{"id":22684,"date":"2018-08-23T07:19:58","date_gmt":"2018-08-23T15:19:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ahrefs.com\/blog\/?p=22684"},"modified":"2023-08-17T07:11:59","modified_gmt":"2023-08-17T12:11:59","slug":"earn-more-links","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ahrefs.com\/blog\/earn-more-links\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Earn More Links: Adding Context to Content Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This article relies on two related arguments:<\/p>\n

1. Bad content on big websites earns more links than it deserves.
\n2. Great content on small websites earns fewer links than it deserves.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Why does this matter?<\/p>\n

Because most of us base our content strategy<\/a> on the \u201cmost linked\u201d content on a topic.<\/p>\n

Too often, that focuses attention on great websites rather than great content<\/a>. Many of the \u201ctop performers\u201d are mediocre articles that earn links solely because they\u2019re on popular sites.<\/p>\n

What we really want to find is content that earned a disproportionately large number of links for a given site<\/em>. If a post earns 20 links on a site that no one comes to regularly, can\u2019t rank quickly, and doesn\u2019t get any distribution support, that<\/em> content likely has some great lessons.<\/p>\n

This article shows you how to identify these \u201coverachievers.\u201d But first, let me show you the power of context.<\/p>\n

The power of context: a brief analogy<\/h2>\n

Say we want to create a list of the greatest NBA players of all time. That way, we can determine the most important qualities in a player. We\u2019ll use a simple metric: wins.<\/p>\n

That sounds reasonable, right? If we identify the NBA players (i.e., posts) with the most wins (i.e., links), that should give us a great list to work from.<\/p>\n

Based on that analysis, these are the top 10 NBA players of all time:<\/p>\n

\"best<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a bad list. But there are plenty of omissions\u2014unless you believe Michael Jordan is 32nd, Magic Johnson 37th, and Larry Bird 54th.<\/p>\n

In fact, you may already be questioning the methodology. Shouldn\u2019t we consider how many games each player played? Couldn\u2019t some players sneak into the top 10 simply because they played bit parts for great teams?<\/p>\n

These are the exact same shortcomings that exist with most content analysis.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we add just a bit of context\u2014the percentage<\/em> of games won\u2014the list changes rather dramatically, and for the better:<\/p>\n

\"best<\/p>\n

Is it perfect? No. (Jordan is still 18th.) Am I better off focusing on the qualities of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird rather than Tony Parker and Derek Fisher? Absolutely!<\/p>\n

And what about all the other bits of context that would make this list even better\u2014points, assists, championships, etc.? That\u2019s how you can take the simple analyses below to the next level.<\/p>\n

Why mediocre content dominates \u201cmost linked\u201d lists<\/h2>\n

Q.<\/strong> \u201cShouldn\u2019t I just \u201cskyscraper\u201d the most-linked content on my topic?\u201d<\/em>
\nA.<\/strong> \u201cNo, absolutely not!\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let me explain.<\/p>\n

Take a topic like \u201cretirement planning.\u201d A mediocre, 900-word post like this one<\/a> earned backlinks from 51 referring domains for Forbes.com:<\/p>\n

\"retirement<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, a comprehensive, 5,000-word post<\/a> on a medium-size financial planning website earned links from 21:<\/p>\n

\"retirement<\/p>\n

Based on the number of referring domains (51 and 21, respectively), the post on Forbes appears to be of higher \u201cquality.\u201d But consider all the advantages enjoyed by content on Forbes.com:<\/p>\n