Take the 2-minute tour ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have some "prefetched result pages" on my website, that link to documents that are hosted on remote sites.

The structure I want to implement is

  • a result page that contains 20-30 links, a text of about 30-40 words (because of lack of space) for each link
  • any link on this page points directly to the remote url

But i'm also considering to implement this navigation:

  • a result page that contains 20-30 links, a text of about 30-40 words (because of lack of space) for each link
  • any link on this page points to a page hosted on my site that contains about 200 words of "poor" content (like press news, no actual content, but text that explain that "some content" is available)
  • on any of these pages there will be a single link, a big button, that links to the remote url

Some important notes:

  • these "press pages" are related to the content of the site, there are not "link exchange"
  • links to remote pages are "clean" (dofollow, no javascript, direct plain link)
  • pages also contains links to related contents (related press news)
  • pages titles are nearly identical to the remote site title
  • any page may also contains <blockquote> that cites the remote site (totally or partially)

Will this be good for SEO? Bad? No effect?

share|improve this question
    
Maybe a silly question, but you are presumably talking about the SEO of your site, not the sites you are linking to? "text of about 30-40 words ... for each link" - the actual link text consists of 30-40 words? "a big button" - What text is in this link (not 30-40 words presumably)? Do you think the 2nd approach makes a better or worse user experience? –  w3d Jul 28 '12 at 20:32
    
hi, the anchor text consists in 3-4 words followed by a paragraph of 40 words... the text in the link is nearly the title of the remote content. and yes, i'm talking about the seo of my site, not the remote sites seo. i don't think the second approach makes a worst UE, it is simply different. my intent is not to give the best user experience, but is to get the best seo value to my contents... if the "middle page" is bad, i will avoid it, but if they are at least little useful i will create them (i already have data, texts, i only have to publish pages) –  skyline26 Jul 28 '12 at 21:47
    
please note that i care about user experience, but in this case is secondary –  skyline26 Jul 28 '12 at 21:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In my humble opinion I think this will eventually have a overall negative effect. Is this a PR type of site similar to www.prlog.org or www.prweb.com?

If your SEO does not benefit the user it will eventually fail to benefit your ranking, caring about user experience should be number one. You're basically asking if adding a third step to your already 1-2 step process to get to the real 'information' is better. I don't think it is for Search Engines and certainly not for users. Also because you are dofollow you will dilute and possible cause negative effect on your organic web search traffic.

share|improve this answer
    
thank you! yes, it is a site similar to digg. actually on my "middle pages" there is some content, IE, the related content, that is a handly made list of related links... still thinking that is not a good idea? –  skyline26 Jul 28 '12 at 22:54
    
It's probably fine. If this is a new site and it will be informational, I would rel=nofollow on some of the outgoing links –  Anthony Hatzopoulos Jul 30 '12 at 12:25

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.