Last month, we saw that an HTML page had a little beat over WordPress pages so we decided to see if a link from a HTML page would beat a link from a WordPress page.
Test Downloads
Transcription Below
Test 353. Does a link from an HTML page pass more juice than from a WordPress site?
Last month, we saw an HTML page beat out the WordPress pages. So, we decided to see if a link from an HTML page would beat a link from a WordPress page.
This test setup is we set up all these tests… all the pages that we're getting the links are all WordPress sites. This is the site that got the link from an HTML site and this is the page that got the link from a WordPress site or I should just say page because they're just pages.
Once again, these are all WordPress pages because of course WordPress is easier to setup so that's what we're doing our tests in but the HTML link was here and the WordPress was there.
These are the pages receiving the links and the result is the page with the HTML incoming link one. They did bounce around a lot but ultimately the HTML was on top probably 90% of the time and that gives me saying yeah but eventhough I can say that the HTML page one, am I going to say, “No, don't give me links from WordPress sites.”
No, but what this really does and this is the part of the application side is it really makes me think about my PBNs and my link networks and I’m going to put more effort into creating HTML PBNS than WordPress PBNs and we got to WordPress because it's easier to use, it's easier to automate too and that's why I think WordPress has become the standard and why it started to become private blog networks.
Like, it was a blog network instead of a site network is because of the ease of use but now we see that getting links from HTML pages are going to give you just a- I don't know how much boost but it did look pretty significant and I have to say that it was ranking.
The HTML was on top most of the time as they were doing that. I like that one because that gives me something to do for my PBNs which I have.