Newb question - more or better quality links?

[TheTattooedGuy]

Hi guys

So basically my question is this - are you better off with (for example) 1 x PR4 backlink than you would be with 2xPR1s?

Or would both give same benefit?

Cheers
Andy

[parttimepoker]

I think most people are going to say quality. I def have seen a lot of sites where G seems impressed by quantity.

I think it's important to note that the example doesn't exactly scale. For example, I'd probably rather have 2 PR1 links than 1 PR2 link (or I wouldn't care), but I def want a PR9 link instead of 9 PR1s. At some point a site is of such quality that it gains additional value for the uniqueness of that quality.

[Michael Martinez]

The question doesn't provide enough information for any sort of reasonable analysis. How many other links are on the pages? Are any nofollowed? Is the anchor text the same? Which do you care more about, PageRank or Anchor Text? Are we assuming these are unfiltered pages that can still pass value?

The question is born of the naivete that comes from obsessing over links. If you knew from this moment on that you could never get another link that passes PageRank or Anchor Text, what would you do?

[Sebastian]

As a general rule, you want as many links as possible that pass value.

Having a high number of links by itself is a worthless metric. As Chris said, when you start going really high in PR (not spoofed but legit) then the links typically go up exceptionally in value.

I don't think this a quality / quantity debate. Every link that passes value (even a little bit) adds up and counts.

And PR is just a rough indicator of how much value a site can pass. Look for age, how many OB links it has, cache frequency, and other factors to decide if you want to purchase links.

But I launched a site last year that only had 3-4 homepage links from exceptional sites (happened to be PR6 and PR7) and they are performing phenomenally well in the SERPS. These weren't gambling related, because I always avoid getting links from affiliate sites when launching an affiliate site.

I found that

affiliate site links to => you site links to => affiliate sites is a sure way to be pegged as one by Google.

So I did this instead launching my site

non-affiliate sites link to => my site links to => quality non affiliate sites.

Obviously you can get away with not doing that when you have an established site, but I prefer to do it this way.

Hope this helps

[Sebastian]

Double post ... Nice day today.

[parttimepoker]

The question doesn't provide enough information for any sort of reasonable analysis. How many other links are on the pages? Are any nofollowed? Is the anchor text the same? Which do you care more about, PageRank or Anchor Text? Are we assuming these are unfiltered pages that can still pass value?

The question is born of the naivete that comes from obsessing over links. If you knew from this moment on that you could never get another link that passes PageRank or Anchor Text, what would you do?

He's just asking a general question, I assume it's an "all things being equal" sort of question. I only used PR in my response to illustrate a point.

Gambling affiliates obsess over links for good reason, they matter. If I knew I couldn't get links that passed PR or anchor text from here on out, I'd wonder how the hell Google was ranking anything.

[Michael Martinez]

...If I knew I couldn't get links that passed PR or anchor text from here on out, I'd wonder how the hell Google was ranking anything.

Well, they've never done it solely on the basis of links but the point of my question was not really to raise the spectre of "Links vs. Content" -- rather, I was asking the question to see what people would do if they were living in Google Link Oblivion.

If only everyone else can get links that help with Google but not you, what would you do? That's a very relevant question because, frankly, a lot of aggressive link builders end up getting their sites penalized -- and then they might as well BE under such a lifetime "No Link Value For You" ban.

[parttimepoker]

I see, you mean if only I can't get links for some magical reason. I think the answer in that case is to focus primarily on brand building / PPC / viral apps.

I think in the real world, aggressive link builders just build new sites.

I know Google uses more than links to rank sites. That said, and as much as G would like everyone to believe other factors play a huge role, links still outweigh any other factor I can think of by a wide margin. This seems especially true (albeit based only on my own anecdotal experience) in the gambling / poker niche.

[Brokerstar]

On a kind of related point is it fair to say that an older site can with stand more heat with regards to more aggressive link gathering than newer ones? Do you think the size of the site also has a baring on this too?

[ronaldo0017]

I think it's important to note that the example doesn't exactly scale.