Value Of Instant PR8?

I have posted this on a couple other threads, but I think you can find the answer in this chart.

 

Many of you have talked about the value of "themed links". I would like to see some of your evidence for this.

It was generally considered that the Florida update was Google's attempt to value the semantic or theme relationship of the link to the page it is on. But it is my opinion that that experiment failed and that now anchor text, and anchor text alone, is more important than ever.

I also think that PR as a driver of SERP position is of significantly less importance than pre Florida.

Now I'm sure that Google will eventually start to assess theme relationships as part of the measure of relevance, but I have not seen any evidence of it yet.

I'd welcome any evidence that anyone can present.

 

Bob, i am sure that all travel related KWs and their SERPs reflect us evidences.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=london+hotels

Many PR7 websites has been filtered so that why you can not see. But sites that have themed back links are not filtered out for example.

i have a travel related website and 1 month ago the PR was 6! But my website smacked with 2 different PR4 websites for my the most important keyword.

maybe there are some patterns for industries, for example: Travel related website require more themed links than computer related websites. And computer related websites requires authority website back links.... etc. just a thought...

 

Thanks Compar for giving us that link to the chart - I had not seen that before & find it very interesting.

I second everything you've said re themed links less important now & that Anchor Text is the most important at present. I hope this holds because I am seeing fabulous results due to my belief in that theory & implementation thereof which has held firm for the past few months.

PS: Thanks for your numerous postings... I always seem to learn something from you. You are very generous to share your knowledge with us.

 

Out of interest, what are the approximate numbers of links you need to be PR5, PR6, PR7 etc assuming the sites linking to you are of average PR themselves?

 

Great chart, I downloaded the csv the other day - thx again.

But perhaps I've missed something.. If one site points 10,000 pr3 pages at another single site (should read page), surely they don't all have a 'cumulative' effect on the other site/page per your chart.

(Otherwise one could theoretically just set up 2 sites, and hand themselves a pr 8+)..

How many inbound links from domain xyz can contribute to the pr of a target page on a different domain ?.. is there a cumulative effect, or does google simply say OK, there's one link from domain xyz, therefore all others from domain xyz targetting this page don't count ?

I know I'm missing something here, it's just that..

It's the part about a couple of carefuly interlinked domains that has me wondering.. obviously expat's referring to interlinking across numerous pages between the two, rather than many to one, but still..

your thoughts ?

 

All kinds of people who are buying and selling links are using what has become known as "run of site" schemes. In other words you buy a link from every page in my site. I think all of these links work. Look at the McDar experiment. I put up 55 links from the same website and they appear to have been very instrumental in driving that page to a decent place in the SERPs. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=256

Of further interest is the fact that none of my 55 backlinks to McDar's page have an themeatic connection. The all use the same anchor text, but the page content is not related in any other way.

Now what would be interesting is to move those 55 links to pages of similar PR value but with tightly themed content. I personally don't think it would make much difference, but I'd love to be able to do the experiment.

In your example of 10,000 links from a single site, I guess this is possible but seems highly unlikely to me. Who is going to build a 10,000 page site just to crosslink to another site? But I would surmise that if you had 1,000 links from 10 different site it would work just fine.

 

Dave see my damn chart.

 

The only value I think themed links have, at least for the time being, is more traffic (from the links, not serps) and higher coneversion at my site. I don't think that themed links do anything more than unthemed links in terms of your placement in the serps.

I think in the not-to-distant future themed links will play a larger role in the "weight" assigned to a link. I figure if I'm paying for a link, I may as well pay for one that's themed.

 

I would agree with all of that. Most people today are only discussing links as they apply to the SERPs, but you are correct people can and do actually click through on well placed links.

If you want a couple of free links from a very relevant site here's a deal for you. Write a 500 to 1000 word article about your particular market segement emphasising the Internet relationship, and I will publish it in my InfoPool and give you the return links as part of the author credits.

Have a look at this article http://www.compar.com/infopool/articles/news27.html to see what another webmaster has done. This is the general size and format that I would like.

 

Compar,

Have you considered a comment or blog style addition to the articles ?

I was contemplating doing an article for you as this is the third time I've read you inviting articles. Only problem is, the example you provide above is exactly the topic I was about to suggest

By providing a comments feature (or similar) you might benefit from freshness. Coincidentally, do you feed ?

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but what's wrong with that?

Let's say my site sells blue widgets. I buy 10,000 links for a couple thousand bucks and move up in the serps to the top spot when the phrase blue widgets is searched. Isn't this helping the person searching find exactly what they are looking for?

People who spend $ to buy links don't buy links that are irrelevant to what they are trying to sell/promote. If I sold green widgets, I surely wouldn't spend a couple thousand bucks on links that said blue widgets - that would be plain stupid. If I knew that I wasn't competitive in terms of price or service I doubt I would spend thousands to get high rankings in the serps either. I'm of the opinion that people that invest in link buying feel they have a good product or service to offer, and I want to see the people who feel this way about their business in the serps.

The people who spend the most time, effort & money promoting their site deserve top billing in the serps in my opinion. I don't think it should be random, or "I got lucky" or anything else.

Think about for a moment if it wasn't relatively easy to manipulate Google. What if Google's results were full of manually added sites that Google had decided were relevant? What if Google hired a team to "hard code" sites into permanent positions for competitive terms?

The beauty of Google, and the strength of it's serp relevance are the people who are "manipulating" it every day. Buying links is just another resource that's available for the people who feel they have a great product or service to offer and want the world to know about.

If Google tries to penalize people that buy or sell links they're making a mistake - that's my opinion.

 

If i had the money and believed I could honestly sell some products then it would be worth it I think.

For instance BlueFind. I have no clue what John paid for the internet.com listings, or if he paid anything. I know however that we got pretty much an instant PR 8 out of it, and since then the sales and traffic have gone way up. So if you have a product that can really sell, like I think BlueFind can, then yeah it is worth it.

Personally I am broke though so paying for a PR anything is out of the question right now. I am just hoping that the fact that I run a quality organization will bring in links.

 

Maybe Shawn will want to move this to a new thread. But you raise some interesting points because I'm looking for ways to dramatically increase the size of my article collection.

Here is what I 'd like to do. I'd like to build a collection -- call it a directory if you like -- of articles and information. It could include whitepapers and other information source I probably haven't thought of. I'd like these papers and articles tightly categorized. The objective is to very quickly expand this to 100,000 pages.

The business plan is to offer sponsors, run of the category, backlinks. My thought is to limit the sponsors links to a max of ten links per page.

Since these would be static pages they would collect significant PR very easily. Judging from the experience of my InfoPool every page in the collection would be PR5 or better.

Now to do this without a ton of editors, and to do it quickly, it has to be highly automated. I'm not up to speed on XML and RSS etc. but I'm sure that these technologies could be used. So in answer to your "do you feed" question the answer today is no. But I'd love to set that up.

So if anyone has the skills to help me in this I think that there is a ton of money to be made and I'm open to sharing the proceeds.

 

If you read the results of the Poll for this thread 73% of the respondents say they would never buy a PR8. I personally think that's a lot of righteous hogwash.

I don't know if I'd pay $1,000 per month, but I'd like to bet that the vast majority of the people on this forum would buy the PR8 if the price was right. If they wouldn't buy it they would certainly trade services for it and that is just another way of buying it.

Buying links is simply Internet advertising. If you took a Poll and asked if people could buy the back cover of Time Magazine for a given price I bet you wouldn't get a 73% righteous "no I'd never buy an ad" response. In my mind it's bullshit when you get that response to the link question.

 

This is my first post here and I have to say this thread is very informative. I was thinking about buying a text link from a high ranked PR site and I have learnt a lot from reading this thread.
The chart from Compar was also very interesting and informative, some nice work, but one question where did you get those statistics from?

 

The chart was developed as part of another thread on this forum. I don't even remember which. It represents the best guess of a bunch of observers, and all I did was create the formula's that reflected what would be the impact of those best guesses.

I've shown it to a lot of people who did not immediately participate in it's creation and no knowledgable person to date has refuted the results.