If I analyze a competitors backlinks for anchor text and they dont have any links with anchor text, is this a niche I should come hard at cause my competitors are using anchor text?
So they have backlinks, but there is no anchor text? Like this? HTML: <a href="http://blahblah.com/">http://blahblah.com/</a> Is blahblah a keyword itself?
Maybe, maybe not. PR also comes into play. If those links are on PR5s (extremely unlikely but just saying), you won't have any luck competing against them with your anchor text. So it's hard to say. Things change and anchor text isn't what it was.
That is not the only thing to make a decision. Even with no anchors, are these links from Authority sites? One or 2 links from an Authority sites could be much more valuable then 20 anchor links from shi*tty sites.
The real problem here is you analyze a competitor?s back links But did you find them all of them? Or did you relied on a back link tool Is there indirect links that you missed? It can take a team of people weeks to analyze all the incoming links of a site Take a domain I setup last month so far 3000 pages scraped pages indexed So you need to check incoming links to each page And then there?s the indirect links, linking to the pages linking to my domains subpages you would need more than a cheap back link tool or yahoo to break that down So think hard before you spend time and money jumping into a niche Direct linking is too easy to break down. So don?t do it in a completive market And keep your eyes open for the new tricks And always put up some fog ( shit load of cheap links)
try Code: http://www.seo-forensics.com/ I always use this tools to analyze my site and competitor I agree with *zap* We should more creative, and.. work harder of course Black hat and white hat or whatever, just more creative and work harder
Are there any decent free tools that will tell you backlinks' PR and anchor text and such? I know that most websites that have free "tools" are just a front end for yahoo & google "linkdoman:" and "link:" commands (respectively) which are, as *zap* pointed out, useless for all intensive purposes.
