Google Loves RAW links now?

[JR_Ewing]

I ask this question simply because in the las week I have noticed something...

That something is raw links, regardless of anchor text. The following is fictitious in numbers and anchor text.

For instance:

My site:

Raw links: 600
Anchor text: Joseph = 400 links

Their site:

Raw links: 5000
Anchor text: Joseph = 300 links

Until last week, I beat them on the search term Joseph. However, this week I'm losing to EVERYONE who has even ONE more link than I do, anchor text Joseph or not.

Is Google scraping anchor text and going with raw links? Honestly, that would get rid of at least some of the problems they "think" they have been facing.

Any comments are much appreciated.

[casinoranking]

Who knows what is going on. I'm seeing sites with 90 incoming links outperform websites with 3000 links.

[CasinoDawg]

Links are just one small part of the SEO equation. Besides, some sites with few links may be using some of the black hat techniques for SEO. Kinda sucks, but a reality we all have to deal with. It's never easy when fighting for those precious few top spots.

[JR_Ewing]

I disagree with one thing you stated. That links (backlinks) are only a small part of the equation. Being that Google's core algorithm is based on backlinks, I doubt that they are a small part of SEO.

Concerning Black Hats, I definitely agree. But hell, I'm new to this game. When push comes to shove, I don't know jack.

I'm definitely willing to listen.

[aksana]

To do high quality link exchanges is always useful. It's better to have 5 high quality back links with good PR than 3000 low quality with low or zero PR.

[AussieDave]

In response to JR's questions, I'm finding over the last 6 weeks or so that google is re-acting in some strange ways. Pages that have held good SERPS for months, literally slipped over night.

Although I try not to feed into SE propaganda, especially that associated to google, I have been spending some time over at Matt Cutts blog in the last month.

For those who don't have the URL: xxxhttp://www.mattcutts.com/blog/

Google will always be tweaking its algorithms, in hope of achieving greater (should I say) delivering more valid search results. I did notice through my stats that google may have completed a mini dance 2 - 3 weeks ago, as I had been hit by a number of data center IP's.

Anyway my point is, and going on past events, we may very well see a BIG shift in google results soon.

But it's a bit too early for me to open a book on the odds & to start accepting bets

The only advice I can offer is stick to the rules, white hat everything. If your convinced that you have a workable theory, try it out on a domain name your not using, least if it turns to cr#p, you don't ruin a completely good web site



Cheers



Dave

[Fergie]

Is Google scraping anchor text and going with raw links? Honestly, that would get rid of at least some of the problems they "think" they have been facing.

Interesting...going with raw links would solve some of google's link spaming problems - temporarily.

Provided there is no penalty in play here, my guess is that it isn't the number of incoming raw links, but where they are coming from that's factoring in here. Other variables might include the age of the linked-to site, the age of the incoming links, and so on.

[jagan]

I see no problems with lot of links with only one anchor text, for example say 400 links with only anchor text "insurance"

I have seen that as many links with anchor text, that keyword performs good in google!

secondly about raw links count, here are many factors and one most valueable is theme of the page from the link is being taken, age of domain as well as separate IP's links

[Fergie]

This is a little off topic, but my favourite article about link exchanges is here:
xxhttp://www.jimboykin.com/will-the-real-link-request-please-stand-up/

It clears any gray areas people may have regarding link exchange requests. Jim Boykin's blog is worth bookmarking IMO.

[JR_Ewing]

In response to JR's questions, I'm finding over the last 6 weeks or so that google is re-acting in some strange ways. Pages that have held good SERPS for months, literally slipped over night.

Although I try not to feed into SE propaganda, especially that associated to google, I have been spending some time over at Matt Cutts blog in the last month.

For those who don't have the URL: xxxhttp://www.mattcutts.com/blog/

Google will always be tweaking its algorithms, in hope of achieving greater (should I say) delivering more valid search results. I did notice through my stats that google may have completed a mini dance 2 - 3 weeks ago, as I had been hit by a number of data center IP's.

Anyway my point is, and going on past events, we may very well see a BIG shift in google results soon.

But it's a bit too early for me to open a book on the odds & to start accepting bets

The only advice I can offer is stick to the rules, white hat everything. If your convinced that you have a workable theory, try it out on a domain name your not using, least if it turns to cr#p, you don't ruin a completely good web site



Cheers



Dave

I'm willing to accept bets. Raw links are in, keyword anchor text is out. Why? If you go back to the old days, reference was the key factor (replicating peer reviewed educational journals). It had nothing to do with anchor text, keywords, etc. Just like RISC-based chips, Google is returning to what "should" work. Not to say that it will...

[jagan]

Keyword Anchor Text links is part of google algo and used as part to determine the ranking in SERP's

Some of my clients performing very good with the links on keyword anchor text!

[JR_Ewing]

Keyword Anchor Text links is part of google algo and used as part to determine the ranking in SERP's

Some of my clients performing very good with the links on keyword anchor text!

I agree. But soon that will not be the case.

Edit: that is my prediction, anyway. This is based on my current research and results. It is my opinion that Google tests its algorithms on "less desirable" sites before those algorithms go public. Again, just my opinion.

[helpyou]

I think that google considere not only link with the raw link and the hyper link but in the same time the link as this xxxhttp://www.onlinexcasinos.com/ ( the last links have less importance but for me google consider it ).
to be more clear :

1 Best Online Casinos
2 www.onlinexcasinos.com
3 xxxhttp://www.onlinexcasinos.com/

[JR_Ewing]

I agree. But soon that will not be the case.

Edit: that is my prediction, anyway. This is based on my current research and results. It is my opinion that Google tests its algorithms on "less desirable" sites before those algorithms go public. Again, just my opinion.

Okay, all. I might have spoken too soon. It appears that things are starting to settle and whatever was happening last week (besides the PR update) is starting to revert back (at least on some of my keyword phrases, not all though, yet). Maybe they pulled an algo change because it didn't work quite like they wanted it to, I don't know.

On another note, is Google no longer recognizing PR0? I ask because when I visit any page that is PR0, the Google toolbar PR meter is gray and says no PR available. It might be that my toolbar is messed up, dunno. Has anyone else seen this behavior since last week's PR update?

Oh yeah. I would like to make clear that I realize keyword anchor text will probably never completely go away in the Google algo. I just meant that raw links seemed to have taken precedence regardless of keyword anchor text.

Thanks.

[CityGuard]

On another note, is Google no longer recognizing PR0? I ask because when I visit any page that is PR0, the Google toolbar PR meter is gray and says no PR available. It might be that my toolbar is messed up, dunno. Has anyone else seen this behavior since last week's PR update?

I am seeing the grayed-out PR indicator on SOME pages but am still seeing PR0 on others. For example, I have a domain (www.origamigiftshop.com) that I was eventually planning on using as a gallery for my sister's origami but right now just has a placeholder on it -- it is indexed in google but is PR0 and the PR is not grayed out in my toolbar.

Based on a small number of pages I've looked at for this, I would guess it is PR0 if it is indexed but lower-ranking, and grayed out if the specific page is not indexed.

[JR_Ewing]

Ty, CityGuard.

I ask because I have some newer pages in my site that showed up PR0, and after the update, they are gray.

I also checked random sites with PR0 and got gray as well.

As well all know, gray at least used to be a BAD thing (blacklisted). This is where my concern lies.

Thanks again for the info.