I don't understand why anchors are important.

P

paligap351

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
45
If the search engines want to know what your page is about, they would just have to read the content of your site including the KWs within.

It seems redundant to put "plumbers chicago" in an anchor text of backlink when it says "plumbers chicago" already on my home page. It's obvious what my site is about, but it's not obvious that it's popular. Therefore it's important to place backlinks in relevant places, I get it. But I don't why anchors need to be anything other than LSI/Generic/naked/brand.

If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm starting to build links with no exact match anchors and, well, it's hard to actually follow through and do it. It's hard work to get a quality link, and you hate to put a generic link on a niche relevant PR4 with all the old ideas still in my head. But I just can't imagine why google would still value exact anchors... at all.

I know this is talked to death and the search bar is so all knowing. But It's May 24th 2013. Seo changes. Thanks for helping
 
Advertise on BHW
You are wrong, and here's why.

In your example of "Plumbers Chicago", sure your site may be about that topic, but so may be thousands of other sites. So how does Google determine which site should be on top for that term?

If tons of high authority sites point to a specific site using the anchor text "Plumbers Chicago", then it will rank higher than a site that say has the same "authority" links but without the exact match anchor.

Sure any sort of high quality link is good, but a high quality link with an exact match anchor is even better.

If you are having a hard time finding high quality sites that will let you link with an exact match anchor to your site, there is a good chance that your site doesn't deserve it anyway, and this is what Google thinks and why the algorithm is designed that way.

Because if your site was really where it's at for "Plumbers Chicago" or whatever keyword, there is a good chance that some "authoritative" site would've linked to you as such already.
 
Last edited:
because GoogleBot is dumb, the only way the bot can classified the theme of your website is from your anchor text.
 
The thing is that too much exact anchor usage will get penguin2.0ized so it's very important to have the types of anchors you listed OP.
Try making your strongest links exact anchor match, and the rest as diverse as you like, that should be best bet.

An example would be getting 10 high pr, niche relevant blogposts with exact anchor,
Then build a 1st tier of 40 web2.0 with your LSI/brand/whateveryoulike anchors.
This will give you a nice 20/80%, which I think is pretty decent for diversification.
 
Last edited:
Gyuman82 said:
You are wrong, and here's why.

In your example of "Plumbers Chicago", sure your site may be about that topic, but so may be thousands of other sites. So how does Google determine which site should be on top for that term?

If tons of high authority sites point to a specific site using the anchor text "Plumbers Chicago", then it will rank higher than a site that say has the same "authority" links but without the exact match anchor.

Sure any sort of high quality link is good, but a high quality link with an exact match anchor is even better.

If you are having a hard time finding high quality sites that will let you link with an exact match anchor to your site, there is a good chance that your site doesn't deserve it anyway, and this is what Google thinks and why the algorithm is designed that way.

Because if your site was really where it's at for "Plumbers Chicago" or whatever keyword, there is a good chance that some "authoritative" site would've linked to you as such already.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is talking about the page relevancy of your backlink. For example: having generic anchor links from pages where Google thinks the content matches "Plumers Chicago".

Has there ever been a case study trying this? It would be cool to see the affect of a few hundred highly relevant backlinks without matching anchor.
 
now days you need the Diversification in Anchor Text for ranking otherwise google hits with a penguin or panda updates.
 
WayneInc said:
now days you need the Diversification in Anchor Text for ranking otherwise google hits with a penguin or panda updates.
Click to expand...
It is basically what this guy says.
You need to understand that manually building backlinks is not what g00gle wants you to do. G00gle wants you to create high quality content. If other users find that content valuable, they will most likely link back to you with an anchor text. The anchor text that the users will create will not just be your main keyword which is "plumbers chicago". It will be very diversified and having lots of naked urls.
 
thats just how google algorithm works.

you need to use your main keyword as anchor text on your backlinks...

but with the latest update, you need to vary your anchor text to avoid over optimization penalty..
 
Beyond the diversification issue which is just a way for Google to decide if this is a genuine "vote" there is the concept of the crowd that contribute to the ranking system.

Google with its algo wants to mimic the human brain when deciding what is more important or relevant for a certain search term, therefore the more links coming from authoritative sites/pages plus backed up by anchor text plus many more factors will give it a higher ranking score.

Anchor text is just one factor/signal for relevancy.
 
OP touches a valid point.
My guess is that times of anchor tags are over.
Plain urls to optimized sites seems to be the next big thing in terms of link building.
 
Gyuman82 said:
You are wrong, and here's why.

In your example of "Plumbers Chicago", sure your site may be about that topic, but so may be thousands of other sites. So how does Google determine which site should be on top for that term?

If tons of high authority sites point to a specific site using the anchor text "Plumbers Chicago", then it will rank higher than a site that say has the same "authority" links but without the exact match anchor.

Sure any sort of high quality link is good, but a high quality link with an exact match anchor is even better.

If you are having a hard time finding high quality sites that will let you link with an exact match anchor to your site, there is a good chance that your site doesn't deserve it anyway, and this is what Google thinks and why the algorithm is designed that way.

Because if your site was really where it's at for "Plumbers Chicago" or whatever keyword, there is a good chance that some "authoritative" site would've linked to you as such already.
Click to expand...

You kind of miss the point and just explain how it works, not why it works like it does.

Go to ANY high authority website where an editor has created the anchor and look at what the anchor is. I bet you any amount of money it's going to be the brand name or action anchor (read more, check it out, contact, buy from here).

It's just not natural for someone to link using the keyword that happens to be in the tile, H1 tag, content etc of your website.

The problem with Google is that it's difficult to change the very basics of the algorithm. They thought they could use backlinks, and anchors, as a way of determining just how a website ranks without thinking that it would be spammed together. KW anchors is that backed into the system now, dialing down the relevancy will see a huge backlash and would cause problems beyond anything we've seen.

You could easily rank a website using no keyword exact anchors at all. It's all about the authority of the website, the relevancy of the websites linking to your, the content of the website, citiations, reviews and social media.

This is why we're seeing all the updates, because Google is dialling down the use of keyword exact anchors (thats why, the websites that have bombed have a huge amount of keywords in their anchors. It's not a penalty, just an algo change. Build links using the brand name!!). It hasn't and it won't stop yet. This is the very smallest change Google hopes to see. They have the chance to dial up the affect it has.

Personally, I have a mix of 90% brand name, 7% mixed/naked anchors pointing to me homepage and the rest are keyword exact pointing to sub pages.
 
I think op really means, he wishes anchors we not so important... to google... because op know why it is important.. because google says so... no furthur explanation is needed.. unless we as a web society are prepared to boycot google...
 
subster said:
OP touches a valid point.
My guess is that times of anchor tags are over.
Plain urls to optimized sites seems to be the next big thing in terms of link building.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that they are totally over. Recently there was a test case that proved that press releases links are counted even though Matt Cutts says they aren't. In this test case they used a unique anchor text and then saw that MC's blog is ranking for that term. Here is the link:
Code: 
http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-more-proof-google-does-count-links-from-press-releases-158350

I do agree that the days of having the same anchor text as much as possible are pretty over... but we all know that already :p
 
Gyuman82 said:
You are wrong, and here's why.

In your example of "Plumbers Chicago", sure your site may be about that topic, but so may be thousands of other sites. So how does Google determine which site should be on top for that term?

If tons of high authority sites point to a specific site using the anchor text "Plumbers Chicago", then it will rank higher than a site that say has the same "authority" links but without the exact match anchor.

Sure any sort of high quality link is good, but a high quality link with an exact match anchor is even better.

If you are having a hard time finding high quality sites that will let you link with an exact match anchor to your site, there is a good chance that your site doesn't deserve it anyway, and this is what Google thinks and why the algorithm is designed that way.

Because if your site was really where it's at for "Plumbers Chicago" or whatever keyword, there is a good chance that some "authoritative" site would've linked to you as such already.
Click to expand...

agree with this :)
 
AR!ZONA said:
The thing is that too much exact anchor usage will get penguin2.0ized so it's very important to have the types of anchors you listed OP.
Try making your strongest links exact anchor match, and the rest as diverse as you like, that should be best bet.

An example would be getting 10 high pr, niche relevant blogposts with exact anchor,
Then build a 1st tier of 40 web2.0 with your LSI/brand/whateveryoulike anchors.
This will give you a nice 20/80%, which I think is pretty decent for diversification.
Click to expand...

Just as an aside: "Anchor Text Ratio" is sort of a misnomer that is really entrenched in our nomenclature now. "Ratio" implies that the quality of a link does not come into play when we're speaking of anchor text diversity. What I mean is that one can effectively diversify one's anchor text not only with a merely quantitative approach (i.e. blasting 1,000 generic keys to an over-optimised link profile); but also with very strong high PR niche relevant links using Brand Name, raw URL, etc., given that the latter are weightier. Therefore, back link profile balancing can also be achieved with fewer links, so long as Google is considering those links high quality.
 
blacat said:
I'm not sure that they are totally over. Recently there was a test case that proved that press releases links are counted even though Matt Cutts says they aren't. In this test case they used a unique anchor text and then saw that MC's blog is ranking for that term. Here is the link:
Code: 
http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-more-proof-google-does-count-links-from-press-releases-158350

I do agree that the days of having the same anchor text as much as possible are pretty over... but we all know that already :p
Click to expand...

You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and not what people think he said.

He said

"I wouldn't expect backlinks from press release sites to help your ranking."

A press release site is just a glorified link farm.

A real press release that gets distributed through news aggregators will give you a wide range backlinks from an assortment of places. The press release is not giving you the links, the people reading it are deciding that you are newsworthy and giving you a backlink.
 
Techxan said:
You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and not what people think he said.
Click to expand...
I brought that source and test case not for the press release but for the fact that anchor text plays a role for ranking for a specific search term.

I agree with all the rest of what you said.
 
paligap351 said:
If the search engines want to know what your page is about, they would just have to read the content of your site including the KWs within.

It seems redundant to put "plumbers chicago" in an anchor text of backlink when it says "plumbers chicago" already on my home page. It's obvious what my site is about, but it's not obvious that it's popular. Therefore it's important to place backlinks in relevant places, I get it. But I don't why anchors need to be anything other than LSI/Generic/naked/brand.

If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm starting to build links with no exact match anchors and, well, it's hard to actually follow through and do it. It's hard work to get a quality link, and you hate to put a generic link on a niche relevant PR4 with all the old ideas still in my head. But I just can't imagine why google would still value exact anchors... at all.

I know this is talked to death and the search bar is so all knowing. But It's May 24th 2013. Seo changes. Thanks for helping
Click to expand...

Anchors aren't so important any more - but still carry a little weight.
Specific anchors should only account for 30% of your links anyway, the rest should be general or naked URL's

The ocaissional mention of the word "plumber" or "chicago" is what Google would expect in anchor text.
Having too many is not realistic
Having to few is not realistic

So have "enough" and "enough" these days is between 25 and 30%

Scritty
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top