Back link plan discussion
-
When you have a lot of keywords that you rank for say something like 15,000 or more.
How do you develop a good back link plan?
I was thinking to first look at the highest volume keywords we already rank for but aren't in the top 1-3 spots. To focus on those few words trying to obtain more high quality back links. But I'm not sure if this is the best plan .
What would you do?
What are some good consistent back link plans you can use to work on a keyword or lots of keywords?
Thanks for the discussion,
Chris
-
Appreciate the answer.
That was sort of my game plan to pick out our top 4 keywords that we aren't ranked on Google spots 1-3 but would bring us back the most volume of traffic. I do have four keywords like this that we are are either at the bottom of page 1 or on page 2 & if we obtained a better rank could bring back 11,500 to 30,000 per-keyword.
I just didn't want to focus on only 4 keywords by trying to get anchored text links or high quality links by manually reaching out to sites for only those four keywords if there was another plan to distribute more juice to a wider variety of words.
But you are correct that is the issue with coming up with a plan, that we have so many keywords some that bring back little traffic some that bring back a lot and how do we focus on the many or should we just focus on the four for now and then focus on a new set once a goal is accomplished.
-
Hi Chris,
I'm not sure I fully understand your question:
"The question now is, How with so many ranking keywords do you come up with a solid back link plan."
Do you mean how many keywords you can target with link building?
If so, that's not really the way to think about it because most high-quality link building won't use your keywords as anchor text and may not link directly to your commercial landing pages. The approach should be on getting links into the domain which are high quality which 1) help the domain as a whole and 2) can be filtered to your key pages via good site architecture.
Going back to your first question, if you are going to focus on link building, then you do need to prioritise and focus on key landing pages first. But you have two options for this:
-
Try to get links directly to those pages - this is hard unless those pages are link worthy in some way or you're prepared to pay for links to those pages which I wouldn't advise.
-
Try to get links to your domain/content and then use internal linking to filter link equity to your key pages.
Link building with a focus on improving 15,000+ keywords individually isn't going to happen and probably why you're struggling with this a bit. Focusing on a few at a time by doing the things above or trying to improve the domain as a whole is going to be more helpful I think.
Cheers.
Paddy
-
-
The company is in an odd industry, real estate. So our user base is posting out content in a sense which drives traffic. We don't have many "articles" or "content blogs" ranking for big keywords.
If you'd like to do a review just use MOZ Domain Tool we are www.nystatemls.com
-
Our website is well out of the "early stages" we are ranked for nearly 17,500 keywords bringing in about 200,000 unique visitors a month and 1 million page views. Most of this happened naturally without any focus on Search Engine Optimization.
The question now is, How with so many ranking keywords do you come up with a solid back link plan. I am looking for something consistent, that a team could start doing every week to capitalize on the keywords we are ranked for that have huge traffic potential that are near the top but not in place yet.
Just sounds sort of crazy that the best option is to manually reach out to high PR sites to see if we can get a back link to either our ROOT or an Anchored Text.
Any ideas?
-
"Ultimately, you should be trying to come up with ways to make your website naturally link worthy so that you end up getting links which you didn't ask for."
Paddy is absolutely right.
You say that you have rakings for 15,000 keywords. Let's say that is done by 500 articles. If your content is superb enough for each of those 500 articles that the pull in just one natural link per year for each. That is a nice number of links.
If you spend the next year improving that content enough that each article pulls 2 links per year, that is almost like having a full time person doing link building.
-
Hi Chris,
Link building can be very manual, particularly in the early days of a website and when you're trying to get going. Ultimately, you should be trying to come up with ways to make your website naturally link worthy so that you end up getting links which you didn't ask for.
This can come a few ways:
- Your product or service being genuinely useful to your target audience or within your industry so that people recommend it/reference it etc
- Creating content which genuinely answers questions and solves problems for your target audience
- Creating content which has some kind of an angle which encourages top tier sites or bloggers to links to it such as informative guides or statistics/data related to your industry
You may find it hard to get links to lots of your product or sales pages unless they are link worthy in themselves. So also try to focus on getting links to your content and then distributing the link equity from these pages to your key pages.
I hope that helps!
Paddy
-
But is the real plan to get back links to reach out to these high powered domains? That seems very manual and time consuming. I understand some may need to be done like this but how do you outsource or come up with a real plan to get back links each day or week from good sources without using spam methods.
-
Let's consider two goals...
First: Try to improve rankings where a modicum ranking improvement in position will best move the needle of your business. Very often these are pages on your site that rank at #4, #5, #6, or so for money keywords at the present time. Getting a ranking boost there will result in a major improvement in your revenue. Improving the content on that page and making other improvements that might facilitate conversions can make big paybacks.
Second: Often, people try to improve the rankings of sales pages, but, it is often easier to improve the rankings of article pages - especially if they are fantastic. So, I would suggest, after picking some pages for your first goal, write comprehensive articles that thoroughly explain that topic. These articles might attract links, they might be better targets when asking for links, these pages might rank better than your sales page. You will link them to your product pages and make every visitor to the article page know that you have the items for sale.
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
-
Does using non-https links (not pages) impact or penalise the website rankings?
Hi community, We have couple of pages where we we have given non-https (http) hyperlinks by mistake. They will redirect to http links anyway. Does using these http links on page hurt any rankings? Thansk
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
38% of SEOs Never Disavow Links: Are you one among them or the other 62%?
Hi all, Links disavowing is such a advanced tasks in SEO with decent amount of risk involved. I thought many wouldn't follow use this method as Google been saying that they try to ignore bad links and there will be no penalty for such bad links and negative SEO is really a rare case. But I wondered to see only 38% SEOs never used this method and other 62% are disavowing links monthly, quarterly or yearly. I just wonder do we need to disavow links now? It's very easy to say to disavow a link which is not good but difficult to conclude them whether they are hurting already or we will get hurt once they been disavowed. Thanks Screenshot_3.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Can 'Jump link'/'Anchor tag' urls rank in Google for keywords?
E.g. www.website.com/page/#keyword-anchor-text Where the part after the # is a section of the page you can jump to, and the title of that section is a secondary keyword you want the page to rank for?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
Do we need to Disallow profiles from discussions or forums?
Hi, We have a forum where users create different threads like any other community...ex..Moz. Thousands of pages are getting created. New threads and comments are Okay as they have relevant content. We are planning to "Disallow" all profile pages as they do not help with content relevancy and may dilute the link juice with thousands of such profile pages. Is this right way to proceed? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Links to category pages unnatural?
If people are linking to your site, it would seem natural that the vast majority of those links would point to the homepage, product page, or a article/content page. Let's say you have 100 links pointing to your site, and 40 of them are pointing to category pages. Would this seem unnatural? Does Google or other search engines have a way of determining this as a factor in ascertaining whether the links are natural or not? Is there a rule of thumb when it comes to the pages that are linked to on your site?
Algorithm Updates | | inhouseseo0 -
Is it wise to conduct a link building campaign to a Google+ Local page?
Is it wise, while doing a link building campaign to not only focus on the main website target page, but also the Google+ Local page? Here are two strategies I was thinking of using: 1. Conduct a city specific link building campaign to direct traffic to the location specific page on the main website AND the Google+ Local page. 2. Use the main website to direct traffic to each cities specific Google+ Local page. Does it make sense to drive links to a Google+ Local page? It does to me, but I haven't seen anything written about that yet... or perhaps I've just missed it along the way. I'd love to hear the communities thoughts. Thanks! Doug
Algorithm Updates | | DougHoltOnline0 -
Difference between Google's link: operator and GWT's links to your sites
I haven't used the Google operator link: for a while, and I noticed that there is a big disparity between the operator "link:" and the GWT's links to your site. I compared these results on a number of websites, my own and competitors, and the difference seem to be the same across the board. Has Google made a recent change with how they display link results via the operator? Could this be an indication that they are clean out backlinks?
Algorithm Updates | | tdawson090 -
Long term plan for a large htaccess file with 301 redirects
We setup a pretty large htaccess file in February for a site that involved over 2,000 lines of 301 redirects from old product url's to new ones. The 'old urls' still get a lot of traffic from product review sites and other pretty good sites which we can't change. We are now trying to reduce the page load times and we're ticking all of the boxes apart from the size of the htaccess file which seems to be causing a considerable hang on load times. The file is currently 410kb big! My question is, what should I do in terms of a long terms strategy and has anyone came across a similar problem? At the moment I am inclined to now remove the 2,000 lines of individual redirects and put in a 'catch all' whereby anything from the old site will go to the new site homepage. Example code: RedirectMatch 301 /acatalog/Manbi_Womens_Ear_Muffs.html /manbi-ear-muffs.html
Algorithm Updates | | gavinhoman
RedirectMatch 301 /acatalog/Manbi_Wrist_Guards.html /manbi-wrist-guards.html There is no consistency between the old urls and the new ones apart from they all sit in the subfolder /acatalog/0