Does the Referral Traffic from a Link Influence the SEO Value of that Link?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
"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
-
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.
-
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>
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
-
Acquired domains for SEO
hi there, For one of our insurance websites we acquired a domain, this domain is going to be redirected to our domain. After some research we discovered the domain we've bought also includes other domains which 301 redirect to specific 'insurance products'. These domains are also included in the deal. But what is the best technical solution for redirecting these specific redirected product domains? They already redirect to the product pages of the domain we've bought, so after redirect this domain, the sub (product) redirected domains will also link to us. It would be like this: A) www.sub-carinsurancesite.nl (301) -> www.domain-we-bought.com/car-insurance -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance
Technical SEO | | remkoallertz
B) www.sub-carinsurancesite.nl (301) -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance & www.domain-we-bought.com/car-insurance -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance etc0 -
Homepage Not Ranking in Google - How long do old (not current) bad SEO practices exert influence?
I'm trying to get to the bottom of a problem I have with the Google ranking for mauiactivities.com - it's far below what I would hope for. My research so far has uncovered the following, and any advice on where to go from here would be appreciated. _Edit:_No problems with Bing or Yahoo - the site is #1 for primary key word 'maui activities' 1. Running a site:http://www.mauiactivities.com search in Google reveals that the homepage doesn't rank. At all. I looked through the 17 pages of results and can't spot it. Edit: I have now, after fresh checks after submitting the homepage through Search Console, found it at #1 - still, the following applies ... 2. I've found that the domain (before it was purchased by my client in 2011) had some bad inbound links, specifically from scubamaui.com (no longer active). The links where white, on a white background. This web archive snapshot will reveal all. 3. Those bad links were 'cleaned up' (i.e. they don't show in the web archive) from 2014, and as mentioned above, the website is now 'down'. 4. Search Console doesn't have a manual penalty. 5. When I search for 'tropical divers maui' in Google I find www.mauiactivities.com is the 4th result. To me, this indicates a current relationship with the dead site (Tropical Divers Maui). No other term comes close to ranking to high for the homepage. So, to summarise - can the old, dead Tropical Divers Maui website still be affecting the Google ranking, and what would you suggest I do next?
Technical SEO | | jsherwin0 -
Does reciprocal linking carry any value?
No matter how much I research this one, there's no definite answer and there's a lot of contradictions. Basically we're looking to launch an article on 24 expert interior design tips for 2015. Each tip is submitted from a different interior designer we have chosen who have a reputable, trusted website. The main goal for this article is to generate various inbound links for our site from the designers and it will help to create engagement on social media. Although if we're giving out links to these designers for their contributions, the inbound links we receive in return will be little or no value as this is reciprocal linking? Some say this is okay as it's completely natural within the blog posts, others say to avoid it as it can be seen as an obsolete practice to deceive Google. Does anyone have any more information on this and how it should be carried out? Would a better process be to link to their social media accounts? Rather than reciprocal linking? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Jseddon920 -
Site Link Issues
For several search terms I get site links for the page http://www.waikoloavacationrentals.com/kolea-rentals/kolea-condos/ It makes sense that that page be a site link as it is one of my most used pages, but the problem is google gave it the site link "Kolea 10A". I am having 0 luck making any sense of why that was chosen. It should be something like "Kolea Condos" or something of that nature. Does anyone have any thoughts on where google is coming up with this?
Technical SEO | | RobDalton0 -
Maintaining Link Value Of Old URLS With 301 Redirects
Large ecommerce site that has been around for a long time (15+ years.) During that time technology has changed a lot and we are running into issues maintaining 301 redirects for very old urls. For example we have a good amount of links to product and category pages. Some of the old links are to products that still exist and will exist for many years to come.(of note little to no traffic comes via these links. Most of them are close to 9 years old so they are buried deep within articles, forums, or websites) However as we make changes to the site and URL structure these old urls are taking up more resources to continue to maintain 301 redirects. I am Leary of no longer supporting them because I do not want it to impact rankings however there is concern on how much development time and technology resources it takes to continue to support as time goes on. Does anyone have experience handling redirects 3 or 4 url structures old? Looking for insight from someone who has crossed this bridge before.
Technical SEO | | RMATVMC0 -
Bad link profile?
Hi Mozzers! We have recently been handed this client due to the former SEO company building up a bad link profile, which resulted in the site dropping off the search results all together. Forcing them to get a new domain. This happened in July last year and we are unsure whether it would be wise to submit a reconsideration request and then 301 their old sites pages to the new domain. Basically I'm asking whether you can spot any spammy links being built in their profile. Here is the old domain: http://www.claimssolicitors.co.uk/ It would be great if you could help me out! 🙂 Thanks
Technical SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Preserving Link Value
My client has an existing domain, domain A. They recently purchased and absorbed another company with their own domain, domain B. For marketing purposes company B will be rebranded as company A. They want to redirect domain B to domain A. The problem is that company B has by far the more visible domain, with 4x the number of inbound links. If I redirect domain B to domain A, what will happen to these links? I'm thinking their value will be lost.
Technical SEO | | waynekolenchuk0 -
Onpage linking
On my homepage, I currently link to about 40 internal pages. I'm considering altering the internal linking structure to have 50-100 links on the 2nd level pages. If I was to do this, I'd only need 8 homepage links. Do you think the 8 pages linked from the homepage would go up in the SERPs as the pagerank would be less diluted? I've heard so many mixed views on this. Be interested to see what people here think. Thanks, Pete
Technical SEO | | PeterM220