Multiple sitewide (deep)links devalued by Google?
-
In my experience sitewide links can still be very powerful if used sensibly and in moderation. However, I'm finding that sitewide text blocks with 2 or 3 (deep)links to a single domain appear not to be working that well or not at all in raising the authority of those target pages. Anyone having the same experience?
In your experience, is the link value diminished when there are multiple deeplinks to a single domain in a sitewide text area? Is anything more than 1 link per target domain bad?
Or could it even be that it's not so much the number of deeplinks to a single domain that matter, but purely the fact that they are sitewide "deeplinks"? Are sitewide deeplinks treated differently than sitewide links linking to an external homepage?
Very interested in hearing your personal experience on this matter. Factual experience would be best, but "gut feeling" experience is also appreciated
Best regards, Joost
-
Yep, it's another "it depends" - if Moz links to Search Engine Land in multiple blog posts over many years (as it has done), this is going to count for more than one vote. Those links also undoubtedly go to different pages on SEL's site (new posts, etc.). But if I write one blog post every other day, linking to my affiliate site in every post, this really won't help the affiliate site at all
-
Hi Jane, I now tend to agree in the case of multiple links that are in a sitewide block. Also I agree that receiving multiple links from one IP-adress is worth less than receiving the same amount of links from all different domain (all else being equal with regards to trustworthiness, relevancy, etc).
But I am quite sure that receiving multiple links from one domain (or even one URL on that domain) counts as more than just one 'vote' from that domain. In my experience the raw number of links from a domain definitely helps with strengthening either transfered trust, page-specific authority and page-specific topical relevancy. So, yes to that bbc versus blogspot example.
-
Hey Joost,
That's a tough one because it probably should be subjective and depend on other factors about the linking site, the site it links to and how it links. If the BBC were to link to me twice, once to a new product page on my website and once to my home page, I'm not going to be concerned that the link is only worth the first link in the HTML code, and freak out if that's not to the page I'm interested in. Same thing goes for a lesser site to the BBC, but that would be a highly authoritative example.
That said, if you're counting links from c-classes or IPs, which is a very common way to assess backlinks, that page on the BBC is going to count as one "vote".
If I see a sidebar linking out twice to the same domain, I'm not going to be all that comfortable claiming that both those links are going to be any more useful than one would have been.
I don't believe Google would be simplistic enough to treat two links from one URL on bbc.co.uk to two different pages on one website the same way as it would treat two links on a blogspot blog to two pages on another website, if that makes sense.
-
Hi Jane, thanks. Unfortunately my data so far is only good enough for me to develop a "hunch", I was hoping for empirical data in the Moz community
Bytheway, are you saying that one page linking to URL A and URL B on an external domain would only count as one 'vote' for that entire domain? Not as individual votes for each page with it's own (anchor text / contextual / landingpage) relevancy? I did read a lot about multiple links from one page to the same external URL not adding any value over just one link, but I always thought that links to individual URLs still have their own merit, even if they are from a single source page?
Best regards, Joost
-
Hi Joost,
I don't have hard data on this at all; this is a what-I-know plus gut feeling answer.
Gary is right - multiple links from one page to another target should be treated more like one link to the target domain, but this might not be a uniform rule. In effect, two links from one page whether those links be site-wide or individual shouldn't have much more or less effect on the target website than just one.
That said, if Google felt that site-wide link or text blocks were being used manipulatively, there is no reason why they would not discount the value of those links altogether. It's interesting that you may have seen a correlation between multiple links from site-wide areas and poorer performance. It would also be interesting to see the data - you could put together a good blog post about it with enough data, for sure.
-
Hi Joost
Yes now reads 'unnatural links.' Sorry for my error!
Gary
-
Hi Gary,
Thanks for your reply. I don't really understand this sentence though:
"My question would be, "are your domains carrying natural links?" This would of course have a negative impact, but if not great."
Could you clarify what you mean please? Thanks again!
-
Search engines read this type of link juice as a single vote for a site. My question would be, "are your domains carrying unnatural links?" This would of course have a negative impact, but if not great.
I have heard site wide links becoming 'devalued.' This is not factual but through conversations I've had with large corporations.
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
-
How necessary is it to disavow links in 2017? Doesn't Google's algorithm take care of determining what it will count or not?
Hi All, So this is a obvious question now. We can see sudden fall or rise of rankings; heavy fluctuations. New backlinks are contributing enough. Google claims it'll take care of any low quality backlinks without passing pagerank to website. Other end we can many scenarios where websites improved ranking and out of penalty using disavow tool. Google's statement and Disavow tool, both are opposite concepts. So when some unknown low quality backlinks are pointing and been increasing to a website? What's the ideal measure to be taken?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Is Google ignoring my canonicals?
Hi, We have rel=canonical set up on our ecommerce site but Google is still indexing pages that have rel=canonical. For example, http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?colour=7883&p=3&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?p=4&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/children.html?colour=7886&mode=list These are all indexed but all have rel=canonical implemented. Can anyone explain why this has happened?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Would a sitewide link to a 1mb exe download harm rankings?
We're in a games market and we have a link on every page to our download. The link is an aspx but there is no downloadpage as such - clicking on the link triggers an executable download that is just less than one meg. We've been looking at the top results in our very competitive market and the top 8 don't seem to have a download. Coincidence or a real factor?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dancape0 -
What is a "Bad Link" in Google's eyes? Low DA?
Hi there, I'm going through my link profile and I noticed I have a few links that are from <10 DA sites. One has a DA of 6. Should I remove these? Aside from any referral traffic I receive from these links (I know there is none), are these links hurting me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W
What should I look out for in a site I may guest post on? Thanks!
Travis0 -
Links how long do they show?
How long do links show for in software such as Majestic ect once the link has been removed.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Advice on forum links
Hi guys, Looking for some good advice on forum links and there potential negative impact. I am analysing the links of a URL and around 60% of the links are coming from a forum (on a different domain). The forum is very relevant - about the same product he is selling and also has a decent user base. This 60% of links account for roughly 6,500 links. All with different varying keyword anchor text's, and some with excessive usage of a particular keyword anchor text. They are also all do-follow. They are in a mixture of signature links and in post links. The site they link to has been hit by penguin which also has an EMD. MY question is even though these links are relevant and on a good site with good traffic, do you think they have likely been picked up in the penguin algorithm? My initial thought was yes only because they are all do follow and mostly keyword based. But id love to hear thoughts on this as well as possible recovery options, i.e should he remove the forum links, reduce drastically or make them all no follow so traffic can still pass through? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ROIcomau0 -
Who is beating you on Google (after Penguin)?
Hi,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft
After about a month of Penguin and 1 update, I am starting to notice an annoying pattern as to who is beating me in the rankings on google. I was wondering if anybody else has noticed this.
The sites who are beating me - almost without exception - fall into these 2 categories. 1) Super sites that have little or nothing to do with the service I am offering. Now it is not the homepages that are beating me. In almost all cases they are simply pages hidden in their forums where somebody in passing mentioned something relating to what I do. 2) Nobodies. Sites that have absolutely no links back to them, and look like they were made by a 5 year old. Has anybody else noticed this? I am just wondering if what I see only apply to my sites or if this is a pattern across the web. Does this mean that for small sites to rank, it is now all about on-page SEO? If it all about on-page, well that is great... much easier than link building. But I want to make sure others see the same thing before dedicating a lot of time to overhaul my sites and create new content.| Thanks!0 -
If google ignores links from "spammy" link directories ...
Then why does SEO moz have this list: http://www.seomoz.org/dp/seo-directory ?? Included in that list are some pretty spammy looking sites such as: <colgroup><col width="345"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adriandg
| http://www.site-sift.com/ |
| http://www.2yi.net/ |
| http://www.sevenseek.com/ |
| http://greenstalk.com/ |
| http://anthonyparsons.com/ |
| http://www.rakcha.com/ |
| http://www.goguides.org/ |
| http://gosearchbusiness.com/ |
| http://funender.com/free_link_directory/ |
| http://www.joeant.com/ |
| http://www.browse8.com/ |
| http://linkopedia.com/ |
| http://kwika.org/ |
| http://tygo.com/ |
| http://netzoning.com/ |
| http://goongee.com/ |
| http://bigall.com/ |
| http://www.incrawler.com/ |
| http://rubberstamped.org/ |
| http://lookforth.com/ |
| http://worldsiteindex.com/ |
| http://linksgiving.com/ |
| http://azoos.com/ |
| http://www.uncoverthenet.com/ |
| http://ewilla.com/ |0