Is there official Link Balance profile advice (anchor text) from Moz?
-
Hi,
We are adjusting our external Link Balance profile, but we're not 100% sure on what we should be adjusting it to in terms of Anchor text balance (branded, exact match etc)
We found this resource:
http://dashburst.com/seo-balanced-link-profile/And closer to home:
http://moz.com/blog/anchor-text-distribution-avoiding-over-optimizationBut has Moz done any actual research they can share on what is the best balance to have?
Thanks.
Rich Talbot -
Great, thank you Lynn
-
HI,
I don't think there is such a thing as a 'best' balance, just safer and less safe balances which can and do shift over time and through different industry verticals and niches. The dashburst article is I suppose a balanced enough approach to try to be safe(ish). Razvan at cognitiveseo has done some interesting case studies along these lines, check out here for example: http://cognitiveseo.com/blog/2522/brand-anchor-text-vs-commercial-anchor-text-ratio/
As far as I know there is no official moz research looking purely at percentage distribution of anchor texts exactly because there is no set numbers that is guaranteed to work in all verticals or for all time. Putting out exact numbers would just encourage people to chase a hypothetical best mix which is probably not the best way to go!
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
-
Do old links from my own unrelated subject websites improve or hinder my rankings?
Several years ago I placed links on two of my other websites I own and control one my old company about CCTV installation and the other one is the official website for actor Sir Roger Moore. The links are going to my holiday cottage letting website http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/ and at the time I wanted to improve my rankings with these links which are still there. The vast majority of my other inbound links are natural and are on other people's websites with some diversity regarding the anchor text. So my question is the old links on these unrelated subject websites which are also stored on the same web hosting company causing a problem and would it be beneficial to remove them to leave them in place? Also several years ago I set up two other websites at the same hosting company also promoting holiday cottages in the same place thinking I might have more bites of the cherry, but they've produced very little traffic and are not ranked at all well, but they do links to my main letting website, could these because in a problem? My domain authority seems to be equal to some of the companies which are higher placed for the short tail keywords on page 1 of Google and they have less inbound links, although they are usually bigger companies and I know many things which influence rankings. I am trying strategies to improve the rankings, which have dropped to a small degree over recent months.
Industry News | | WhitbyHolidayCottages0 -
Paid links from directory listing and business listing sites are good or bad according to Penguin 2.1 update?
Hi Friends, Recently on October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2013, a new spam filtering algorithm got live named Penguin 21. / Penguin 5. The update goes after sites that may have purchased paid links. I would like to know is it safe, if we submit website details with links in paid directories, eg: https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/submit/intro/ (yahoo directory) and quality business listing sites provided the categories are related to our website. Our competitor sites having the backlinks from those kind of directories and they are performing (ranking) well in major search engines. May I know how Google treat these kinds of links according to this recent algorithm update?
Industry News | | zco_seo0 -
Google Analytics (Not Provided) Count will Increase 100% by Oct 2014 ? - Your Advice ?
What will you Do if you cannnot find your Top Keyword in Google Analytics "not provided"
Industry News | | Esaky
Check here for more details: http://www.notprovidedcount.com/0 -
Duplicate content across external profiles
As a B2B business, a lot of our traffic comes from referrals, especially from profile listings and high quality directories.
Industry News | | hjduck3
I am currently updating all of our listings with content that is relevant and representative of our business. The easiest way to do this is by using one boilerplate/ presaved profile. This would be using duplicate content, would I run the risk of discrediting these backlinks to my website and suffering and Google penalties?0 -
Is there a way to get a list (backlink profile) of all tiny url's that point to my site or a competitors site?
I have noticed that most all links you find in all the major back link profile tools such as OSE or GWM, etc... do not show tiny url's. If there is a service that shows all the tiny urls pointing to your site, can someone please share. It has already been proven that tiny url's do pass link juice, so with that being said... if there is no way to find all the tiny urls that point to a site, wouldn't it be a great strategy to create all my back links with tiny url's to mask my profile from competitors? Thanks!
Industry News | | johnd57890 -
LinkSmart Raises $4.7M to Dynamically Change Links
LinkSmart is a startup trying to put a new spin on link management by providing a platform to dynamically change links. They just raised $4.7M, and TechCrunch posted a quick blurb on them here that is worth reading. In short, the application will allow a site owner to change all of the text links on their site in real-time. The idea is that this will help improve click-through rates, optimize traffic, etc. How do you guys see this from an SEO perspective? It seems a bit scary from an indexing standpoint if links are never consistent. Also, the flow of link juice will be inconsistent. Any thoughts?
Industry News | | tailwindcreative0 -
Is a canonical to itself a link juice leak
Duane Forrester from Bing said that you should not have a canonical pointing back to the same page as it confuses Bingbot,
Industry News | | AlanMosley
“A lot of websites have rel=canonicals in place as placeholders within their page code. Its best to leave them blank rather than point them at themselves. Pointing a rel=canonical at the page it is installed in essentially tells us “this page is a copy of itself. Please pass any value from itself to itself.” No need for that.” He also stated that a canonical is much like a 301 except that it does not physically move the user to the canonical page. This leads me to think that having such a tag may leak link juice. “Please pass any value from itself to itself”
Google has stated that GoogleBot can handle such a tag, but this still does not mean that it is not leaking link juice.0 -
Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here: With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact. As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that. However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant. Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written? Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+? Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO; Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
Industry News | | IPINGlobal541