Some believe that having all good links is optimal. However, this may not be the case and that having either too many good links or too many "average" links may hurt.

Obviously, a lot of average links with no good links shouldn't be a good thing. But on the other hand, it seems Google also thinks having too many "good" links may be a sign of link manipulation.

It's possible (I say very liekly) Google is looking for a "natural" pattern of linkage from both good and average links.

Here's a tip: Look for a ratio of about 30:1 to 70:1 of average links to good links.

For every 30-70 "average" links you have, try to get 1 good one from a very respected source, like .edu, .gov or authority sites.

On the other hand, for every "authority/good" links you have, you should have somewhere between 30-70 "average" links.

To be honest, IMO you shouldn't persue one type of linkage if your good/average link ratio is out of this threshold. If you have a bunch of average links, go get a few good links, and vice versa.

A big mistake in SEO is thinking "MORE" is always better. Too many good links also looks like you're trying to jam the system. It pays to look natural.

While looking over many of the "so called NEW" stuff on the net, two words keep being more prominent these days.....NATURAL and ORGANIC. It would seem the old "rubberstamp" ideas have run their courses and are disappearing quicker than you can buy the next fad item.

And that's the best part of TUELZ. To be "natural" and "organic."

My question about links is this. As I understand it, quality links should be pointing to YOU, rather than outbound. Am I correct? I realize that we need some outbound links. What are the ideas within the forum about ratio of incoming to outbound?

And, for outbound links, it would seem that we need to "capture" that viewer before they head "out" or bring the outbound site up with a new window, thereby keeping our site on screen.

Even with this floppy foot (LOL), where did I stumble on my assessment?

Thanks,

John

Hi John

This is my own view on this topic and may have no relevance to SEO.

If we, as webmasters, were considering the best interests of our visitors, then we would always want them to have the best info. available. That is the premise the SE's work on.

That being the case, it would be completely 'un-natural' for a site to have all the links pointing in and none pointing out, to 'good' info sites.

Therefore, if your 'selectively chosen' outbound 'keyword-ed' links went to 'authority' sites, it would in my view, constitute a much more 'natural' linking strategy.

You could argue that you might 'bleed' a bit of PR, but if you are linking to a site with higher PR than your site, would PR 'bleed' uphill, so to speak? How significant is this 'bleeding' anyway?

Who knows - it might even boost your ranking, if your outbound links were seen, by the SE's, to re-inforce their 'view' of the sites to which you linked.

Everyone likes to be 'proved right', don't they?

Why should the SE's be any different?

Just my $0.02

From one 'Floppy Foot' to another LOL

Kind regards

Ian