Does the Referral Traffic from a Link Influence the SEO Value of that Link?

[glennfriesen]

If a link exists, and nobody clicks on it, could it still be valuable for SEO?

Say I have 1000 links on 500 sites with Domain Authority ranging from 35 to 80. Let's pretend that 900 of those links generate referral traffic. Let's assume that the remaining 100 links are spread between 10 domains of the 500, but nobody ever clicks on them. Are they still valuable? Should an SEO seek to earn more links like those, even though they don't earn referral traffic?

Does Google take referral data into account in evaluating links?

5343313-zelda-rogers-albums-zelda-pictures-duh-what-else-would-they-be-picture3672t-link-looks-so-lonely.jpg Sad%20little%20link.jpg

[SteveOllington]

Haha brilliant! I'm totally with you on that. And since Matt doesn't tend to divulge much (and half of what he does is cryptic) that would put Rand as source number one, or I should say Rand & co... all the staff and associates, etc... on here are pretty much a fountain of knowledge. I'd be screwed if I  didn't have SEOmoz to learn things from.

[RyanKent]

When I find conflicting expert opinions, I sort them out by date and source. For sources, I place Matt Cutts first, Rand second, then everyone else falls further down the line.

There are others in the SEO world who share Rand's level of experience and expertise, but there is something about seeing him bounce up and down on WBF videos, along with his intonations that just make viewers want to believe him.

[SteveOllington]

Righty, I've been on a mission to clarify... it seems there's a lot of conflicting views on it. I mean I know there's conflicting views on pretty much everything but these views all seem to be from very good sources, so now I don't know what to think... I'm on the fence!

There's some discussion in here: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4176006.htm

Along with this: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/backlink-age-seo-factor/9943/

It's a difficult one, but it doesn't appear to be in the ranking factor survey, which is a shame as it would be interesting to see what level of agreement there is.

Anyway, Rand's is more recent than Ann's so I guess it would make best sense to follow his

Thank you for pointing it out, I would have been none the wiser otherwise!

[SteveOllington]

Ah, okay. I've heard it said a few times and assumed it to be correct but clearly I should have questioned it. Thanks, I've learnt something new from that

[glennfriesen]

Thanks Steve!

You got me thinking about a related issue -- if links that sent referral traffic were VALUED more than links that didn't, one could easily game the system by sending mechanical turk traffic through a link, or something similar... so if that's a factor, it's likely an irrelevant one.

Kind regards!

[glennfriesen]

Thanks for the great feedback and advice - in particular, for separating the facts from the speculation (which was also good stuff).

Now, I just have to find that perfect image of Link building (something).... the one I attached to this comment just doesn't work without explanation... hehe

gb-zelda.jpg

[RyanKent]

"We know for example that the age of a link counts, and an older link can be worth more."

Steve, my understanding is that a link's age has no direct bearing on a link's value. Can you possibly elaborate on why you feel otherwise?

My understanding comes from a few sources. One example would be: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/age-of-site-and-old-links-whiteboard-friday

[SteveOllington]

I'm pretty sure that links don't have to actually refer any traffic to pass value. You'll probably find that the majority of links that aren't on new/fresh content sites such as news sites, etc... don't refer much anyway. We know for example that the age of a link counts, and an older link can be worth more. When you think of some of those static sites out there that never change but still have good authority (especially for their niche) but don't get tonnes of traffic due to their industry, demographic, speciality, etc... They can pass some great link value even though some of those links will simply never get clicked.

If Google were to assign higher value to links that got clicked more, we'd only ever see sites at the top of the serps that had links from news sites, other sites that might well be most relevant would be held down.

Take a website or page about something obscure, an interest that somebody might have in an uncommon area of archaeology or something. Now let's say the site has great authority in its obscure niche, but of course gets very little traffic due to its obscurity. That site linking to another similar site would be excellent in terms of link value for the similar site.

Usage data might come into it beyond us clicking from the serps, and going into it with us clicking through as referrals too, but I wouldn't think it would have that much effect.

[RyanKent]

If a link exists, and nobody clicks on it, could it still be valuable for SEO? Are they still valuable? Should an SEO seek to earn more links like those, even though they don't earn referral traffic?

Yes, the link has value for merely existing. That value is determined by the SEO metrics of the page and domain of the site offering the link.

I wouldn't focus on obtaining more links without referrer traffic per se. My focus is obtaining quality links, which usually means they are visible and will receive traffic. If I was offered a link on a site with good DA and PA that would never get clicked, would I take it? Yes. It will help my site rank higher which can lead to more organic traffic from search even if the link itself did not offer any traffic. It's the reality of how the system works.

This process is why many black hat SEOs grab links from dead blog pages, asian sites, or try to stuff links into

<noscript>and other unseen tags.</p> <p><strong>Does Google take referral data into account in evaluating links?</strong></p> <p>Google reveals as little as possible about their algorithm other then to say they list over 200 metrics and constantly adjust their metrics.</p> <p>Those are the facts involved with your question. If I was to speculate, I would think Google either has determined, or will decide, that a link with zero referrer traffic should be devalued. The challenge as always is obtaining clean data that cannot easily be manipulated.</p> <p>PS. Love the attachments :)</p></noscript>