Feb
13
It’s time there were some serious, hard-core, nitty-gritty discussions at SEO forums like there used to be in the “good old days”, and it’s refreshing to see a couple of good ones out there lately. Obviously, I’m not the only one who’s been missing the meaty discussions of old, as can be seen in this whine session at WebmasterWorld
Brian Turner started a good discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums related to how inbound links are being handled that’s a good read:
I’m inclined to suspect that it may not be that links are resulting in penalties, but that with some, they’re simply not being included in tallying the score for pages/sites, so they’re just not helping.
I’ve long been inclined to think that the location on a page has something to do with value of links (as one of many factors they can look out), and it certainly can’t be hard for Google to strip out global elements on a page they parse, including footers and navigation, to separate what’s in the main body portion, and differentiate based on physical location.
This discussion at Phil Craven’s SEO Forum at Web Workshop gets into a bit of a different aspect regarding links:
It was started several months ago, but touches on a number of relevant pointers regarding links, including whether they’re IBL’s or within the site - and also discusses the physical locales.
There are some people out there who say that “Phil Craven is evil” but be that as it may, he can always be counted on for in-depth analysis of SEO and algo issues, and that particular discussion is almost a learning lab about how to test factors. I guess if it’s actually so that “Phil Craven is evil” then he represents the more valuable side of evil. 