backward links - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: backward links

On Mon, 10 May 2004 02:42:28 GMT, Will Spencer

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know, I'm beginning to think they are all networking or something,
when ones had enough they send a new one in :-)

That last post I made should of been taken as helpful.


Re: backward links

Quoted text here. Click to load it

now I say - this system makes no sense! PR is stupid if they keep it like it
is and was. PR just opens the door to stupid spamming stuff, done from
individuals who call themself seo experts - whatever. Page and Brin shot
themself in the foot and it hurts - PR makes no sense... maybe there is one
good reason - the Google spider has an easier job to find sites.

Re: backward links

On Mon, 10 May 2004 02:42:28 GMT, Will Spencer

Quoted text here. Click to load it

He opens his mouth. Oh, Hi Dave!


Re: backward links

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Your Question:
"What counts more- to have a higher PR or to have a higher ranking in Search

ANSWER: Depends upon what you are looking for..What "counts".

If you seek traffic, sales and qualified leads, you will need higher ranking
in the search engines.

If you are in a PR competition, you will need more PR.

I say all of this tongue-in-cheek because my answer applies exactly to your
question as worded.
I suspect though, that you are trying to ask something different and may not
be clearly communicating it.

PR still has plenty to do with SERPS, it is just that they do not count as
much...or Google is not showing you the accurate PR in the toolbar :-)

While I agree that a PR 6 is nice, Google no longer seems to classify
competitive equally across the board.  For instance, we are #1 for "free seo
tools" with a PR of 3 now (was PR 5 three weeks ago) and #9 for "seo tools"
(more competitive).  Having said this, I believe that a PR 6 or greater
would really help out in a competitive environment.

James - SEO, Web Development and Hosting -FREE SEO TOOLS

Re: backward links

Hi folks.

Thanks for all your feedback.
It seems that there is varied ideas of what counts on google and it's going
to be a long slog.
However. you have all been great, thanks for your help.


Re: backward links

Mick wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

one of the reasons there are varied ideas on what Google takes into
account is that they change the algorithm frequently...the chances are
that a very high proportion of the things people suggest have been in the
algorithm, are in the algorithm, or will be in the algorithm at some time
in the future

just as it pays to design sites to the published standards rather than
existing browsers so that it remains broadly "future proof", it pays to do
SEO to the complete range of likely algorithm elements rather than simply
optimising for what Google used last month

we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof

Re: backward links says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please read my latest reply to Will.


Re: backward links

On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:28:31 -0700, ""

Quoted text here. Click to load it


The problem with the above SERPs examples are they aren't highly
competitive. If you check Wordtracker you will find-

Free SEO Tools
Sorry! No results found

Seo Tools-
seo tools 12 11

Just the one result with an estimated 11 searches.

These are very low traffic phrases and more importantly if you look at
the top 20 in Google you'll see the sites generally are not optimised
for those phrases they get them due to luck.

I find doing a allinanchor: keyword phrase search gives a very rough
guide to real competition rather than sites that get there by luck.

allinanchor: seo tools  has 620 results
allinanchor: free seo tools  has just 196 results

This means hardly anyone is optimising via links for those phrases

BTW sometimes the results can be skewed by other factors. Take these

allinanchor: seo has 6,090,000 results
allinanchor: Search Engine Optimization has 88,700 results

The latter is more competitive and results in more traffic (about 3
fold), but more people use SEO as the anchor text. I'd guess it's
because SEO means Search Engine Optimization and it's easier to type,
takes less space on a narrow menu and probably other reasons.

If you check the top 20 domains (not 20 results) for Search Engine
Optimization in google only 2 are PR5, most are PR6, few PR7s and I
think 2 PR8s. There are no PR4s or below in the top 20 domains.

If you were consciously going to go after that SERP you would either
need a PR5 with everything right, a PR6 with most things right, PR7+
and not make big mistakes.

The above assumes you are starting from scratch and not from an
existing page. The reason for this is if you have a PR7 page that the
on page factors are perfect, but the anchor text has nothing to do
with the SERPs you are after you are highly unlikely to get a good
ranking. You will do better than a PR1 page, but not as well as even a
PR5 page that's got most of the anchor text right.

This means when SEOs start working on an existing site they generally
need to get new links because if a site already has enough links to in
theory get it in the top 10, but it has failed, the anchor text of
those links is likely wrong. So you are basically starting again,
looking for new links and this time getting the anchor text right.

This is also why so many people believe PR is no longer important.
They couldn't be more wrong, yes Google changes it's algorithms, but
for as long as I have been doing SEO it's been an important factor.

It's been said a thousand times on this NG and countless forums, PR is
just one of over 100 factors google uses to rank a page.

Clearly this means you can rank highly without getting all those
factors right. A good example of this is domain names, the best domain
name for a SERP is or, but if
you get this factor wrong you will have 99 other factors you can do
better with.

The more factors you get right, more likely you are to rank highly.
Some factors are more important than others, so if you get enough of
the right factors right you get a good SERP.

The actual PR of a link isn't important, what's important is the PR of
a link in conjunction with the anchor text used.

If you have a PR8 link to one of your pages with rubbish anchor text
it's not going to help that page very much and so it's highly unlikely
to rank well just because of that link.

That's not to say the above link is worthless, since you can link from
your now PR7 page (most likely PR7 from a PR8 link) using perfect
anchor text for the rest of your site or your other sites so they will
benefit considerably. This in turn feeds back to that page if you link
it right. But because the original anchor text was rubbish that page
won't rank as high as it could.

So a high PR link with bad anchor text isn't worth as much as the same
link with perfect anchor text. Likewise a lower PR link with perfect
anchor text is worth more (directly) than a higher PR link with bad
anchor text.

This explains why you need so many guestbook, memberlists and blog
spam links to rank highly using link spamming. You tend not to get
good anchor text, but you do get a lot of PR.

This is also why we find such variation in the PR of SERPs. It's not
that Google ignores PR, what we are seeing is the results of an
algorithm that's based on over 100 factors and most of the time pages
don't get anywhere near all of them right.

When you see a low PR page rank highly for a SERP you can be
reasonably confident it's got more things right than wrong (conversely
if a high PR page ranks poorly it's got more things wrong than right).
I've based a lot of what I know about SEO at looking for and examining
these pages in highly competitive SERPs.

These pages are rare, but when I find a low PR page doing well amongst
a lot of high PR pages when I check the links to the page I've found
in most cases the anchor text couldn't be much better.

If you plan to do this look for highly competitive SERPs, not your
own. I've found most people make the mistake of basing their
understanding on their SERPs only.

Given enough of my secrets away for one day :-)


Re: backward links wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's like I said in a thread the other day - high PR is like a Ferrari
if it has two flat tyres (poor backlinks) a Mini (PR3) is going to beat
it off the lights.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks Dave. I read it with interest. You managed to put into words
something I kind of knew but could never explain (other than with crappy
car analogies, that is:).
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Rustic Stone House Signs

Re: backward links

Jez wrote in

Quoted text here. Click to load it

IMHO, it was a rather good analogy.

If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Re: backward links

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree with all that you ahve said Dave, except that we know that
Wordstracker and Overtures' tool are no real estimate for real traffic.

I get around couple new SEO clients per week off of that SERP, so
competitive or not, it is making my company money, that is my bottom line,
not what those tools tell me.

We use those to get a general direction but often find reality to be
somewhat different. :-)
James - SEO, Web Development and Hosting -FREE SEO TOOLS

Re: backward links

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:13:55 -0700, ""

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Although I've found that Wordtracker and especially Overtures tool
(which I no longer check) isn't 100% accurate generally the results do
come close in percentage terms to site logs.

So if you have a number 1 for two phrases and one on Wordtracker
should result in 10 times the traffic than the other, in my experience
the site logs will mimic this.

But the actual numbers don't make much sense by themselves.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

How many visitors a week do those two result in (if you don't mind me

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: backward links

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You can, but it's harder.

With a high PR - or shall we say link popularity, if you don't trust the
Google toolbar? - it's relatively easy to juggle code and get a top result
for a competitive term, or even a whole bunch of results for one page.

It can be done with fewer links, but it's a whole lot tougher, and the more
competitive the term and the better-linked the competition, the tougher it

You'll also find that better-linked sites tend to have more stable search
positions, and are less vulnerable to taking a sudden dive if there is an
algorithm shift.

If you don't believe this, but enough people have told you now that you
really should test/produce your evidence.

Clare Associates Ltd /
01822 835802

Site Timeline