Do they? I don’t think so! Google is right about trying to display quality content to searchers, but I don’t think link relevance as far as SEO goes matters.
SEO is a complicated subject for webmasters. I think it’s over done and irrelevant. Why? Because the basics stays always basics. Example. If I am looking for a store on main street and all I see is the same merchandise all over I am not going to go to the main street for shopping.
The merchandise might be relevant to my searching at the moment but it would bore me to death if I didn’t see anything else but tooth paste all over. Googles links relevancy I think is a hoax. Can’t be done. Only used for steering webmasters to a direction Google wants them to go and nothing else. A person searching the net simply needs to see variety and relevancy combined.
Biasing searches thinking the customer must be needing an avalanche of tooth paste and we are going to give it to them. Not so. I would like to see some used cars or some science info next to the tooth paste sites. I am versatile and interested in other stuff too.
I don’t like Kindle because makes it difficult to search a book’s content.
I have to store and remember search words n my already crowded mind. Googles relevancy do the same. I am searching for tooth paste and when I am done I have to think of what to look for next. I don’t want to think. I want to see variety on the screen. I don’t want to remember search words and go through useless results. I want to see variety that’ll take me to another page so I can see other interesting things. How would Google know I am not interested in car tires
Back to link relevance to SEO. I think a city becomes more and more populated the more streets are built. So a website becomes more and more popularthe more links are leading to it or from it. Not all roads to the city have to come from New York or going to New York. Some roads can go to San Francisco and some can come from Canada. The more the merrier.
If all the roads are from and to New York, who the hell would want to go there? I agree that if a sites main subject is tooth paste, the content should focus on tooth paste, but I disagree with Googles suggestion of all links have to be relevant to tooth paste. Google can’t do it and it wouldn’t make sense logically to force it.
If a site that sells car tires puts a link on it’s site to the tooth paste site than both sites would be “punished” because of that link. Why would it put a link to the tooth paste site? Because the owner of the tooth paste site saw an opportunity to advertise tooth paste to the car owners for an example and the car tire site wants to make some extra money.
Google simply can’t ban sites from using links just because they want to connect with the links, and “punishing” them with not displaying those sites in a more prominent position even though those sites would occupy a good page position otherwise.
Anyway Link building is important to show popularity and to get rankings for a page. The more links we have to a site the more popular the site is and the higher it’s ranking . Using the google principle, Me bookmarking a site would put the site in a disadvantaged position if my site is of a totally different subject.
I could go on about duplicate page content punishment. Total rubbish. No logic behind it. Can’t be done!!
Just what I needed, thanks a lot.
Do you post updates on twitter account as well? I would like to follow you there as well but couldn’t find you account.
Great site! Your writing is so fresh in comparison to most other writers. Thank you for posting when you do, I’ll be sure to subscribe!