Links from relevant and important sites have always been a great way to get traffic & acceptance for a website. How do you rate links from new platforms like Twitter, FB to a website?

Do you rely on links from Facebook and Twitter updates? Discuss here.

Essentially, Matt says Google treats links the same whether they are from Facebook or Twitter, as they would if they were from any other site. It’s just an extension of the pagerank formula, where its not the amount of links, but how reputable those links are (the company uses a similar strategy for ranking Tweets themselves in real-time search).

While Facebook and Twitter links may be treated like any other links, they do still come with things to keep in mind. For one, with Facebook, you have to keep in mind that a lot of profiles are not public. When a profile is not public, Google can’t crawl it, and it can’t assign pagerank on the outgoing links if it can’t fetch the page to see what the outgoing links are. If the page is public, it might be able to flow pagerank, Matt says. With Twitter, most links are nofollowed anyway.

“At least in our web search (our organic rankings), we treat links the same from Twitter or Facebook or, you know, pick your favorite platform or website, just like we’d treat links from Wordpress or .edus or.govs or anything like that,” says Cutts. “It’s not like a link from an .edu automatically carries more weight or a link from a .gov automatically carries more weight. But, the specific platforms might have issues, whether it’s not being crawled or it might be nofollow. It would keep those particular links from flowing pagerank.”

There you have it. Matt’s response probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise to most of you, but it’s always nice to hear information like this straight from Google.

Do you like the way Google handls links from Facebook and Twitter? Would you do it differently? Share your thoughts.

Related Articles:

> Tips for Getting Found in Real-Time Searches

> Google Makes a Second Real-Time Search Announcement

> Yahoo Rolling Out Something Kind of Like Real-Time Search

Related posts:

1. Get Your Breadcrumbs in Google for More Links in Results
2. Google Makes Facebook Pages a Higher Priority for Businesses
3. Links Not Always the Best Indicator of Relevance

If you’re using Twitter apps such as Birdfeed, Seesmic Web, Foursquare among others and those apps implemented Twitter’s GeoLocation API all your tweets will then be tagged with your current location. Seeismic has implemented geotagging features already. So if your using it as a desktop client for Twitter, you might want to check out how this geatagging feature goes.

So, what’s good about this feature? There’s plenty actually. For one, it could spark up more local conversations between you and your Twitter followers as well as the people you follow on Twitter. You can easily find out events that are happening in a nearby locality just by checking out your Twitter timeline. ReadWriteWeb has several suggestions and creative ideas, you might want to check them out.

You can enable geotagging on your Twitter account by going to the Settings, and selecting the enable geotagging option.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

Twitter Turns On Opt-In GeoLocation Feature

Related posts:

1. Bill Gates Surpasses 100,000 Twitter Followers in 8 Hours
2. Is it OK to Say No to Twitter?
3. YouTube Partner Program Turns Two

I’ve been connecting with a lot of site owners who are re-entering or ramping up their efforts in the blogosphere. I suspect this has something to do with the focus on content creation + linkbait in the SEO world’s dialogue as well as the potential new traffic streams bloggers are feeling from the surge of linking via Twitter. Whatever the case, there’s a few critical pieces that can help make for greater SEO value from blogging and feeds in general (and most of these haven’t been covered in my previous posts on blog optimization).

#1 - Control Your Own Feed

It’s hard to write something better than Danny Sullivan’s terrific piece on Staying Master of Your Feed Domain. The concept is that you can utilize services like Feedburner, but you want those feed URLs to originate from your domain (so you keep the link juice you’re earning):

To make this work, you need your hosting provider to create a CNAME entry for a new subdomain you’ll create. If they can’t do that easily for you, find a new hosting provider. I highly recommend ours, Tiger Technologies. Cheap, easy for you to do this yourself, plus Digg-tested.

For me, I simply make a subdomain called feeds for any domain I’m dealing with. Since searchengineland.com is our main domain, our feed domain is feeds.searchengineland.com.

Once I’ve created this, the MyBrand magic lets FeedBurner take control of where the domain points to. That let’s me turn the FeedBurner feed address for us into http://feeds.searchengineland.com/searchengineland.

But wait — I thought it was about keeping control? Relax. I’m giving them control because I want to. If they went all evil, I’d just change the CNAME record and point that subdomain to wherever I want. I own the domain. I control where it ultimately points to.

Sadly, SEOmoz doesn’t do this, and it’s a pain to switch (though at some point, it may be worth that trouble). If you’re new to feed publishing or are early in the game, it makes a lot of sense to move now, before it becomes more painful.

#2 – Get Your Feed Listed Across the Web

There are some great directory lists like this one from TopRank Blog and this one from Ari Paparo. However, my advice here would be to go after not just the generic lists, but the more specific feed lists, aggregators, portals and yes, other blogs & news sites that can put your posts in front of an audience that’s passionate about your topic.

In the technology field, for example, places like Alltop, Techmeme, PopURLs, even the NYTimes technology page list feeds from a variety of sources. Those are amazing links and incredible sources of traffic, too (Alltop recently entered SEOmoz’s top 30 referring domains for traffic to the site). If you’re committed to getting the most out of your feed, you need to identify the portals in your niche that command share, traffic and page views, make a feed worthy of being posted and get their attention. Emails are surprisingly effective, but nothing beats an in-person conversation.

#3 – Use Absolute URLs in Your Feed

Scrapers, both good and bad, are going to scoop up your feed and re-publish it, including the links. If you use absolute URLs in your markup (e.g. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/rand-loves-the-nfl) rather than relative URLs (e.g. /rand-loves-the-nfl) your chances of getting link equity and PageRank back from those who re-publish goes up significantly. Note that this is a general disagreement with JohnMu (who posted on this topic last year, though not specifically as it relates to feeds).

#4 – Record Feed CTR & Links You Earn as “Conversions”

Through feed tracking, you can determine the posts that received the greatest/fewest clickthroughs. You can also use your web analytics or tools like Linkscape, Yahoo!, Technorati or Blogscape’s SMM Prototype to see how many links each post has earned (Backtweets is another good one if you want to record tweets). Treat those links andd clicks like a conversion – write more posts like the ones that have success and shy away from the posts that don’t earn much love/attention. Great bloggers don’t start out great (I certainly didn’t). They learn over time what’s successful and effective and get consistently on that track.

#5 – Full Text Feeds are Generally Better for SEO

The argument over partial text vs. full text tends to be about earning the clicks and interactions on your site (full text means people can read off-site and may never click through, while partial text really annoys some subscribers), but from a raw SEO perspective, full text has a few benefits.

• All things being equal, you tend to get more subscribers with full text than partial, which boosts your numbers, gives you wider distribution and increases the liklihood you’ll earn a link from those readers.
• Full text feeds get re-published in full, and that means links further down in the content potentially pass value back to you.
• Blog and feed lists are sometimes picky about partial feeds, and may opt not to include your site.
• Potential distribution partners like full text, because it gives them the opportunity to keep the visitor on their site (but if these deals get done, they almost always mean link juice back to you).

Obviously, business goals may overrule this recommendation, but it’s wise to be aware of the possible impact.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Related posts:

1. Facebook Gets Patent On News Feeds
2. Google Makes Online Stores Incredibly Simple
3. What Makes a Link Worthy Post – Part 2

Backlinks (or back-links [UK]) are incoming links to a website or web page. Inbound links were originally important (prior to the emergence of search engines) as a primary means of web navigation; today their significance lies in search engine optimization (SEO). The number of backlinks is one indication of the popularity or importance of that website or page (though other measures, such as PageRank, are likely to be more important). Outside of SEO, the backlinks of a webpage may be of significant personal, cultural or semantic interest: they indicate who is paying attention to that page.

In basic link terminology, a backlink is any link received by a web node (web page, directory, website, or top level domain) from another web node (Björneborn and Ingwersen, 2004). Backlinks are also known as incoming links, inbound links, inlinks, and inward links.

Search engine rankings

Search engines often use the number of backlinks that a website has as one of the most important factors for determining that website’s search engine ranking. Google’s description of their PageRank system, for instance, notes that Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B.^[1] Knowledge of this form of search engine rankings has fueled a portion of the SEO industry commonly termed linkspam, where a company attempts to place as many inbound links as possible to their site regardless of the context of the originating site.

Websites often employ various techniques (called search engine optimization, usually shortened to SEO) to increase the number of backlinks pointing to their website. Some methods are free for use by everyone whereas some methods like linkbaiting requires quite a bit of planning and marketing to work. Some websites stumble upon “linkbaiting” naturally; the sites that are the first with a tidbit of ‘breaking news’ about a celebrity are good examples of that. When “linkbait” happens, many websites will link to the ‘baiting’ website because there is information there that is of extreme interest to a large number of people.

There are several factors that determine the value of a backlink. Backlinks from authoritative sites on a given topic are highly valuable. If both sites have content geared toward the keyword topic, the backlink is considered relevant and believed to have strong influence on the search engine rankings of the webpage granted the backlink. A backlink represents a favorable ‘editorial vote’ for the receiving webpage from another granting webpage. Another important factor is the anchor text of the backlink. Anchor text is the descriptive labeling of the hyperlink as it appears on a webpage. Search engine bots (i.e., spiders, crawlers, etc.) examine the anchor text to evaluate how relevant it is to the content on a webpage. Anchor text and webpage content congruency are highly weighted in search engine results page (SERP) rankings of your webpage with respect to any given keyword query by a search engine user.

Increasingly, inbound links are being weighed against link popularity and originating context. This transition is reducing the notion of one link, one vote in SEO, a trend proponents^[who?] hope will help curb linkspam as a whole.

Technical

When HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) was designed, there was no explicit mechanism in the design to keep track of backlinks in software, as this carried additional logistical and network overhead.

Some website software internally keeps track of backlinks. Examples of this include most wiki and CMS software.

Most commercial search engines provide a mechanism to determine the number of backlinks they have recorded to a particular web page. For example, Google can be searched using link:wikipedia.org to find the number of pages on the Web pointing to http://wikipedia.org/. Google only shows a small fraction of the number of links pointing to a site. It credits many more backlinks than it shows for each website.

Other mechanisms have been developed to track backlinks between disparate webpages controlled by organizations that aren’t associated with each other. The most notable example of this is TrackBacks between blogs.

Related posts:

1. Google Link: Command – Busting the Myths
2. 3 Steps for Optimizing Content for Long Tail Keywords
3. What is SEO?

Last week at Pubcon Las Vegas, I presented on How to Buy Links with Maximum Juice and Minimum Effort with fellow panelists Roger Montti (Martinibuster), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and Todd Malicoat (Stuntdubl). I was a bit of an odd choice for this discussion, as I’d only recently announced SEOmoz’s Stance on Paid Links & Link Ads, but Pubcon’s organizers decided it would be interesting to have a divergent point-of-view.

Below is my presentation, which covers the perspective I come from and why I’m so risk-averse as well as strategies I recommend to capture value from investing in link acquisition campaigns:

Pubcon 2009 Paid Links

Not surprisingly I had a lot of people talk to me (and email me) after the presentation and express some really valuable opinions and questions. The presentations started late due to a misfunctioning projector, meaning there was no time for formal Q+A. I thought I’d take the opportunity in this post to address some of those missed questions.

Do you ever recommend link buying for any site? What about hyper-competitive industries?

Because of my distaste for risk of any kind when it comes to Google’s webspam team, my answer is consistent – no. I don’t ever suggest that businesses buy links from brokers or in the form of link ads that carry the primary intent of boosting a site’s ranking. To be fair, many of my colleagues who practice SEO in competitive industries (dating, gaming, pharmaceutical, real estate, e-commerce, etc.) don’t agree and do engage in buying links to boost their rank. I even know folks at Fortune 500s who use link brokers successfully for specific pages and targeted keywords (this group is probably in the lowest risk category).

Despite these examples and my respect for my colleagues, whenever I’m asked, I’m going to give the same reply – it’s my belief that in the long run, your money will be better spent on link acquisition that runs no risk of being flagged as manipulative by Google. The penalties and problems of link buying simply outweigh the benefits in my mind, so while I have no problem with paid links from a moral, ethical or legal standpoint (nofollow is most definitely not a way to disclose advertising to consumers as per the FTC’s guidelines), the pragmatist in me says link buying isn’t the way to success at Google.

What about directories that require a payment?

The short answer is – it depends. I’d wager a lot of money that some directories which do require payments pass great link equity. These include sites like:

• The Yahoo! Directory
• The Better Business Bureau Directory
• SEMPO’s Member Directory
• Apple’s Web Apps Directory

Then there’s the opposite end of the spectrum of directories that exist primarily for the purpose of selling PageRank. Google took action against many of these a couple years back and I suspect they continue to identify and discount their links as new ones crop up. In 2007, I wrote a lengthy post on What Makes a Good Directory and I’d still stand by nearly all of that today.

The message here is that just because a site requires payment to get a link doesn’t make it a “paid link” that Google will penalize or discount. As with many things in life, SEO and the web, there are shades of gray and nuances that require paying attention. If stuff like this were simple, SEO would be, too, and we know that’s not the case.

If I see my competitors engaging in link buying, how can I compete if I don’t do it, too?

I think a big misnomer with link analysis comes up when people scroll through a list of their competition’s links via something like Yahoo! Site Explorer. There’s no metrics indicating whether the link is passing juice, no metric for trustworthiness or quality, just a notation that a link exists on the page. Even if you’re using something more advanced like Linkscape, there’s nothing to say which links Google counts and which they don’t. You can easily get pulled into the idea that paid links are what’s propping up the competition’s rankings, when in fact, it’s a few great natural links that are doing all the heavy lifting.

I remember a site clinic several years back featuring a Google’s webspam chief, Matt Cutts. He was reviewing a site’s link profile on stage using an internal tool and commented that while Google saw several hundred links to the site, only three (yes 3 out of hundreds!) were passing link equity. Cearly, the search giant does a tremendous amount of filtering on the web’s link graph, so don’t presume to be sure which links are passing value.

Even if you feel very confident that paid links are winning the battle for your archnemesis, I recommend taking the low-risk road. In the long run, they’re likely to get penalized/devalued and you’re likely to overtake them with a link profile that’s clean and continually increasing in value.

Where do you draw the line between money that’s spent to acquire a link indirectly (as with event sponsorship, ads that turn into links, etc.)

This gets at the crux of the issue, but I think I’ve got a reasonably good methodology for determining which links requiring funds fit with Google’s guidelines and which violate them. I like these three questions:

1. Does the organization offering the link tout SEO, PageRank, customizable anchor text or Google rankings as either a portion or the whole of the benefit you’ll receive by paying this money?
2. Does the money go towards little else besides the link itself?
3. Does the organization/website provide links via this acquisition methodology (whether that’s an event sponsorship, a charitable donation, an advertising relationship, etc.) to the more aggressive side of the SEO/web marketing field (niches like porn, pills, casino, legal, real estate, etc.) often with anchor text heavy links?

If the answer to any of these is a definite “yes,” the source is likely to fit into Google’s “suspicious” pile and possibly will lose the ability to pass link equity in the future (or already has).

How can you be sure that linkbait and viral content won’t be treated the same as paid links by Google in the future?

Just a couple months back, I wrote about Why Linkbait is a Tactic the Search Engines Will Always Value, so it’s probably not worth re-hashing here. Certainly, there are ways to be manipulative about virtually anything in the link acquisition world, and Google may well take action against some forms of these, but I believe natural links acquired through great content are going to stand the test of time (and are likely to benefit from future ranking signals, whatever they may be).

This is just Google FUD – we shouldn’t let them dictate how to do our jobs!

But we already do! The only reason we try to build these links, research the right keywords, create and submit XML sitemaps, etc. is because Google is dictating the way their crawling, processing and ranking systems work. In their ecosystem – the one that drives 85%+ of all search traffic on the web – there are guidelines, best practices, rules and regulations. If you want to play on their court, you’ve got to abide by those rules or be ready to face the consequences. I’m not ready for those consequences and thus, have low risk tolerance and the attitude you’re reading about.

None of this is to say that a more risk-heavy appetite and more gray-black hat methodologies for link acquisition aren’t worth trying; just make sure you do it on sites you’re willing to get tossed out of the playground.

As always, I’m looking forward to the conversation in the comments.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Related posts:

1. Xenu’s Link Sleuth – More Than Just A Broken Links Finder
2. Link Building Has Changed
3. What Makes a Link Worthy Post – Part 2

We all know about the Linkerati by now – how to identify them, how they’re segmented and why they’re the secret to SEO. Yet, time and again, I see link builders and companies pass up amazing opportunities to earn links and attention from those who have the best ability to help your content/brand spread virally.

I’ll lay out two scenarios below to help illustrate this point:

Scenario 1: Emailing a Prominent Blogger/Writer/Journalist/Site Owner/Social Media Personality/Etc. Hoping for a Link

You/your company:

• Identify a list of Linkerati that may be relevant/interested in your business/content
• Send a carefully crafted email to each individual, hoping to attract their attention and interest
• Follow up with those who reply (and maybe those who don’t) with emails or even a phone call
• Request a review of your product/tool/site/idea

Scenario 2: Meeting that Same Person First, then Following Up

You/your company:

• Identify prominent (or even relatively less known) Linkerati in your city or at an event you’re attending
• Schedule a meeting / invite them to coffee or to tour your offices (or even just go to an event you know they’ll be at)
• Introduce yourself politely and humbly and mention you’re a fan. Exchange business cards, have a chat and let them know what you do (also helps if you can find some non-work related topics to bond on as well)
• Follow up with an email thanking them for the meeting and asking if they’d take a look at your product/tool/site/idea

I’d argue that while Scenario 1 is more scalable, it’s also potentially damaging in the long run. When you first introduce your work to someone who can help it spread, you have that single chance to make a first impression. If the relationship matters and you’re seeking a high “conversion rate” for attracting attention from the Linkerati, use Scenario 2.

The beauty of these links is that they not only create value for SEO, but often attract second-order effects like increased brand awareness, links/tweets from the followers & fans of the Linkerati, and improved odds that you’ll be positively remembered and introduced when someone mentions they need “X” (whatever it is your product/tool/site/idea does).

In-person connections have always been powerful attractors of value for me in the SEO, social media and startup worlds and when I see early stage (and mature, later-stage companies) engage in this fashion, it’s almost always positive. Just make sure you’re professional, candid, friendly and never over-bearing in your interactions; chances are you’ll get much more than a link.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Related posts:

1. 5 Simple Tips for Better SEO Value from Your Feeds
2. Google Shopping Results : User Experience Downfall

When I first started in SEO, link acquisition was almost always a manual process. I’d search the engines for links that pointed to the competition, find relevant directories and link lists, email relevant sites and beg, borrow or bribe (aka buy advertising) to get a link. I tried reciprocal link building (and did some pretty dumb stuff). Then, as I got more intertwined in the SEO community, I found vendors who built large networks of sites, spammed blogs/forums/guestbooks and ran text link sales operations. I leveraged these services to help clients rank better, almost always with great success. Then I met Matt Cutts, found out more about Google’s webspam team, saw penalties and their impact (remember Florida?) and even found some sites we worked on in the Sandbox.

Over time, I got smarter. I read papers about Hilltop, Trustrank, Anti-Trustrank and many more. I saw sites escaping the sandbox once they’d earned greater quantities of trusted links. I started understanding that Google’s search quality team was only going to get better at recognizing and counting legitimate links (and tossing out the junk), so I focused exclusively on more “white hat” kinds of links. That’s when I discovered linkbaiting and the power of Digg, Reddit & StumbleUpon to drive traffic that would naturally link. We had success with quizzes (and after Matt left SEOmoz, he had a little too much success) and viral content that earned thousands of links overnight and started offering it as a service.

As our clientele and foci changed, we changed again. Linkbait gave way to broader viral marketing efforts. Social media marketing arose as a practical and high quality way to earn links. Our clients became larger brands and organizations and one-off link projects weren’t scalable, so we consulted on tactics like content and technology licensing, training editorial staff to earn links & participate in the social media world themselves, and incentivizing user-generated content, which in turn brought links from those users. We found ways to drive natural links to deep pages on huge sites targeting the long tail, how to combine embeddable content and user-adopted brand affinity to drive link growth. And we stopped buying links entirely.

I figured a visual history might make for a compelling view:

Now, link building is changing again. I’m of the distinct impression that the engines (nowadays referring to Bing & Google, since the others are all but out of the picture) are evolving to keep up with the web’s breakneck speed and new forms of data, along with new ways of analyzing links, are making themselves felt in the SERPs. My guesses/observations would include:

• Twitter really is cannibalizing the web’s link graph, or at least, the blogosphere’s and Google seems to be using Tweet counts in some way (though possibly only in the QDF algo).
• The acceleration rate of link acquisition and the freshness of new links is having a more dramatic impact than before, and the “old crusty links” paradigm may be fading a bit.
• Brand mentions and keyword associations with brand names are influencing the rankings more and more.
• Un-trustworhty link patterns are conferring more filters and penalties than ever before.
• QDD is as strong as ever, and vertical results are more prominent than at any time in the engines’ histories.
• Google and Microsoft both know more about traffic and surfing habits than ever before, and this data is likely being used to, at the least, quality control for potential algorithmic misses.
• Ad blindness is worse than ever (16% of Internet users are responsible for 85% of all ad clicks on the web), forcing the engines to make ads more relevant and more obvious to continue earning revenue.
• Paid inclusion is going away, and talk of potentially paying sites to be in the indices (the reverse model) is in the air (or maybe not).
• Billions of non-linked “references” flow out across the web through social media messages, emails, tweets and IMs. Someone, at some search engine, is undoubetdly mining this data to see how they can derive value and relevancy from it.

As marketers, we have to evolve or be left behind by those who can better adapt. It’s hard to see the forest for the trees right now, but I think we’re closing in on a time when real-time, social and traditional web references are all a part of the rankings equation. The future may be less about links and more about brand building and brand participation. I don’t want to be the most-linked-to site in my niche; I want to be the site that’s synonymous with my niche.

Now we just have to figure out the tactics…

Do you like this post? Yes No

Related posts:

1. Link Building for Bing Rankings: Dos and Don’ts
2. What Makes a Link Worthy Post – Part 2
3. Strategies to Spend Money & Earn ROI from Link Campaigns (without buying links)

This post was originally in YOUmoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author’s views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc.

What really makes a blog post worth linking to?  In my last post, What Makes a Link Worthy Post – Part 1, I took a look at the 3,800 blog posts on SEOmoz and did some analysis on a few different aspects of the posts and their affect on the number of in linking domains (ILDs).  Some of the results were very interesting to me and it made me want to push it further.

I created a list of 40 SEO/SEM blogs that I read and feel are important to people in the industry and set those as my sample population.  I first crawled each website and collected a list of over 72,330 different blog posts from the 40 different websites.  Then over the course of the next few days, I crawled each post and collected the following information in my database:

• Blog Post Title
• Original URL
• # of Links from Root Domains (Via Linkscape API)
• # of ILDs (Via Linkscape API)
• If The Post Had Images, Lists, Or Videos
• Content of Post (No Comments or Other Text on Site)
• # of Words in Post

POSTS TITLE EFFECT ON ILDs

Does the length of the post’s title affect how many domains will link to it?  The data suggests that posts with a title length between 10 and 18 words are on average more linked to than those with less or more.  The data also suggests there may be a “sweet” spot around 14 to 16 words in length.  The chart below was created without removing stop words.

This data proves to me that a descriptive title is what the linkerati is looking for.  Going overboard on the length of the title can prove to be a bad move also.

EXAMPLES OF HIGHLY LINKED TO POSTS WITH TITLE LENGTH IN THE “SWEET SPOT”

• Google Says: Yes, You Can Still Sculpt PageRank. No You Can’t Do It With Nofollow
• Big Brands? Google Brand Promotion: New Search Engine Rankings Place Heavy Emphasis on Branding
• What Makes a Good Web Directory, and Why Google Penalized Dozens of Bad Ones

POSTS LENGTH EFFECT ON ILDs

Post length is a long debated thing out there in the blogosphere.  Most bloggers will tell you that you should keep your posts around 500 to 900 words, and that might be stretching it.  When it comes to SEO/SEM blogs, longer more content filled posts are more linked to than those with limited amount of content.

From the chart below you can see there is a word range that seems to collect more ILDs than other word ranges.  Based on the data, the ideal length of your posts should be around 2328 to 2618 words.  In my previous post, the ideal length for only SEOmoz’s post was between 1800 and 3000 words.

The chart above shows posts only up to 2812 words, but accounts for over 99.55% of all the posts. Posts that were greater than 2812 words really had a low number of ILDs.  For this reason and for the display of the chart, they were removed.

EXAMPLES OF HIGHLY LINKED TO POSTS (BETWEEN 2328 AND 2618 WORDS)

• 101 Ways to Build Link Popularity
• SMX East: Give It Up
• Five Link Development Experts: A Group Interview

DEPTH OF POSTS EFFECT ON ILDs

Seos know that you want to keep your key content in as few subfolders as possible but does this affect the number of ILDs you receive?  The data suggests that the depth of your post doesn’t affect the number ILDs.  The graph below shows that just about half of the blogs out there place their content two subfolders deep, such as seomoz.org/blog/POST-TITLE.

MEDIA’S EFFECT ON ILDs

What role does placing list, images, and/or videos in a post play on the number of ILDs?  The data shows that putting any one of the media’s in your post will increase the number of ILDs you receive.  Putting a list on your plain text post could double the number of ILDs you receive.  The results are even more outstanding when all three types of media are used.

Do I really believe that you can take any post, slap a picture in it and you will automatically receive more links?  No, but if you have decent content and media to support your post, it will appeal to more users and in turn increase the number of potential links.  I find it amazing that just by adding images and lists to your post could increase the number of ILDs by a large percent.  Images and lists are one of the easiest things to create and anyone can do it, so why aren’t they?  See the chart below for the full specs on adding media to your post.

TOP MEDIA POST EXAMPLES

So I’m sure you are all wondering what some good examples are of the different type of post along with the media.  Below are some links to some great posts that contain different types of media and have been successful.  Some of these posts should be your guide when creating new content for your site.

ALL 3 MEDIA TYPES

• Twitter Exploit Still Works
• The Paid Links Debate Rages On – SES San Jose 2007

ONLY LISTS & VIDEOS

• Google Caffeine
• Submitting to Web Directories to Build Your Link Profile

ONLY LISTS & IMAGES

• Big Brands? Google Brand Promotion: New Search Engine Rankings Place Heavy Emphasis on Branding
• Canonical URL Tag – The Most Important Advancement in SEO Practices Since Sitemaps

ONLY IMAGES & VIDEOS

• You Can’t Be Everybody’s Friends
• FTC Going After Bloggers = Epic Fail

ONLY LISTS

• Filing a reinclusion request
• 25 Tips for Marketing Your Blog

ONLY VIDEOS

• More about generic TLDs in (say) UK results
• Interview With Paul Sloan

ONLY IMAGES

• 101 Ways to Build Link Popularity
• The Web Developer’s SEO Cheat Sheet

NONE

• Dashes vs. underscores
• 21 Tactics to Increase Blog Traffic

TOP DOMAINS FOR MEDIA TYPE

The data shows that there were certain domains that tended to use certain types of media in their posts.  Below I’ve put together two sites for each category so if you enjoy posts of a certain type you can visit their blog.

ALL 3 MEDIA TYPES

• 10e20.com
• bruceclay.com

ONLY LISTS & VIDEOS

• seobythesea.com
• seobook.com

ONLY LISTS & IMAGES

• outspokenmedia.com
• unstuckdigital.com

ONLY IMAGES & VIDEOS

• distilled.co.uk
• shoemoney.com

ONLY LISTS

• seobythesea.com
• seobook.com

ONLY VIDEOS

• pronetadvertising.com
• shoemoney.com

ONLY IMAGES

• bloommedia.co.uk
• freshegg.com

NONE

• ericgoldman.org
• searchenginelowdown.com

AUTHORITIES EFFECT ON ILDs

What role does a blog authority play in the number of ILDs?  Seems like a simple question and the data seems to show that if your an authority in your niche, you will generate many more ILDs than someone who is not.  Look at the chart below and you can see that Matt Cutt’s blog generates almost twice as many as its closest competitor, sugarrae.com!

TOP TOPIC THAT ATTRACT LINKS

Unlike SEOmoz not every blog places their post into nice categories and if they do, those categories will not match across all the sites.  So how do we determine what topics are attracting the most links and are good topics to create posts about?  We crawl 72,300 posts, determine the ILDs, and then extract the most used words from those posts to create a “super” group of keywords that result in link worthy blog posts.

The first thing I wanted to do was extract all the text and find the words that are most used in all blog posts, I was curious, aren’t you?  After pulling out 27,658,728 million words and sorting them, five words came out on top: Search, Google, Yahoo, Site, and SEO.  Was I surprised, no but it’s interesting to know and a good starting point.

Taking a look at the top 1% of all 72,330 posts, it was found that the words did change a little bit.  Some of the top words used were:  Search, Google, Site, Links, SEO, Content, People, and Social.   This data seems very similar to what was found in part one of this study, with the SEOmoz data.  Posts that are about link building are very popular but now we can conclude that they are attracting links.  When we look at a much smaller percentage say only the top 50 posts, you find that you are getting very similar words such as: Google, Search, Blog, Link, Pagerank, and Site.

So what can you really take away from the content of the top 50 blog posts?  Stick with the major engines: Google, Yahoo, and maybe even Bing, on a good day.  The linkerati likes topics including Link Building, Pagerank, and Social Media.  As my disclaimer stated above, these are not the rules but just observations from a small sampling of the blogosphere.  If I knew the exact topic that the linkerati loves, I wouldn’t be writing here, I would be out making millions writing all day.

BIGGEST TAKEAWAYS

• The data suggests that posts with title between 14 and 16 words attract more ILDs than those with longer or shorter titles.
• Contrary to belief, the data suggests that posts with more than 900 words are attracting more links than those with 900 words.  Shoot for post between 2328 and 2618 words.
• The data suggest the location/depth of your blog post doesn’t seem to have an effect on the number of ILDs you will receive but may affect your SEO work, so be cautious.
• If you’re interested in the top post with a certain type of media, check above.  Also if you’re interested in the blogs that tailor to a certain type of media, check above.
• Authority plays a major role in the number of ILDs that you will receive on your post.  Matt Cutt’s blog receives twice as many ILDs as the next closest blog.
• Hot topics that attract links include: Google, Search, Blogs, Link Building, Pagerank, SEO, and Social Media.

SUMMARY

In summary, the takeaways above are generalization about a small group of post from the blogosphere and should not be taken as rules but merely as a guide to help you create content that will have the possibility to generate links.  Work on the authority in your niche and become that place people come to receive great advise.  While you’re waiting for authority to grow, make sure that your posts included visual aids to help readers get the takeaways quickly.

SPECIAL THANKS

Special thanks to the SEOmoz team for the access to the Linkscape API.  Without the use of the API this post would have never been possible.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Related posts:

1. Link Building Has Changed
2. Advanced Link Analysis Charts
3. Xenu’s Link Sleuth – More Than Just A Broken Links Finder