Backinks with RAW URL, do they provide any improvement for the targetting keywords?

I believe they do but I wanted someone more experienced since I'm just basing it on common sense.

Basically what I'm asking is if I get lets say 50 backlinks pointing to a RAW URL (http://google.com/post123) as example with no anchor text, will these raw links help the post rank for the targetted keywords?

In short, yes.

Google doesn't only look at the anchor text, but also the text surrounding the anchor text, and the content itself.

dennis727 said:

In short, yes.

Google doesn't only look at the anchor text, but also the text surrounding the anchor text, and the content itself.

Click to expand...

So if there's no contextual content around/in the page then the backlink is worthless regardless of the page DA/PA/PR?

spectrejoe said:

So if there's no contextual content around/in the page then the backlink is worthless regardless of the page DA/PA/PR?

Click to expand...

No, it's not worthless..
It will still supply link juice to that URL, thus it will still help to rank the post.

The G doesn't only depends on anchor text links. The raw url also worth-full, with some contextual text around, it ll made it even worthy. Only thing you have to keep in mind is, where those raw urls are inserted.

example: A raw url link for pharmacy is placed on a banking article is worthless.
A raw url link for insurance site is placed on banking article is worthy.