High metric or trust backlinks

Hi. Which drop domain will be better for pbn, the one with tf 15 cf 15 and normal-nonspammy backlink profile or another with tf 0 cf 5 and with only couple backlinks but from sites like times and forbes?

It's really going to depend on your specific case. Is majestic not showing the times and Forbes links? Is one domains more relevant to your niche? We can't give much of an answer without knowing all the details. However, if the TF 15 domain has a clean back link profile with 10+ referring domains, it will be worth adding to you PBN.

.
TF/CF are quick to respond to a domain being down, and to recover when it's back up, thus the second domain might be better, especially if you require more authority?

If dropped in the same year, the first domain might be better, especially for link juice?

But, I?m speculating?

You should analyze the backlinks of both domains, look at the PA of those URL?s, and look at the DA; that should give you a better idea.

I will go with TF

askary said:

Hi. Which drop domain will be better for pbn, the one with tf 15 cf 15 and normal-nonspammy backlink profile or another with tf 0 cf 5 and with only couple backlinks but from sites like times and forbes?

Click to expand...

People that say "forget the metrics, it's the backlinks that matter" fundamentally misunderstand the internet, and how Google and Majestic both work, and how those algorithms relate to each other.

ALWAYS go with the metrics (unless you're talking about Moz, in which case, forget about the metrics!).

tony_d said:

People that say "forget the metrics, it's the backlinks that matter" fundamentally misunderstand the internet, and how Google and Majestic both work, and how those algorithms relate to each other.

ALWAYS go with the metrics (unless you're talking about Moz, in which case, forget about the metrics!).

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this Tony? Cheers.

jamesjk1 said:

Could you elaborate on this Tony? Cheers.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I started to when I was typing that post, but then I got bored and deleted it, and just posted what I posted.

I'll make a more intelligent and complete post on it in the near future.

The short version, though, is that when people say 'look at the backlinks', they're missing the whole point, because all they're saying is if it's a link from a site THEY recognize and THEY value, then THEY ARBITRARILY DECIDE that it's a good backlink, and anything that comes from a site they arbitrarily decide is NOT good is somehow presumed a lesser link.
Unfortunately for them, Google doesn't care whether THEY like the backlinks, or dislike the backlinks. Google only cares how 'close' those links are to the trusted core of the internet. If you're 1,600 times removed, your links suck.

It's utterly foolish that a person would presume they can know, recognize, and value all the sites that give good link juice. For that reason, it's moronic to disregard metrics, Trust Flow in particular, when you consider that it calculates all the websites on the internet as they relate to each other and as they're related to the top million 'trusted' websites.

I'm not saying that all these domains with links from CNN/Washington Post/Tech Crunch etc etc that are all the rage right now are a bad thing, I'm just saying it's bloody stupid to think that the absence of links from those domains somehow makes a domain less powerful. And when you then turn that thought on it's head, it highlights that chasing links form those domains is a waste of time, because they're by far not the only show in town.

tony_d said:

Yeah, I started to when I was typing that post, but then I got bored and deleted it, and just posted what I posted.

I'll make a more intelligent and complete post on it in the near future.

The short version, though, is that when people say 'look at the backlinks', they're missing the whole point, because all they're saying is if it's a link from a site THEY recognize and THEY value, then THEY ARBITRARILY DECIDE that it's a good backlink, and anything that comes from a site they arbitrarily decide is NOT good is somehow presumed a lesser link.
Unfortunately for them, Google doesn't care whether THEY like the backlinks, or dislike the backlinks. Google only cares how 'close' those links are to the trusted core of the internet. If you're 1,600 times removed, your links suck.

It's utterly foolish that a person would presume they can know, recognize, and value all the sites that give good link juice. For that reason, it's moronic to disregard metrics, Trust Flow in particular, when you consider that it calculates all the websites on the internet as they relate to each other and as they're related to the top million 'trusted' websites.

I'm not saying that all these domains with links from CNN/Washington Post/Tech Crunch etc etc that are all the rage right now are a bad thing, I'm just saying it's bloody stupid to think that the absence of links from those domains somehow makes a domain less powerful. And when you then turn that thought on it's head, it highlights that chasing links form those domains is a waste of time, because they're by far not the only show in town.

Click to expand...

Nice insight.

I worry they get it wrong sometimes though. Lately Majestic has been SO good I'm starting to think it might be better than Ahrefs even. The metrics are vastly superior and useful and they seem to be discovering an equal amount of links. I wish they made sorting backlinks easier though it's a REAL drawback that you can only sort the referring domains on site!

ok guys, can you explain me, why domain with backlinks from times & forbes has tf 0? not even 1 or 2. domain droped many years ago, but majestic know about backlinks form trusts

askary said:

ok guys, can you explain me, why domain with backlinks from times & forbes has tf 0? not even 1 or 2. domain droped many years ago, but majestic know about backlinks form trusts

Click to expand...

Do the links still exist or were they deleted?

askary said:

with tf 0 cf 5 and with only couple backlinks but from sites like times and forbes?

Click to expand...

that one ^^^

and trustbacklinked site has ahrefs rank 46 vs 36 that normal site with tf 15 has

tony_d said:

Yeah, I started to when I was typing that post, but then I got bored and deleted it, and just posted what I posted.

I'll make a more intelligent and complete post on it in the near future.

The short version, though, is that when people say 'look at the backlinks', they're missing the whole point, because all they're saying is if it's a link from a site THEY recognize and THEY value, then THEY ARBITRARILY DECIDE that it's a good backlink, and anything that comes from a site they arbitrarily decide is NOT good is somehow presumed a lesser link.
Unfortunately for them, Google doesn't care whether THEY like the backlinks, or dislike the backlinks. Google only cares how 'close' those links are to the trusted core of the internet. If you're 1,600 times removed, your links suck.

It's utterly foolish that a person would presume they can know, recognize, and value all the sites that give good link juice. For that reason, it's moronic to disregard metrics, Trust Flow in particular, when you consider that it calculates all the websites on the internet as they relate to each other and as they're related to the top million 'trusted' websites.

I'm not saying that all these domains with links from CNN/Washington Post/Tech Crunch etc etc that are all the rage right now are a bad thing, I'm just saying it's bloody stupid to think that the absence of links from those domains somehow makes a domain less powerful. And when you then turn that thought on it's head, it highlights that chasing links form those domains is a waste of time, because they're by far not the only show in town.

Click to expand...

I partly agree with you regarding the (non-)value of (back alley) backlinks from authority domains, but boy you're making the same mistake yourself by putting that much trust (pun intended) in TF.

This quote sums up your wrong rethoric pretty well:

"It's utterly foolish that a person would presume they can know, recognize, and value all the sites that give good link juice."

Click to expand...

And you believe TF does all of the above?! Seriously?! Have you ever calculated Spearman's rho between (actual) PR and TF?! If not, how can you make this statement?

For Google TF is just another external metric and they don't care about it AT ALL. The fact that there is a (scientifically) weak correlation between actual PR and TF is irrelevant. A weak correlation is as worthless a a barely naked lady.

TF is (imho) a quick gauge as to what domains warrant further interest. I wouldn't entertain moz with a bargepole, but that is only a personal opinion.
If the TF is high the next logical step is to look at the referring domains. A site can have a TF of 44+ but all the links come from one domain (I know because I have one). It's notable that alot of spammy links does not increase TF, if anything it will detract from it. If you have a paid sub to majestic you'll get data on the refrring domains. Want to go further, then check the backlinks pointing to those.

TF is a good reference point for sorting domains and I would take it over PA or DA all day long. To analyse even deeper majestic gives a guide to the type of sites the referring domains are. That's handy because google is all about relevance. I would go as far as to say if I had the choice of 2 domains both had a TF of over 20 but one had more referring domains tailored to my chose niche but it had the lower of the 2 regarding TF I would still take it.

To say google doesn't care about TF is both right and wrong. Google will not use that metric, that's where you are right, however it will be majestics interpretation of backlink quality, which google does care about. TF is a fast way of filtering a list of potential domains, of course there is legwork after that process but is probably the best single metric to use for filtering. Better still go test it, like I have. Go get a semi decent site , say TF 18 CF24 , spam it and watch the TF go down and the citation go up (google doesn't like spam, TF goes down, see the similarities). Get rid of the spam, get some goo quality links, watch the TF go up and the CF stabilize. If you find a site where the TF and CF are over 28 and within one point of each other, you have a winner. It's a balance.

Everyone has preferences, I'm with tony_d, I like majestic and find it's metrics the most usable. I have never used ahrefs so I cannot comment on that but since majestic has served me well I don't need to. If you have your own system, great stick with it, however for someone looking for potential domains looking for a fast and easy to understand process of whittling down the numbers then doing a little more digging TF is the fastest way I know.

Looking at the OP's 2 choices I would pick the first one tf15 cf15 over the tf0 cf5 because by belief would be the second domain is losing or has lost a ton of links.

As for the barely naked lady, it depends what came off to make her barely naked

cloakndagger2 said:

To say google doesn't care about TF is both right and wrong. Google will not use that metric, that's where you are right, however it will be majestics interpretation of backlink quality, which google does care about.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Google doesn't give a damn about Majestic's interpretation. Google only cares about it's own metrics. So saying that Google cares about a metric because "X" says it's an awesome metric is just rubbish.

It's true that there might be a correlation between metric "X" and Google's own metric, but often it's way too imprecise to draw any conclusions on. Yes, as you pointed out it might have some value when used in bulk (it still misses a lot of great domains), but on an individual basis TF is pretty much worthles. Funny thing is so many people will disagree, but when I ask them to give me Spearman's rho (ranking correlation coefficient) between Google's metrics and metric "X" I only hear crickets. Well, if you don't know the ranking correlation coefficient between the two, then how the **** can you tell it's a good metric?! People just don't have a clue WTF they're talking about.

No wonder because the SEO community is filled with Dunning-Kruger drop outs who don't grasp the scientific method.

rogerke said:

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Google doesn't give a damn about Majestic's interpretation. Google only cares about it's own metrics. So saying that Google cares about a metric because "X" says it's an awesome metric is just rubbish.

Click to expand...

In your rush to post a contradictory statement, you missed the context of the post made by cloakndagger2.

The context was that 'Google won't use the metric, however, it's Majetic's interpretation of something that Google does care about, which is backlink quality'.

rogerke said:

It's true that there might be a correlation between metric "X" and Google's own metric, but often it's way too imprecise to draw any conclusions on. Yes, as you pointed out it might have some value when used in bulk (it still misses a lot of great domains), but on an individual basis TF is pretty much worthles. Funny thing is so many people will disagree, but when I ask them to give me Spearman's rho (ranking correlation coefficient) between Google's metrics and metric "X" I only hear crickets. Well, if you don't know the ranking correlation coefficient between the two, then how the **** can you tell it's a good metric?! People just don't have a clue WTF they're talking about.

No wonder because the SEO community is filled with Dunning-Kruger drop outs who don't grasp the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I'll follow your red herring, briefly.

There are plenty of side-liners, new to the game, who 'think' things should work one way or another (based on a formula or principle they've arbitrarily determined as being solely relevant), but don't actually have any rubber-on-the-road experience.
The most useful approach is to consider direct experience and results, in sample sizes that are large enough to matter - but that then tends to head towards a 'mine is bigger than yours' path, and that's usually pointless.

At the risk of heading down that path, however, I can say from a network of PBN sites now numbering in the xx,xxx range, that TF, and it's ratio to CF, are the single best predictors of 'link juice' value from a domain.

The premise relied upon to then extrapolate that into a discussion about Spearmans rho is the premise that "good TF = good ranking", and that premise is flawed because it misses the fundamental point that the amount of link juice derived from a link is not the only factor in having the target site rank well on G.
Therefore any correlation can only be coincidental, and because it can't be accurately calculated due the entire range of factors and their weightings being unknown, any such (non/)correlation is, for all material purposes, irrelevant.

If we were in fact talking about buying domains based on TF to use as money sites because we thought that "good TF means it will rank better/stronger/faster", then you'd set about looking for data to back that up, and do analysis such as Spearmans rho.
But that's not what's happening here.
So looking for that correlation is a waste of time - because it's meaningless.

All I've sought to do in my own tests is to determine the single most effective input that I can control, and I've determined it to be as described. I'm not particularly concerned whether it meets someone elses arbitrary standard, or not.

As I've written here before, the single biggest problem with this (or indeed, with any) forum is deciding what to believe and what not to believe.

And, back off the herring trail, and to my original point;
I feel badly for anyone misled into believing that the only (or best) way to rank a site is to build a PBN with domains that have links that "look good". "Looking good" is the weakest form of measurement.
Perfect analysis is not possible, but I say that TF and it's ratio to CF, is as good as it gets right now.

Thanks for your insights, Tony. The info you give out is always well thought-out and top-notch. Seeing you have such a good handle on this stuff, can I ask:
1) What it is that makes a 'quality' link?
2.) How does 'spam' fit into the link-building equation and how do you classify it?

Many thanks, JK.

I always look at BLs as well as TF.

But when an expired domain has good BLs, they usually have nice TF and nice TF/ CF ratio.

On the other hand, Domains with good TF doesn't always have nice BLs .

It is a metric, It gives you a general overview of the domain's power faster but to know its real power, nothing can beat your brain, simple as that.

Why do we have to argue about TF and BLs profile lol, it should come down with both.

Just to add to what tony_d has said, you actually want some run of the mill domains in your network as well as new sites and with the new sites you actually want to put some effort in them so they get good links.

I'd love the OP to give more info on their 2 examples above, such as historic link counts, I have a feeling the second one, with the "good" links has either lost alot of links from 1 domain or has lost a lot of links fast because webmasters are getting quick at spotting sites which are down, pinging etc, so they remove the link. This is a something majestic picks up on but your scientific approach will not.

If your scientific approach works, great, hat's off to you, tony_d's method is very similar to mine and it works great for me, however do not make it like your method is "de facto" in choosing domains because it's not. Around 90k of domains drop daily, I'm sticking with majestic to at least initially filter those which I may find useful. There are many different methods for finding network sites, I just aim to use a system which is time efficient and works, that's where majestic works for me.

Peterngo91, you're right, TF doesn't necessarily mean the link profile is superb, I gave an example in my previous post. I use it to take a list of 90k down to maybe 250 or less, then I initially look at the higher TF and CF domains in depth, that might be 20-30 sites. If the TF is high I don't see a spammy link profile but I may see one domain referring hundreds of links, which means if you lose that domains links you're done. As you say it is a balance of TF and the backlinks, but TF is generally a good metric for sifting through a ton of domains fast. You might lose a few good ones, that will happen whatever your approach.

peterngo91 said:

It is a metric, It gives you a general overview of the domain's power faster but to know its real power, nothing can beat your brain, simple as that.

Click to expand...

What if your brain hasn't calculated hundreds of millions of URL's, and how they relate to the domain that you're considering? Then what? Is your brain still 'unbeatable', or is it just deceptive?