Twitter | Search | |
Tom Capper Feb 27
I get why reporting on DA is so common - it's well understood. Clients expect it. But it makes no sense! We have absolutely zero reason to believe that Google attaches domain-level (as opposed to page-level) value to links.
Reply Retweet Like
Russ Jones Feb 28
Replying to @THCapper
I disagree in a whole bunch of ways :-) Most importantly, Google doesn't need to use anything even remotely similar to DA for it to be valuable.
Reply Retweet Like
Tom Capper Feb 28
Replying to @rjonesx
For context - I mean specifically in the sense of that poll. I.e., if you are acquiring links, how do you report on their value. Saying they were from DA 90 sites or whatever is one of their worst metrics on your suite that one could use, imo.
Reply Retweet Like
Russ Jones Feb 28
Replying to @THCapper
I wouldn't say it was the worst, but it should be like the 4th or 5th thing you should be looking at. If you want to know link value, I would just use RLDs to the page.
Reply Retweet Like
Tom Capper Feb 28
Replying to @rjonesx
As in the number of RLDs to my site, or the number of RLDs to the pages that I've acquired links from? In the former case, it feels like you're open to the trend of high-DA publishers "selling" placements on orphaned sections of their sites which have very little equity.
Reply Retweet Like
Tom Capper Feb 28
Replying to @rjonesx
Reporting on PA of acquired linking pages avoids this pitfall and is a bit closer to a pagerank-based worldview, which is presumably what link-building is built on
Reply Retweet Like
Russ Jones
Agreed. PA is closer, but it is still trained to predict rankings, not hte likelihood it will help your site if you get a link from it.
Reply Retweet Like More