-
If you’re linking to better sites with the same content, you’re really only helping them. And this is the only the second time I’ve ever heard this guy’s name but both times I’ve had to correct him. So… I’m not sure what that says, but…
What he is likely referring to, but mistakenly interpreting it, is for citing facts – not to try to associate yourself with them.
So when you say, “A recent report says 95% of all whatevers do whatever” – you should link to the source of that data. And this is really something that stems from the YMYL niche and it’s just now starting to maybe appear in areas outside of that a bit more.
The main reason Wikipedia is a big thing with all these tools is the structure that it gives on virtually every subject. But the secondary reason is not so much that the content is good – but that it’s proving everything it claims or says via citations. (And they’re also using proper HTML that no one knows anymore to use <cite> tags other markup.
So if outbound links are going to help you – it’s in a way like your research papers in school where you had to cite all your sources. And then even that’s only really necessary if you’re drawing conclusions and trying to show the original sources of the information that makes you come to those conclusions. And that, for most businesses, is not all that often.
That’s not to say you shouldn’t link out at all – Google does seem to hate cul-de-sacs. But Strum got it wrong. Citation links are important when it’s important to cite your source. And since that’s the source, they’re automatically the authority on that information. You’re not going out to just look for authority sites to link to so you can say “Hey Google look at me, I’m with him!” You’re linking to the *absolute* authority on the information/date your speaking about.
G.
