Image Links, "The Next Best Thing" to Text Links

Jan 18, 2008 • 7:51 am | comments (4) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Link Building Tips & SEO
 

A short WebmasterWorld thread asks if links from logos or images give off any link popularity amongst the search engines.

WebmasterWorld Link Development moderator, pageoneresults, replies that although text links are preferred, "you are getting the next best thing which is an image link." But how do you get the most out of your image links?

  • Make sure the image has an ALT attribute (alternative text)
  • Can't hurt to try adding a TITLE attribute (i.e. title="") to the link part of the code around the image
  • Surrounding text around the image can play a factor in describing the value of the link of that image
  • The link URL may also play a small factor in determining relevancy

I wanted to get some opinion on text links versus image links from you. I am sure you all prefer text links over image links but in your opinion, how much do you think an image link is worth relative to a text link? Honestly, I am not even sure if that question make sense. I'll rephrase and try to do your best to complete the poll below.

An image link is worth what percentage less than a text link? I.e. Image link A in the same location text link A is valued at 45% the weight of text link A.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Previous story: Baidu to Become Domain Registrar, Just Like Google?
 

Comments:

Sam I Am

01/18/2008 03:53 pm

The poll is somewhat inaccurately phrased: "An image link is worth what percentage less than a text link?" 100% as an answer to that would mean 100% less, but you've got it meaning equal. Either the question needs rephrasing or the example answers :) Anyway, I'll put it to 60% as in worth 40% less than a text link. Note that I'm talking ONLY for anchor text reasons. I often prefer an image link because click throughs are much better. Then again, I'm not concerned with PR :) What I'd like to see is Google passing credit *in terms of rankings/trust increase* to sites whose images or scripts are continuously being embedded in other sites. There's really very little that says "I trust/recomend this site" as much as including their scripts or a big photo on your own page. If more weight was given to this, it would make spammers lives much harder and quality sites lives much easier. Just my 2p...

Barry Schwartz

01/18/2008 03:59 pm

Sam, I know... I said "Honestly, I am not even sure if that question make sense..." Tough one... 100% of the weight of a text link. But you get what I mean...

Paul Burani

01/22/2008 11:58 pm

There is also the secondary consideration that these images will turn up in image search engines--so if you're smart, you've branded at least your URL if not your company name and more right on the image. Nuff said re: exposure

Shamon

02/16/2010 04:20 am

I think that if site A places an image link to site B, the value in terms of page rank transfer to site B is the same as it would be if the link was anchor text based...but there is no benefit to the short index of site B. If site A places a text link to site B, then site B gets the full/same page rank transfer AND a short index benefit from the anchor text. follow me so far? But, if site A has an image link with an ALT tag pointing at site B, then site B gets the full page rank transfer benefit, and about 75% of the short index benefit. ...i suppose the only time that site B wouldn't care about the short index is if it was a porn site in which case, a "picture truly tells a thousand words" not that I know. I'm a small business owner turned SEO hobby-ist.

blog comments powered by Disqus