Effectiveness of Link Popularity Decreasing?: Open for Member Discussion

[rustybrick]

To continue our moderator roundtable discussion on questions submitted by members, we have post #7 by encanta who asks.

Does Google's apparent de-valuing of reciprocal links lead you to believe that the concept of link popularity is going to decrease in importance altogether in the near future? And, if so, how might Google compensate for the loss of this ranking factor? Perhaps they'll introduce human editorial review as a more important factor affecting SERPs? (This is probably just wishful thinking on my part )

Let the roundtable discussion begin...

[rustybrick]

Does Google's apparent de-valuing of reciprocal links lead you to believe that the concept of link popularity is going to decrease in importance altogether in the near future?

Link popularity is always going to be important in Google's eyes. The thing is they will always get better at determining what is a popular link versus an unpopular link. You see it today, but it will continue to get harder. Reciprocal links are not extinct, it is more about the type of reciprocal links you get, where they are from and so on.

And, if so, how might Google compensate for the loss of this ranking factor?

So if all your links are based on one type of link, i.e. reciprocal links, then you need to worry. You need to balance out the types of links you get. Directory links, one way links, reciprocal links, press releases, news sites, edu sites and so on. As they say, do not put all your links in one basket.

Perhaps they'll introduce human editorial review as a more important factor affecting SERPs?

I doubt it, Google is not known to, at a large scale, use human review for ranking purposes. They rather build technology to do it for them.

[dazzlindonna]

Not sure what I can add to the discussion, as I pretty much agree with everything Barry said. It is simply more important than ever to have good content that will attract good links. SEOs can no longer strictly depend upon recip links, forum sigs, etc. to make a big difference. We need to concentrate on standing out from the crowd. What makes your site different or worthy? If you can accomplish that, you'll have little need to even think about recip linking.

[pk_synths]

What I think really made an impact and made everyone question the value of a link was the devaluation of site wide links. These, in my opinion, are worthless now and changed the entire spectrum of the index. Allot of webmasters for years have been collecting these, either by reciprocal trade or by simply purchasing them. Google discounts these now and basically killed 2 birds with 1 stone. 1 bird being eliminating bought links and the other bird being removing sites that use unfair SEO tactics to rank (link farms, reciprocals, inter webbing, etc.)

This update pretty much targeted every SEOd website out there and only the authoritative sites survived.

Google will never eliminate the power of the link but they are definitely altering the way they judge them. No more is a link a link. It now matter if it's from an honest source, link history, age, varied anchor text, etc.

I agree with Rusty about an editorial review not being possible. There are simply WAY too many web pages out there and ranking one page over another is way too hard and open to favoritism. Last thing Google needs is the 1000s of daily emails screaming about bad editors, unfairness of rank, tattle tails (ex: "The site above me is using hidden text!! Do something about it") and I'm sure at least 100 new lawsuits each day from bad ranking websites.

Google established a ranking system and they will stick with it.

[rustybrick]

To expand on the site wide links topic, and it not being worth what is used to be at Google. Just recently, today and yesterday, we have two blog entries on the topic.

Yesterday, I wrote Site Wide Links; Not What They Once Were based on a Cre8asite Thread. Then Patrick Gavin from Text Link Ads picked it up and wrote his blog entry today named Devaluation of Site Wide Links?

[randfish]

Does Google's apparent de-valuing of reciprocal links lead you to believe that the concept of link popularity is going to decrease in importance altogether in the near future?

First off, I don't think Google is devaluing reciprocal links. I believe that's a misnomer. Google is devaluing what we in SEO call "reciprocal linking" where links point from one site's link page to another's homepage and the other site's links page points back, ad infinitum.

To suggest that all reciprocal links, like those shared between, say cnnfn.com and bankrate.com, from various pages no longer carry value would be incorrect. Just because a site links to you does not mean that by linking back to that site, in a natural fashion, you will lose any value from that link.

Google is trying to elminate manipulative strategies in order to have a more "unbiased" index. It's a logical and intelligent approach, and one that we should predict will continue for the future - if SEOs start to exploit weaknesses in search engines' algorithms, the SEs will look for ways to patch those holes.

On to the topic of link popularity in general.. Yes, I do believe that Google will put less total weight on links in the future and find ways to better analyze content quality on page, better associate specific manipulative tactics like link networks, etc. with sites and use data like search volume, traffic, searcher behavior, personalization, analytics, toolbar info, etc. to impact their results. It won't be a huge swing - links will always help to dictate relevance, reliability and reputation. But, the days when manipulating a link algorithm were easy are coming to a halt. Link spam and automated or non-editiorially-given linking will never end, but it will become harder and harder, just as cloaking, bait-and-switch and other search spam tactics have over the years.

And, if so, how might Google compensate for the loss of this ranking factor? Perhaps they'll introduce human editorial review as a more important factor affecting SERPs? (This is probably just wishful thinking on my part )

I'm with Barry a bit, though I do think there will be a lot of human reviewing in the most competitive sectors. I think Google can easily take the top 500,000-1,000,000 searched for terms and phrases and hand-check those results oiver the course of a year. If you're targeting highly competitive areas, I'd make sure that my site looked like it belonged in the top 10. Just pretend that you're standing on trial in court, forced to defend the reasons why your site is better than the thousands of clones out there - if you can present the jury with a compelling case, you've got a good shot to stay in the top 10. If you don't, you've got a good chance of having your links investigated very carefully, so make sure they can stand up to scrutiny if you're content can't.

[Phoenix]

Some really excellent responses from everyone. I hope I can add a bit to it.

I wanted to take off from Rand's explanation on reciprocal links. For sometime I have undervalued reciprocal links as a method to build links for a website. Generally it was if at last resort we would undergo linking building via reciprocal links. I do not believe they have been undervalued per se, but more that the websites that you obtain reciprocal links have little or no value. Its always a time equation for me and a lot of research undertaken in order to judge and evaluate the value of undertaking a reciprocal link with someone. There is a good deal of places that are not worth the time exchanging links with, and this has only been compounded by the lack of knowledge and reliable information webmasters have in order to wisely spend there time. Think outside and beyond the links page.

These days I often tell people to investigate paid link options, not necessarily from link brokers, but going out and approaching websites and offering to pay for link space on their homepages or subpages. Here I think lies a lot of value for the smart webmaster. There are a lot of websites out there not selling links, and there are many webmasters that would be happy to get a few dollars for a link each month. I have had some very successful relationships recently. One even sent me a Christmas present of handmade soaps, lotions, and stuff for spending just $15/month with them.

I agree with Barry in that "Link popularity is always going to be important in Google's eyes." They are just getting smarter, and so we should continue to do as well. While things will change and shift there will always be ways to exploit this and figure out new ways in order to get the maximum value and link can pass on to the website it links too.

[pk_synths]

To suggest that all reciprocal links, like those shared between, say cnnfn.com and bankrate.com, from various pages no longer carry value would be incorrect. Just because a site links to you does not mean that by linking back to that site, in a natural fashion, you will lose any value from that link.

To suggest that cnnfn.com and bankrate.com are equal to small mom and pop sites would be incorrect aswell. Owning an authorative website really makes you "above the law" nowadays. Owning a small, newer site is like stepping on eggshells. If your new I dont think reciprocals mean much unless you build up honestly and pay your dues. That could take years at times to do it naturally. Get greedy and you could be spending alot of time in the 500 ranks.

[dazzlindonna]

These days I often tell people to investigate paid link options, not necessarily from link brokers, but going out and approaching websites and offering to pay for link space on their homepages or subpages.

This, I think, is a great suggestion, and one that not enough people take the time to consider. It is amazing how cheaply you can get a link on a homepage from someone who doesn't know the value because they don't normally sell links.

[rustybrick]

Looks like we are past the question of is link popularity decreasing in value and on to ways to get links for our sites.

I think I will open this thread up to the public soon.

Outstanding replies guys.