now its 19 aswell. I have a feeling:
nofollow or rel=canonical has something to do with it but Ill need read into what that does and how to apply. any ideas? uRiJ2Ul.png?10 -
Removing links from rubbishy 'blog' sites
I need to remove around 800 bad links, probably about 500 domains as a very rough estimate. These were built by a previous link building company. Here some example domains: http://globalweddingblog.com
Link Building | | Coraltoes77
http://theweddinginsider.net
http://www.couturefashionissues.com
http://www.topfashionlabels.com
http://weddingworldnews.com
http://www.savingsdistrict.com
http://bestfemalesblog.com
http://mylatestfashion.com
http://lastfashion.net
http://womansonlineblog.org I have already tried emailing a hundred or so with a manual link request - with zero outcome. Hardly surprising when you consider the types of sites they are. I've had a quote for a link removal service, but I'm not sure if it's wise to pay someone to do this work - not sure what resources/tools they would have above and beyond what I can access and there could be increased risk. Any advice?0 -
Many high value links to printer-friendly versions of our pages
First, forgive me if I miss something obvious. I'm a user experience designer who handles all SEO efforts for our organization in my spare time. This question is about our patient / health education website, http://familydoctor.org NIH's Medline Plus ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ ) has linked to http://familydoctor.org for a very, very long time, before we had advertisements on the site. To get an idea of where Medline Plus links to familydoctor.org, visit http://goo.gl/1yaofC or use the following query in Google.com: site:www.nlm.nih.gov inurl:medlineplus American Academy of Family Physicians After we redesigned and started putting ads on FD.org, I think these two things happened simultaneously, we received a contact from someone at NIH stating they could no longer link to our site because of the ads. NIH is a highly-trusted and ranked domain, so we agreed to let them link to the printer-friendly versions of our content to avoid the ads. A few years later, we restructured the content. For an article about depression, instead of having one page with all of the content ( http://web.archive.org/web/20090215071258/http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/mentalhealth/depression/046.html ), we broke it up into many shorter pages ( http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/diseases-conditions/depression.html ), such as Overview, Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, Treatment, etc. I don't know if NIH crossed anyone's mind until go-live day, when we noticed a high number of referrals to the error page coming from NIH.gov. We wanted to fix this quickly, so Medline didn't stop linking to us and Google didn't de-value the relationship because of the broken links. We redirected all of the printer-friendly links from the previous site to the printer-friendly whole article (lets you see all the information on one page) on the new site. We did this because there is no way to move between now split up content pages in the split up printer-friendly versions of the site. Even if there was, we didn't think NIH would take too kindly to this. There is a return to the web link on the printer-friendly whole article page. This is a followed link and I realize the anchor text could be improved. We added the following on printer-friendly pages in an effort to not get penalized by search engines for duplicate content. Are we doing all we can to take advantage of these high-value links? Is the meta robots tag necessary, helpful, or not?
Link Building | | aafpitadmin0 -
Header and Footer Links on Home and other catelog pages of site
Hello, in our site www.mycarhelpline.com - we have just reworked on header and footer links. Have removed lost of unncessary footer links. However, the header links on extreme top right side has some links like - login, register, about us, partner with us etc. Is is that google will give importance to these links and i rather should move them to footer links of page and should move the most important anchor links on the top header. Pl suggest
Link Building | | Modi0 -
Building backlinks on sub-pages instead of main page(rood-domain)
Hey Mozzers! I am facing a problem and I need advice. I have recently opened my new website, which purpose is to offer quality articles, optimized for SEO. The problem is that I cannot find the right keyword to use for the main(root) domain (http://xxxxxx.org) as it is consisting of many niches. Is it a good idea to build backlinks on pages (http://xxxxxx.org/the-keyword-for-ranking) instead of building them on my root-domain? So basically, my root-domain will have less backlinks than my pages inside? Please give me some advice and way to act with. Thank you
Link Building | | Ralchev0 -
What % Page Metrics & Social, What % Links?
It seems that a lot of the focus of SEOs, especially whitehat SEOs like SEOMoz and Distilled has shifted a lot more towards improving page metrics (bounce, return rate, etc) and social metrics. I'm curious - And of course, I'm just asking for guesses - But what percent of ranking do you think is page metrics, social metrics and other non-link based metrics and what percent do you think are link based metrics?
Link Building | | DerekP0