Mix & Match Anchor Text for Best Results

14 comments
Source Title:
General tips on using targeted link building
Story Text:

Brian posts an interesting bit of insight into mixing and matching anchor text to avoid Google stomping your KW optimization. Whereas it may be old hat to some here, i suspect there are quite a few still gettting hundreds of links with matching anchor text and scratching their heads as to why it's not working..

The first point of note is that it's been suggested since at least the Allegra this February, that Google implemented some form of in-house semantics processing not too dis-similar from LSI. The bottom line of this is that Google could devalue links where the anchor text shows an obivously unnatural semantic pattern.

In short, if you have thousands of links from different websites all for just one or two very keyworded achor text, then the danger is that these anchor text links may be devalued.

He goes on to give examples of taking a key phrase, and using it's component elements to get many variations, and using those variations in your link building.

Seems 101 to me, not that i'm knocking the post, it's here becuase it's a goody :) but i did think it might be worth a little discussion...

Comments

Since the creation of varied

Since the creation of varied anchor text/descriptions and associating URLs can be very time consuming for a project that requires many (deep) links, we have to add this to our list of client services in our proposals. The way I have told sales to explain this goes something like:

If 100 webmasters all decided they wanted to reference your site and offer a link to their visitors to share your article, product, or whatever... is it likely that all 100 of them would use the same "clickable" text in the link? Further, is it likely that just following, just above, or surrounding that text they would all use the exact same wording to describe what the visitor will find once they click that link? No. Is it likely that even 50% of those webmasters will use the same and another 50% use another set of anchor/description? No. Search engines can detect that. It's just not natural and it spells out a concerted effort on your (site's) part to target a keyphrase.

Click here

Tossing in a few "click here" anchor text links works a treat for breaking things up and helping to mimic a natural linking structure. A bit of bad anchor text can actually be good.

Note: Changed my username from ebobnar to esoos. Trying to be consistent.

The keyword variation is

The keyword variation is pretty old hat, but a lot of general webmasters can't seem to see past their 3 keyword list.

The more semantics processing becomes involved, the more I see link building as having to become an art of conversation that involves both SE's and human users.

Another Ramifcation

Is having to explain to some clients why their business name could potentially be hurting their chances to excel in SERPs. If you are "Widget USA" and everyone links to you as "Widget USA" in the anchor text, there are some definite hurdles in place in ranking for "widget".

This usually flies right in the face of their previous SEO who tried to Google Bomb them to success.

Or the client ...

Or the client who thinks that's the way to go and refuses anything else. Go figure.

patterns

It's not just mixing up the anchor text to your website, it's mixing up the anchor text to each page. I also try to mix up the surrounding text in both directions if possible.

Those link request scrips have been around for ages

Where each time a potential link partner clicks on the 'add your link' page, a different target page and new link text comes up each time for them to use.

Anchor Text is IMPORTANT

Anchor Text is IMPORTANT - The thing to remember is to NOT decrease the number of anchors with your target keywords - Add new links with with the varied text.

If that was true, it would

If that was true, it would be too easy to sabotage the competition by focusing on their linking scheme more than your own. Also, if a 'repetitive anchortext' filter was implemented, sites like cheapflights.com would be annihilated, as about 95% of their IBLs use the exact anchortext 'Cheap Flights'.

If that was true, it would

If that was true, it would be too easy to sabotage the competition by focusing on their linking scheme more than your own. Also, if a 'repetitive anchortext' filter was implemented, sites like cheapflights.com would be annihilated, as about 95% of their IBLs use the exact anchortext 'Cheap Flights'.

I'd say any such system would more complicated than you give credit for - there are a whole load of parameters Google could use to try and differentiate between links in volume for brandname, link bombing, and Googlebowling.

We never really know, all we can do is summise

Quote:
Also, if a 'repetitive anchortext' filter was implemented, sites like cheapflights.com would be annihilated, as about 95% of their IBLs use the exact anchortext 'Cheap Flights'

Might well appear that way, but then there's always the concept of 'white lists' and manual intervention to consider too. Sites like the one mentioned may well be identified as ok, and allowed to 'get away ' with so called unnatural linking patterns. Coupled with the fact that they spend a bob or two on adwords..;-)

As for the mix and match approach, good common sense really. You can achieve some very cool results with internal linkage alone :) Until that is, they catch on and decide they don't like you anymore.

White List & a Hand Job

I've seen handjobs happen. In fact I posted one on for 'webmaster radio' a few days after my post the real webmasterradio.fm poped in. Could of course be coincidence, but I don't buy it. Posted a screen shot of the broken results.

http://www.wolf-howl.com/2005/04/sandbox-anchor-text-and-webmaster.html

>> cheapflights.com would be annihilated

Actually, you'd be surprised what our anchor text mix is like :) Granted, we have a considerable amount of links from our own family of sites using identical anchor text per site, but I believe that an SE would see that as "natural". ROS links are hardly uncommon out there..... Whether we will continue to derive the same benefit as once we did from them is unclear, but hey, that's what an external link building project is for, right? To make up the losses

Isn't conflicting information fun?

With any thing algo, it seems you'll be able to find at least one person to argue either side of a discussion it seems:)

My .02:
1 - Avoid patterns
2 - Keep ROS/ directory links/ or any TYPE of link that can be identified under a reasonable percentage.
3 - Vary the anchor text AND use any possible synonyms
4 - "Compartmentalized" deep links are a good thing

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.