Combining adjacent image and text links
-
Hey,
The pages on one of our sites has a lot of links on it, which I have read a couple of times can be bad for SEO, although many say don't worry too much about it. However, I was thinking to reduce links and also reduce code size combining adjacent image and text links.
For example they current look like this:
"
Products page"I am thinking maybe I should change to the following:
"Products page"However, is this bad code and therefore could be bad for SEO? I have tried Googling this but couldn't seem to find anything on it.
-
I think you're right to streamline your code, just for neatness! I'd do something more like this:
alt="Products Page">Products Page
It's just nice to work in some alt text to get higher relevance scores
The number of links you deploy per page depends upon the SEO authority of your site and individual web-pages. I am of course talking about PageRank which is still a leading factor in Google's ranking algorithms! Everyone knows that TBPR (Toolbar PageRank) is dead. That's the little metric you used to get on the Google toolbar for Firefox (before Chrome was created). This was a simplified version of PageRank and a rough indicator, which people misused (so Google took it away)
'Actual' PageRank (which SEOs have never seen) is still very much at large and operates, roughly along these principles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Here's an image to help you out:
Basically web pages are referenced by other URLs across the web and gain PageRank. This gives a web page an amount of 'SEO authority' which travels along axioms of relevance (e.g: even a link from the world's biggest pet store, won't help a car insurance company to rank much higher). Links from web pages with higher authority and trust metrics, which are relevant to the target page (both in terms of linguistic semantics and actual usage) are worth more. Links from pages with low SEO authority which have low trust ratings, which are completely irrelevant (for users and search engines) are pointless at best (and may even have a negative impact)
The obvious implications of this knowledge are that, networking your site with other websites is a good way to raise rankings (so long as it is done properly and ethically, in an editorial manner - advertorial links don't count). That being said, these rules also hold true for the internal linking of your website! It's called PageRank, not DomainRank or SiteRank. Any time two pages link between each other (internally or externally) PageRank does flow
When one page links to another correctly, it loses some PageRank. A fraction of that PageRank is gained by the receiving web-page (unless no-follow tags are used, in which case the 'sending' page still loses some authority, but the 'receiving' page gains none - it's vented into cyberspace)
Many large, well-known sites use this to their advantage. Virgin have several expansive eCommerce driven web properties which leverage deep-linking menus and faceted navigational links to really push their long-tail traffic to its maximum! This serves them very well. That being said, Virgin have monstrous budgets, digital PR and corporate backing which you likely can't match
What's right for one site, can be totally wrong for another! If you have very little SEO authority and / or trust to begin with, then using too many internal site links can cause your homepage and category-level URLs to 'bleed out'. Think of it as, hooking up a complex water irrigation system (to feed a greenhouse of tomatoes) to a single bucket of water. All of the tomatoes receive one tiny drop of moisture, and die at basically the same time they would have - had no irrigation been attempted! But were that bucket confined to 2-3 tomato plants, they might survive a few weeks (even if the rest of the crops died). It's the same with internal linking, horses for courses and all that
Be careful when reading up on SEO theory as it's almost always highly contextual and applies to very specific situations only
-
Hi There,
I used both your codes in my test to see how Google sees it, there is absolutely no difference as per browseseo.net. Instead, you should focus on getting an ALT tag and right Caption to get SEO value for the image.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
VJ
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
-
SEO Implications of using Images for Article Titles
Hi guys! New to Moz Pro. I just recently completed an online course with Moz... I have a client who is writing some new content for their site, and we are approaching it with SEO in mind. I was wondering about using an image with text on it as the article title, instead of an actual "text on the page" title. Wondering if that's going to "cost" us anything, SEO wise. I guess we could use alt-text/title/description fields to make sure the keywords are crawlable for our article title but do they have less "weight" than a standard title? How does that work? Hope my question makes sense. Article header attached mB0PXsA.jpg
On-Page Optimization | | JakeWarren1 -
Does the link title attribute benefit seo?
Hello, Anyone could tell me the benefit SEO of link title attribute. Is **Link Title **ranking factor? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | JohnHuynh0 -
Do contextual links hold more weight?
Hi, Say you have an article, does a link in the content itself hold more weight then including it in say the byline? I have read so many times a link higher up the page, contextual has much more benefit than a link way below the fold separated from the main content within a byline. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Bondara0 -
Are My footer links bad?
I started working here recently, they said the footer links were to help with navigation of their most popular products. I am curious after reading http://www.seomoz.org/blog/internal-linking-strategies-for-2012-and-beyond if having these footer links could hurt the ranking of those key words after the penguin update. I am looking more into the analytics, and have not seen a negative impact yet.
On-Page Optimization | | DoRM0 -
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing?
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing? I had "twin" domains so I redirected my .com to www..com and now I have a lot of Rel Canonical Links.
On-Page Optimization | | Mike.Bean0 -
Too Many On-Page Links
Hi All, New to SEOMoz, so thanks in advance for any answers! Looking at our Crawl Diagnostics and "Too Many On-Page Links" is first on the list. The site was build with the intention of users being able to quickly get to where they want to go with drop down menus (sub nav), so we built the navigation using bullet points/css. Yes, agreed there are too many links on each page from our navigation, main nav cats are 4 with sub nav about 40, but what is the best way to resolve the problem other then removing most of the links (from the sub nav drop down)? Could we just use the attribute rel=nofollow for the sub nav links? TIA
On-Page Optimization | | bmmedia0 -
Summary of Anchor Text and Hash Tags
This a summary of my understanding of anchor text and hash tags, along with a question. I'm looking for confirmation of my assumptions and an answer to the question. Here we go: Given these two links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "first" a) First b) a) Second Given these two links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "Second" a) First b) Second Given these three links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "Second" and "Third" a) First b) Second c) Third Is this consistent with your understanding of using hash tags to get around the first link rule? Here's my question: If I have the following 4 links on a page, does 50% of the link juice go to Page A and 50% to Page B; OR 25% to Page A and 75% to page B; OR something else? www.example.com/Page-A.html www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor1 www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor2 www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor3 Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | dvansant0 -
100 links on one page
we're recommended 100 links or less on one page. is the 100 links including header and footer links?
On-Page Optimization | | jallenyang0