Google SEO & Search Engine Marketing Services

Google Anchor Power – Warning! This Goes Against Fundamental SEO Principles

I don’t know if anyone remembers but a few months ago I wrote about an SEO Company National Positions. The post was building on an article by Rand at SEOmoz.

The article slammed National Positions for using “manipulative” SEO techniques in order to rank high for the keyword “seo company”. (By the way companies using Adwords pay up to $7.00 a click, for this keyword). The techniques were not spam but what you might refer to as “low quality” SEO, however it worked, they ranked number 1 in the US and were probably getting 100′s of SEO enquiries everyday.

Rand outed National Positions in October last year, so by now you would have thought Google would be on top of it and naturally relegate Nationaal positions down the SERPS? Right?

By the way just to confirm, National Positions were;

  • Anchoring a lot of there links with “SEO company”
  • Getting the links from low quality directories

I know what your thinking, nothing wrong with this right? urrmm,,,right :)

There is nothing wrong with using anchor text and there is nothing wrong with using low quality directories. Rand’s issue was; it was ranking in a competitive niche using these low quality links and that Google should be exercising more quality control.

Anyway I wonder where NP are today??? Quick google.com search…….

Hello! Yes they are sitting in the third spot (they still could be number 1, the fact that they are in third on my browser could be down to geo-targeting) Either way the top 3 take the bulk of the traffic.

So why haven’t Google reduced their ranking? Because they have a load of directory links that come from pages with no PR? Why are they still sitting in the top spot?

Before you try and answer that let’s go over the figures (I know boring but it will help us answer the question) WARNING PREPARE TO BE SHOCKED

  • Average PR of inbound link = 0.3
  • Keyword in Title of linking page = 0.6%
  • Keyword in Body of linking page = 96.5%

So 98% of the links are from PR0 pages, 1 of the linking pages has the keyword in the title tag, however 96.5% of the linking pages have the keyword in the Body.

But wait more shock……

  • On Page Keyword Density = 0.3%
  • No Use of Headings

So it’s not looking good on page either, the keyword is hardly used on the page. No headings and a poorly optimised title tag. How the hell are these guys ranking so high????

It’s simple and I have banged on about it enough on this site, this example merely proves the point that when it comes to Google SEO, Anchor Text Rules.

The Keyword “Company” is used in 53.7% of the links and the keyword “SEO” in 48% of the links

It is ranking purely based on the huge amounts of optimised anchor text.

Why I don’t think this is the way to optimise

OK I have just shown you an example of a company that ranks highly and is probably making a fortune in SEO sales. Now I am going to tell you not to follow that blueprint, don’t get me wrong understand the principles but don’t;

  • Only get links from low PR sites
  • Anchor all your link text with the same word
  • Ignore on page optimisation

Even though NP are still sitting at the top it would be easy for Google to tweak the algorithm to send them flying down the rankings. For example more weight on – on page factors, discounting directories or flagging up disproportionate anchor text.

However despite all this still understand the principles;

- Do anchor your text, use multiple variations that include your main keywords.
- Do optimise your pages correctly
- Do get links from directories but also, articles, guest blogging, press releases and just creating great content.

If you try to implement the full range of Google SEO techniques you are preserving the future of your site and protecting it against any algorithm changes.

Hope you enjoyed the post guys. I think this is something that needs to get out there so people fully understand there is no magic involved in SEO, it’s plain and simple research and effective implementation.

Thanks

Tim

A Digg, A Sphinn, A Stumble are all appreciated :)

Line Break

Author: Tim (296 Articles)

is the owner and editor of SEO wizz and has been involved in the search engine marketing industry for over 9 years. He has worked with multiple businesses across many verticals, creating and implementing search marketing strategies for companies in the UK, US and across Europe. Tim is also the Director of Search at Branded3, a Digital Marketing & SEO Agency based in the UK.

Share

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Kai Lo April 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm

I always preach to people that anchor text links are big factors of SEO, but yet I still the people I talk to misuse anchors such as just putting a URL of their site. You made a good point about using variations of anchor texts instead of the same one over and over as Google can get suspicious.

Reply

Tim Grice April 22, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Hi Kai,

Ye people never get the anchor text potential. The problem is they see it as manipulation even though it is an obvious ranking factor. Matt Cutts always says “If search engines didn’t exist would you do it?” If you look at this way I guess it is. The fact remains, search engines do exist and there are certain elements that help get high rankings. I do not see a problem in using them to market a quality site.

Reply

Swiftek July 23, 2009 at 11:10 am

National Positions DOES send spam! They spam web forms and via email. So far, they have skirted the law and most directories rules by using bots and/or humans to fill out web forms with spam messages promoting their business.

They refuse to acknowledge what they are doing and claim to be “white hats.”

National Positions are the worst kind of scum on the internet. Don’t do business with them no matter how good they seem. You may very well end up at the bottom of the heap.

Reply

Tim July 23, 2009 at 11:19 am

@Swiftek,

I have never heard of them spamming up until your comment but fully take your word on it. I was simply referring to the directories they have used to build links, if they used bots to apply the directory listings to low quality directories then you would hope somewhere along the way Google will pick up on it and penalise them. I really can’t comment on what you have said because I don’t know if it is true, all I will say is that if your comments are correct Google need to be doing a better job at keeping sites that practice that way out of the index.

Reply

S.K Sharma July 30, 2009 at 6:14 am

I am not agree that Google ignores Anchor text interlinks.

Reply

Tim July 30, 2009 at 8:21 am

@Sharma,

Hi I’m not sure what you mean. The whole point of the article was that Google put’s a huge amount of weight on anchor text. Are you referring to reciprocal links? If so I don’t think Google ignores them, just puts less weight on them.

Reply

Delwin Holeman January 12, 2010 at 1:01 pm

National Positions has been spamming my contact forms and those of my web design clients. Perhaps they are using humans to fill them out, but it is unsolicited, and therefor spam. No different than any other kind of automated form spam.

I actually replied to one of their spam contacts via their GMAIL account and got a response today from another non-GMAIL account. They are using various GMAIL accounts to carry out their spamming. The GMAIL accounts are typically different each time I get spammed but it’s always an identical message.

I reported the last email address to Google and everyone else receiving their form spam should do the same.

Reply

Tim January 12, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Hi Delwin,

The post was imply about how they have used anchor text to rank in a competitive market, if they are spamming their way to higher rankings this is something Google should get on top of.

The contact form spam is inexcusable and would encourage everyone to report it, however I reported all the spam emails I receive to Google I wouldn’t have time to do anything else, I literally get bombarded daily.

Thanks for the in put I am sure people will find it helpful.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: