What's your anchor text rich ratio?

[IngvarXH]

Let's say you have 10 dofollow links to point at a Home page you're trying to rank. In a perfect world:

- how many of those are anchor text rich?
- how many are naked URL links?
- how many are branded links?
- how many nofollow links would you prefer to build to balance out the 10 dofollow links and what kind of links would those be (image, comments, social profiles, etc)

I know there are many other factors but wanna see what people prefer in general to have.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I probably wouldn't be trying to rank a home page at all, so I'm going to comment as if it's a typical inner page.

In a perfect world, as you say, I'd do something like...

75% anchor text rich, with only 1 single instance of an exact match anchor. We could get away with more, but I'd rather not. Maybe I'd fire off another way down the line when the number of links are really high and the spread is really well done.

In this anchor text rich set, I'd try to use the main words of the exact match keyword in various orders within longer phrases. I'd use synonyms too a little bit. I like to get a lot of different words linking in, if you look at them as single entities, so that the ratio of words within my exact match keyword aren't too high either. So if my main anchor is "exact match keyword," I don't want exact, match, or keyword used too much either, even within other phrases.

For naked URLs, not a ton. 2-5% or even less. People in general are more internet savvy now. You really only see URL anchors happening on forums these days.

For branded anchors, if it's the homepage I'm expecting up to 90% and higher to be branded. For inner pages, 3%, I dunno. Something low. Usually I'll use the brand to mix into the "anchor text rich" set, versus being strictly a brand anchor.

I'll take all the nofollows I can of any type, whether they're profiles, forum links, forum signature links, images, comments, etc. All of the anchor percentages above apply.

These are really just numbers I'm pulling out of my rear end that sound reasonable. I don't really build links like that any more, so my spreads are always different, with most of it being natural. More times than not now, any time I try to request an anchor, they screw it up in such a disastrous way that I've quit trying. If I can't insert it into a guest post myself, I don't bother even trying to communicate about it. I just say "make sure I get a dofollow link to this page."

When I do build links, it's usually URL anchors from profiles and forum posts. On forum posts that's more innocuous to the users and sets off fewer alarms in their head. Easier to sneak by.

 

[lion1978]

Pretty much what @Ryuzaki mentioned above, but you have to take into account questions such as what is your risk willingness?, is it a long terrm project or short term project? there are quiet a number of variables at play.

Also I'll take all the nofollow I can have, I've ranked sites with only nofollow in the past, the thing to remember about nofollow is that it was made up by google, I suspect as part of their eternal battle to fight spam linkbuilding, and to be honest most of ther spam fighting has been just words, telling seo's this doesn't work anymore so don't bother doing it, and many seo's trust them blindley cause they heard/read it directly at the source while in the process forgetting that that just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true, and that you should always be critical especially since google ultimatley wants to protect them selves, and sometimes it's just a lot easier to say something isn't working anymore than to actually change an algorithme to behave differently aka making the actual changes, then back up the statement by whiping out some sites that are obviously using the technique in question, just to stir the waters of the various seo forums and create rumors of an algo change, later then confirm the algo change even if it is completley fake.