deviatus
Power Member
- May 25, 2007
- 517
- 388
Natural anchor text diversity is incredibly high. I don't see how it could be overoptimized.
Panda 3.3 Links TEST Ahrefs *MUST SEE*
- Thread starter xtube
- Start date
Natural anchor text diversity is incredibly high. I don't see how it could be overoptimized.
Google has been slowly siphoning off traffic from organic search for years. They have become increasingly aggressive with it. A former VP was disgusted with them saying that they have gone from a internet search company to an ad agency.
I'd like to explain how we build our graph and in what way we differ from MajesticSEO.
We consider link to be New only it didn't exist before. When crawler visits the page for the first time, it doesn't consider all links from this page new. But if it re-visits the page and finds there those links which didn't exist there before, these links are considered new. The same way if for distinguishing Lost links.
MajesticSEO shows on a graph the number of new links without pointing out whether these links are really new or the page with these links is visited for the first time.
Each of the above described ways has pros and cons.
If on our graph decrease of links number if shown, this means that there are more links from which links disappeared that those with newly appeared links. This graph shows the change of links number, it has nothing to do with Google index. We use own crawler and own index.
We consider link to be New only it didn't exist before. When crawler visits the page for the first time, it doesn't consider all links from this page new. But if it re-visits the page and finds there those links which didn't exist there before, these links are considered new. The same way if for distinguishing Lost links.
MajesticSEO shows on a graph the number of new links without pointing out whether these links are really new or the page with these links is visited for the first time.
Each of the above described ways has pros and cons.
If on our graph decrease of links number if shown, this means that there are more links from which links disappeared that those with newly appeared links. This graph shows the change of links number, it has nothing to do with Google index. We use own crawler and own index.
There is no doubt that ahrefs is showing mass drop in backlinks for the majority of sites. I did find some examples that did not show this same trend you mention, but for the most part, the downward trend is remarkable.
What I am struggling with is how a 3rd party tool that scrapes sites itself (not a google site operator links: scrape) is representative of Panda 3.*. ahrefs should not be discriminating or be representative of any Google adjustment. I could see this if ahres was using a site operator for links count from google, but this does not appear to be the case. This would more or less point to a shift in how ahrefs is managing their data...
Trying to vet out correlation vs causality.
Can you please explain this?
What I am struggling with is how a 3rd party tool that scrapes sites itself (not a google site operator links: scrape) is representative of Panda 3.*. ahrefs should not be discriminating or be representative of any Google adjustment. I could see this if ahres was using a site operator for links count from google, but this does not appear to be the case. This would more or less point to a shift in how ahrefs is managing their data...
Trying to vet out correlation vs causality.
Can you please explain this?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 380
- 230
I have a site that only has 350 links to the site. Each post has only a couple of links, and I update content (high quality content I write myself) at least once a week. The articles are 600 words each, and I include 2 images per post at minimum. I also include specific article formatting via HTML to make each post look unique.
My rankings have improved around 30% without any changes in the rate of link building I have done. I also do not have any ads above the fold at all.
Thx for clearing that up, I though the easiest way to crawl the links was through using the search engines to begin crawling and thus ending up with a "shit" load of links to your index. So what you are saying is more or less that there are links that are taken out or has expired in some sorts and thats why its decreasing like that?
Its not logical if this goes basically sitewide on all the websites all over the web, so if you are a representative of Ahrefs tell us how it is the majority of the sites online are seeing this trend according to your index? Did you do an algo change? Did your robot get stuck? Did it get hickups?
For the people that have seen a positive trend and curve in Ahrefs, id like to see which sites have that positive trend.
Yukinari84
Elite Member
- Dec 12, 2007
- 2,326
- 4,735
Of course Google is trying to push more people to pay for advertising. This has been their goal for a long time.
Adwords is their "baby" as far as making their billions, so of course they are going to try and milk it for all its worth.
Not really. They are making more money, getting more patents left and right, expanding into numerous areas beyond search....the only ones that are getting hurt are those that don't know how to protect themselves and profit from Google's algorithm changes.
The tools aren't the problem. It's the users. A tool can only be as effective as the person using it.