This is how I understand backlinks. Linking to a webpage that links back to you is more valuable to SEO than not having it link back to you. The more removed this website is from your own the better. For example, linking from one of my hubs to a non-hubpages webpage is more valuable than one within hubpages. As well, linking to another hub that is not my own is more valuable than linking to one of my own. Do I have the right idea? Any suggestions?
I already know/think I know:
- the higher up on the page the better
- the anchor text of these backlinks are important to keyword SEO
- too many links in general is bad, especially if they have the same anchor text and target webpage
One way links are more valuable....
Getting pages to link to you is the aim - you can do this by writing pages that people want to share either on social media or from their own sites.
Building your own links and over optimizing the anchor text can get you in deep poop with good ole Google who are not stupid and can easily spot when you are building links....
As far as I'm aware links back and forth between sites are seen as bad. The more "one way" links the better.
One method I have seen used to avoid this is if you have two sites, site A and site B.
You contact a site owner and offer to exchange links. They put a link to your site A and you put a link to their site on your site B. Rinse and repeat.
A bit sneeky but I guess it would work.
Here is my view on back links or links in general.
When a web page links to your webpage/hub it is giving your page an inbound link (aka back link)
It is better to get more inbound links from relevant web pages because when they link to your webpage they give link juice to your page (vote) which in turns boosts your webpage’s page rank. Your SERP (Search Engine Rank Placement) that is a place for your webpage in web search for given key words, is decided by:
1. Quality of the content in the web page/hub
2. On page optimisation (key word in url, title, description, heading) fortunately, hub page design takes care of it.
3. Vote / Back links from relevant webpages. This could be your other hubs or some external website page.
4. Social signals (Facebook likes, tweets, G+)
5. 200+ other factors that only Google knows
If your page links to another page and that page links back it is called reciprocal link. Votes of reciprocal links cancel out each other so it has little value for SEO and improving your chance to rank higher.
It is all right to link to your other hubs (webpages) in a way that other page does not link back and outbound link guides your readers to other relevant page.
When your page links to another page it gives the out bound link and that does not have any significant impact in terms of SEO. Your users may like additional links if prompts them to additional relevant webpages. For example a product description page giving link to instruction manual page or product comparison web pages or a hub about a game leading to strategy for playing that game.
When you give an outbound link to some webpage it is counted as a vote in favour of that webpage. If you want to give an outbound link without giving a vote you must give a no follow link.
Please keep in mind that artificial link building is frowned upon by Google and other search engines as such practice tries to manipulate search engine in giving a webpage a higher SERP over other deserving webpage. Most search engines are getting smarter in detecting such practices so it is better to avoid it all together.
In my mind best SEO is well on-page optimised webpage that is rich in content and useful to user. It must be shared liberally on social network so that it reaches wider audience. You may want to download and read http://static.googleusercontent.com/med … guide.pdf. The official guide from big G and YouTube videos from Matt Cutt of Google on the same subject.
This makes it hard because if a person links to your webpage, you would like to do the same for them. This 'rule' encourages people to be very selfish.
Yes, but you can see the logic. If you link one way to a good site, search engines see that as a personal recommendation. By providing a link, you're providing some extra value to your readers, so your site is rated more highly by search engines.
If you link to a site that has linked to you, the search engines don't know if it's a genuine link for the benefit of readers - or just some mutual linking for the benefit of each other. They're only interested in what benefits readers, so no extra value is assigned to your site in that case - and no rankings boost.
It encourages people to link to things they truly recommend to their readers, without any thought of getting payback of some kind. I don't consider that selfishness.
My 2 cents
Linking needs to be as natural to the content as possible. Links (in bound and out bound) should support the primary content and theme of your Hub (blog, article, forum comments...). Definitely avoid being too over zealous with keywords and links.
Some of you might find the following information useful https://support.google.com/webmasters/a … 6356?hl=en
Webmaster Tools has great info and videos on content writing. So does Yahoo contributor.
Here is HubPages advice... http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/HubP … d_23576288
"too many links in general is bad, especially if they have the same anchor text and target webpage".
to clarify what is too many:
-too many refers to: amount of backlinks increading too much in lees time (looks that they are not natural links)
- always same anchor text. natural links will be with different anchor texts (and also without anchor text, just the name of the web)
-if there are too many links, it does not mean that it will be bad. it means that they will NOT count possitive. if not, your competitors could do a negative backlinking to your webpage.
Thank you for your responses.
Is this a fair conclusion?
- Linking a Hub to another websites is good only if they do not link back to the same Hub or any Hub for that matter.
- Having external websites link to a particular Hub is even better, as long as the Hub doesn't link back them.
If this is true, why is it talked Backlinking? Shouldn't it just be called Linking?
Linking TO another website in your Hub doesn't do you much good. Google likes to see that you're providing references in your Hub - it suggests you've done your research - but that's about it. Some people believe that if you link to authority sites, some of their kudos rubs off on your site, but personally I don't believe the effect is significant.
What you want are links FROM other websites to your Hubs. Those are backlinks, to distinguish them from outgoing links.
On the contrary, Google values webpages which link out to quality information on other websites. According to Google's Matt Cutts: "Parts of our system encourage links to good sites."
This is why you will often see a Pinterest page ranked highly on search results when a Pinterest page has nothing but photos with links to other websites.
Makes sense to value outgoing links. The question is, what are the defines an outgoing link? From one of my hubs to another one of my hubs. One of my hubs to someone else's hub? One of my hubs to an article on Squidoo, etc.
I imagine the sites that receive this outgoing links as backlinks have value assigned similarly.
I think it is important to point out that Hubpages already links/tries to link similar hubs together and Google knowns this. I would imagine the articles on completely independent sites would be ranked higher.
When a hubpage / web page links to another internal or external web page / hub page it is considered out going link.
As WF says, the outgoing links which are valued are links to authority sites.
You want the link to return the reader to your page after looking at the linked site, right?
The OP states, in the post just above yours, Lisa Keating, "Having external websites link to a particular Hub is even better, as long as the Hub doesn't link back them."
To which you replied that you want the link to return the reader to your page after viewing the linked site.
This raises the question of how it is a 'backlink' if it cannot or should not be 'circular,' as WryLilt put it, "...one way links are better."
so..how would a reader 'return to your page/Hub?" in that case? And, then I suppose we should not put our own external links to our blog on Blogspot (for example), which in turn has links back to our Hub Pages articles???
This is SO confusing!! It seems every point contradicts every other point! It's like the contrary sayings, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," which directly contradicts the adage, "One man's drink is another man's poison."
:: throwing hands up in the air and not worrying about or bothering with links!! ::
I give outgoing links to sides I recommend.
What makes the reader coming back is my content and the quality of my outgoing recommendations.
Or not. I mean if the page doesn't meet their needs, the naturally would not and should not come back.
Generally speaking, I only put links within my articles (or in a sidebar links capsule) if they provide additional or supplemental / background information to my piece. For example, on a piece with a health-related issue, I might put a link to that topic at the NIH website... that sort of thing. It's not necessarily that I'm 'recommending' the site, but more of, "If you want further in-depth information about this matter--go here." because I'm not the expert--I've done enough research to provide an introduction to the topic.
Otherwise, if I am writing about something I know well...I might link out to one of my own blog articles, if that had an angle that was more "personal story" than HP likes, and sometimes, if I am writing on a different angle of something another Hubber has posted, then I'll link to their article.
That's about it. I don't focus on linking, but on writing.
Backlinks are links FROM another website TO your Hub. Readers who follow that link have not seen your Hub before, that's why it's so good to have those backlinks - they lead new readers to your Hub.
A link on your Hub TO another site is not a backlink and has nothing to do with backlinks.
Oh, ok..that makes sense--but I thought someone was referencing the concept of reciprocal links...such as (fictitious example):
I write a hub about xyz, and on my blog I have a personal story about xyz, so on my hub, I put a link to my blog, and on my blog, I put a link to the hub.
That is what I thought folks were talking about
Read this in another forum:
“if you see your website as your primary target, then link FROM your Hubs TO your site, and do not link back the other way. As Wry says, you also want diversity of links TO your site - so also write articles on related subjects at Wizzley, Infobarrel and other rev-sharing sites, all linking back to your website, which raises its profile.”
Does this hold true for Hubpages as well? If I link from external sites to my Hubs, it will improve SEO or is Hubpages already optimized in this way?
Here's an example. If I write an article and publish it on another website (ex. Squidoo, Wizzley or InfoBarrel) that introduces all of my articles (aka. Hubs) using 50 words for each intro and then link to associated Hub (about 50 links in the entire article to Hubs), would it be worth while?
If Google only counts a few of them (ex. 2), would publishing articles on another site that links to only 2 Hubs for further reading be the most effective?. Is it better to have 25 articles on Squidoo that point to 2 Hubs each or spreading them out on multiple websites with good SEO rankings (ex. Squidoo, Wizzely, InfoBarrel, etc)?
Here's one more thing to consider.
Apparently posting article links on social networks increases SEO, right? So by promoting articles on Linkedin, Twitter and Facebook, I am prompting SEO? Details?
Do such posts have a time line (ex. 100 tweets later it is no longer counted)?
*buries face in hands*
Pro tip: look at missolive's post. No, really. It's important. It's Google straight out telling you how it penalizes artificial backlinking, because people were using backlinks for SEO so much that it started cracking down really really hard on people doing the kinds of things being advocated in this thread.
Read exactly what Google says it's penalizing. Don't say, "oh, but I don't do that!" Google isn't listening to you. Say, "Could anything I'm doing be construed as a link scheme by Google, keeping in mind its goal is not to promote my stuff, but to help its users find pages that satisfy them so that they keep being loyal Googlers?"
You may be able to get away with a little gratuitous link dropping, and I'm not saying that sites using backlinking tricks always get caught. However, it's exactly these kinds of artificial backlinking -- embedding keywords in anchor text, one-way links, dropping links in directories, and building links any old where -- that in aggregate can really hurt a big site like Hubpages and cause pagerank drop for everybody. We're amateurs. It's far too easy for us to abuse backlinking to the point that Google says, "Wow, look at all these spammers on Hubpages trying to trick me!" and slaps a big fat Panda downranking on the whole domain.
Remember, Google is constantly changing and refining its algorithm, so asking for rules of thumb like "how many reTweets before Google decides to count a link as important?" is futile.
Your best chance of getting good backlinks is not to write them yourself, but to write things worth linking to. I know that's hard -- believe me, I know! -- but that's the game.
As for Twitter, Facebook, etc: Google does pay some attention to links shared by big "influencers" on social networks -- the Stephen Frys, the Steve Jobs of the world -- but it doesn't care about Twitterspam Q. Nobody saying, "I wrote a good article on cumquats... no really!"
Google's algorithms attempt to discern and neutralize any attempts to manipulate search results with self-promotion. Google may not catch all of them, but it's certainly smart enough to detect one person self-promoting their own pages on social networks. And even if it's not penalizing these practices now, it could down the road, so it's better not to expose your pages or your publishing platforms to the risk.
So, what can we do? Instead of playing chicken with Google, try to focus on:
-- Content, content, content. What do readers click on? What sorts of pages do web users and bloggers and news articles link to?
Study other successful pages and analyze what's bringing people to them and why. Look at effective articles in any niche, with an eye to how you can adapt those techniques to different subjects you know something about. Study any stats or metrics you have on your own Hubs or websites to see what people are responding to (check comments), clicking on, searching for, and keep refining your game using those clues.
-- Social media? By all means, use social media, by participating in, contributing to, and responding to the community. Just remember that on social networks, your audience isn't search engines, but other people like you, who will ignore the vast bulk of what's shared and click on only a few links, just like you do.
E.G. Are you a gamer? Then for goodness' sake get your ass on Tumblr and start participating in gaming conversations, sharing and reblogging other people's great posts, making good comments, and linking to your relevant articles if they contribute to the conversation. Are you a crafter? Start a pinboard sharing your craft projects, and get involved with other crafters. Have informational articles? Then become a Twitter expert in that niche, sharing other good articles and websites and videos on the subject, not only yours, so that people interested in that subject start following you. The key to social media links is that you're not link dropping for search engines; you're link dropping for people, who are being bombarded with link droppers and spammers 24/7 -- so you have to be a sincere member of the community, not a phony one, in order to have your own stuff taken seriously. But that can be powerful. Since I started writing this post, I've had 15 reblogs of my posts on Tumblr.
Finally: don't be afraid to link to anything, if it contributes something of value to your readers. Don't bother linking to anything that doesn't. Even if it's yours. (That's a tip I had to learn the hard way. See the parable about the Boy Who Cried Wolf. It's a great story to take to heart in the world of backlinks and social media.)
by Nexusx25 years ago
I was wondering if backlinking my sub domain will help me rank better in the search engines. I was thinking the more backlinks I have the more link juice would flow to my article? Or will backlinking my subdomain only...
by Liam Hallam2 years ago
After 6 months on the site i've started the really wonder how many backlinks is a reasonable number to any hub, and really to a hub becoming successful? Or is it simply a lottery.What kind of figures do other hubbers...
by Marisa Wright5 years ago
This topic has been raised a couple of times in other threads, I thought it was worth posting as a separate topic to get more attention. We all know how important backlinks are. Current thinking is that...
by Jason Menayan4 years ago
There is a lot of bad SEO (search engine optimization) advice out there, and the use of automated services that procure backlinks to your Hubs is one particularly egregious example. Using services to get backlinks can...
by Dorian Bodnariuc2 months ago
"Paranoia" must think some of you, and honestly, I used to think the same. I didn't even believe that this was possible, even though Google mentioned that they have ways to detect link spamming. But the...
by easyspeak7 years ago
I know it fluctuates depending on a billion variables...but for you hubbers here who are making decent money, how many backlinks do you create for each hub. Please specify between social bookmarkting, article...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.