I managed to just check how many exact match anchor BLs I have and the number is quite low (around 50 in 2k+ of total links)
the niche is connected to health
and yes, of course, I have google analytics
I managed to just check how many exact match anchor BLs I have and the number is quite low (around 50 in 2k+ of total links)
the niche is connected to health
and yes, of course, I have google analytics
what about your top 3 competitors? provide their exact percentage and also yours
do u have a privacy policy bruh?where do I find that with free account?
what do you suspect?
cheers!
To clarify, calling people black cunts and insulting based on race doesn’t result in any type of infraction?Thread cleaned for the most part.
I won't just clean it next time though so please keep things on topic and stop insulting one another.
To clarify, calling people black cunts and insulting based on race doesn’t result in any type of infraction?
Just deleting posts?
Thread cleaned for the most part.
I won't just clean it next time though so please keep things on topic and stop insulting one another.
Unless I am missing something, as I am half asleep, you appear to have removed a ton of good, non-argument posts as well.
What was the point of this?
Still waiting for part 3 of http://www.canirank.com/blog/google-medic-update-data/ mtj85. Joke, I hope there will be a solution and we are testing various changes, but I doubt it's about things you can influence onpage too much. To me it looks like EAT uses external signals as well, but not "just links". Would be great if about us, author pages, bios, quoting sources and similar would fix it, but I don't think Google creates a new algorithm that's easy to fool in 2018...
My guess would be that google took a particular look into "health" related links and simply devalued all "DA above 90" links. This would cover a large majority of PBN links and therefore all the "low / medium EAT" sites were hit. Including mine. The sites that rose were the sites that already had natural high-DA links*
*I know DA is not google's thing, I am merely using it to present the quality of a link.
Relevancy has been a thing for a long time, maybe they increased the score for this?Highly interesting theory, would explain a lot, I'll have a look if I see similar correlation in my niche.
What I could also imagine, somewhat related: A new "topical trustflow" (not the majestic metric) that somehow overrides the general strength of links. For example, for a certain health topic, I see a quickly repurposed expired domain of a smaller hospital suddenly outranking a set of very strong, established and formerly well ranking sites for general, non-local terms. The content is pretty bad (very superficial, obviously written by someone without a clue) and relatively short, different from the original, but neverless the mainpage is along the lines of a general FAQ about hospitals. There are hospital related articles mixed into the skin treatment articles. Few backlinks, not really strong ones, but all of them from sites with high local or topical relevance.
The question I'm asking myself: Is, maybe, real topical relevance suddenly more important than the pure strength of a link? Could it mean we must rethink PBNs and abandon the old "strength over relevance" rule in terms of the content linking being relevant is not enough, the whole PBN site, including it's backlinks, must be relevant? Too early to tell, but I guess this update must have changed something pretty fundamental.