Link juice from links

I meant to post this on Monday, but it is definitely more relevant now after today’s class.
Much of internet activity today revolves around the algorithm that Google uses to rank the relevance of websites to specific search terms. Their goal is to provide the most trustworthy and relevant answers to any search queries. A key part of their formula is to assess the amount of links on the internet reference a particular site.
What is link juice? Each time a third party references a particular site via a hyperlink in a way that is relevant to the search term, the site gains ‘link juice”. Link juice is essentially a vote of confidence in the worth and relevance of the site’s content. Google assesses the amount of link juice coming into a site as a measure of the site’s quality.
Do more links mean more link juice? Not necessarily. Google also evaluates the quality of the linking source when it determines the amount of link juice that the end site receives. For instance, links from 10 random geocities personal sites will not have as much juice as a link from the front page of

One thought on “Link juice from links”

  1. I read about this concept once when I was doing some reading on SEO once. It is interesting and seems to me a decent way to help humanize the search results since anyone who created that hyperlink would have to be a person. What seems to me to be a downfall is that there are often subtleties, sarcasms and otherwise counter indicating phrasing used by authors when they write (and hyperlink) which may end up being an unintentional detriment to the accuracy of the search results. The bit of SEO I had read had recommended writing website authors and asking them to use a certain phrase for hyperlinks to your page where possible, which seems to be at least a work around to these potential problems, but mostly a sort of algorithm exploiting loophole. Basically I’m curious if these juice boosting algorithms can account for context in a phrase or article, because otherwise it will likely be missing a substantial amount of support.

Comments are closed.