homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.5.234
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive / Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 [2] 3 > >   posting off  
PR Hunting technics
Let's collect all tips and tricks
PageRankHunter




msg:1606236
 9:31 pm on May 17, 2002 (gmt 0)

Should I present myself? I thinks my pseudo tells you everything :-)

I think lots of you are reading this forum in order to boost your PageRanks, including with special technics... but respecting Google do's.

I know several tips and tricks and I invite you to post your's:

1) Use Javascript links instead of classical links <A HREF> for all the outward links of your site
2) Limits the number of outward links in your important pages (like the homepage)
3) In your outward links pages, add internal links

...
other ideas?

 

mr_dredd2




msg:1606266
 6:32 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

authorities = lots of incoming links
hub = more to do with outgoing links (as well as incoming)

EliteWeb




msg:1606267
 6:36 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I rarely have focuses on how green the bar has shown. I am just happy seeing that i have catered the site and its contents to the liking of the web surfers. The better information you offer the better off the engines like you ;)

I dont mind if my competitors have a higher PR as long as I am coming up with them, and people are finding my sites. I love competition so much I know I can do better than the competitors so I blow them out of the water. No funny tacticts, I just see what they have - whats wrong with it and what more I can offer then they can offer.

conor




msg:1606268
 6:37 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

so which does google prefere in terms of SERP's and PR ?

WebGuerrilla




msg:1606269
 6:41 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>It's pretty easy to spot domains that are hoarding PageRank; that can be just another factor in scoring.

Hmmm... a "link hoarding penalty"

That seems to open a can of worms 10 times the size of the one associated with penalizing artifical linking.

Virtually every major vertical hub on the web uses some type of cgi redirect system to track off-site clicks. Many of those route you through diasallowed cgi-bin directories. From a bot's perspective, thesse sites don't look like a hub.

How on earth do you make an automated descision as to whether ot not a site has set their linking system up with the intent to hide from Google the fact that they are in fact a hub? Is Google going to come up with an arbitrary ratio of inbound vs. outbound links a site must have in order to be legit?

Will Google apply the same standard to ALL sites? (I wonder how Yahoo would react to a link hoarding penalty?)

jimbo_mac




msg:1606270
 7:02 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Virtually every major vertical hub on the web uses some type of cgi redirect system to track off-site clicks. Many of those route you through diasallowed cgi-bin directories. From a bot's perspective, thesse sites don't look like a hub.

I had a tracking cgi on my site a few weeks ago, so that I could follow my click-thru on outgoing links. A week or two later, I got the PR0 penalty.

How on earth do you make an automated decision
Good question.

PhilC




msg:1606271
 8:15 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I had a tracking cgi on my site a few weeks ago, so that I could follow my click-thru on outgoing links. A week or two later, I got the PR0 penalty.

That could have been for a different reason - yes/no?

If you work really hard to boost your authority-like score while trying to minimize your hub-like score, that sets your site apart from most domains.

Hubs = lots of OBLs; Authorities = lots of IBLs - Yes?

It seems to me that we're in harmony. I.e. get lots of IBLs to "boost your authority-like score" and hide some OBLs to "minimize your hub-like score".

I thought we were doing that - or has my brain taken its leave again?

ScottM




msg:1606272
 9:32 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I still go back to the thought of: "Getting users OFF of Google as fast as possible".

Whether that's through content(authority) or hubs...the result is the same: users leave Google and don't return under that search term because the result they found was what they were looking for..

Authority or Hub...or both. Either way give the USER something to do..(Read or Click)

europeforvisitors




msg:1606273
 9:36 pm on May 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>1) Use Javascript links instead of classical links <A HREF> for all the outward links of your site<<

IMHO, that cheats other Web sites. And besides being selfish, it's a blatant attempt to trick Google.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Google penalize sites that use outbound Javascript links one of these days, since Google would probably regard such links as a threat to the integrity of its PageRank-based algorithm. Either that, or Google will begin spidering Javascript links, making your trick worthless.

Chef_Brian




msg:1606274
 12:23 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hey Everyone,

Some people have wondered why "I" feel it is better to rethink the "links page" name. From what I have read here and at other quality sites in the future search engines will start to look at sites with an overall "theme".

One way they could do this is by looking at the incoming links to a site and using several bits of information from that link and page. The name of the page could be a factor here, in fact I remember looking at a "online tool" that help determin your sites "theme".

With so many "links pages" on the net I just think it makes more sense to label a page in a consistant manner of the site.

So if you have 1000 incoming links to your site *hope* they are not all labeled "links page" for furture search engine relavence. Hope that makes sense.

Chef Brian

fathom




msg:1606275
 2:26 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Correct me if I am wrong.

PR goes up the more inbound links and goes down slightly with outbound links, but not as much (1 to 1, link for link) you will increase PR.

Google compares your link structure (page by page) to the total Internet (as Google knows it) indexed into its archives.

So in an overall scenerio the less outbound links you have the less connected you are and lesser importance to the total archive.

This being said, if you have an inbound link from a page that isn't in Google.com archive (and there is obviously alot of these) the PR that could be added, isn't and all the sites that it connects to and all those links (that may also be pointing to you) are possibly lost as well.

By using Javascript on outbound links also breaks this connectivity as well so in fact your site may indeed be losing more than gaining and without your knowledge.

IMO Google's PR is more meant to compare a specific page to its local network of links and the bigger that network is (or the greater number of pages that Google has which are in your network) the greater PR and induced Ranked Position.

Am I wrong.

legendax




msg:1606276
 2:52 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

problem i have is following?

how do you get over 5/10 with pagerank?

paynt




msg:1606277
 3:04 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Chef_Brian,

We did discuss the issue of what to call links. I agree though that as we go into themes more it might be in our best interest to consider every aspect available including the link page.

What do we call links? [webmasterworld.com]

vitaplease




msg:1606278
 6:23 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

If you work really hard to boost your authority-like score while trying to minimize your hub-like score, that sets your site apart from most domains

Prediction: the next 20 Google threads are: How do I become a hub?

Nothing wrong with being an authority, if you really are the only one.

For all other lesser mortals: also become an authorised hub by recognising the real authorities.

world end soon




msg:1606279
 10:30 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

I don't think there's any reason to think pagerank isn't what google says it is. After all, the web page optimizing community are optimizing, say 0.001% of sites on the internet. The rest of them are just unoptimized content sites. Google would be wasting thier time trying to catch out the fraction of sites which do bypass their algorithms.

Is this whole forum a case of paranoia?

Having said that, plenty of sites with little or no pagerank do better than higher ranked sites. If anyone knows how the Google relevance indicator works, that's the real key.

Axacta




msg:1606280
 10:48 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Is this whole forum a case of paranoia?<

Yeah! So? You gotta problem with that? :)

Giacomo




msg:1606281
 10:57 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Of course, folks never know when we're going to adjust our scoring. It's pretty easy to spot domains that are hoarding PageRank; that can be just another factor in scoring.

Hmm... I think I'll remove that JavaScript link thing [webmasterworld.com] from my home page right away. ;)

ukgimp




msg:1606282
 11:02 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Big long intereseting thread.

My personal experiences:

I have external links which are both direct and clickthrough monitored. Both of which are PR6 with the main index being PR7. So for me it makes no difference.

I was under the impression that that content was king and that it was a "requirement" to have links outward. That the very nature of the web, without links we aint going nowhere, not without things like the ODP.

I seem to remember reading that some site owners were collaborating with others to create closed loops and this sort of practice could be traced and eventually get you "busted".

Tricks to "fool" SE's may work in the short term, but if you base your whole life on them, when "they" change their algo you are up the creek without a paddle and require a major site rehawl. Short term aim long term greif! I seem to remeber stuffing keywords worked like a charm, not so sure it does now!

Just my 2p's worth.

Richard

(edited by: ukgimp at 11:04 am (utc) on May 22, 2002)

world end soon




msg:1606283
 11:04 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

<Yeah! So? You gotta problem with that? >

Yes. You are all making me paranoid!

world end soon




msg:1606284
 11:06 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

< I seem to remeber stuffing keywords worked like a charm, not so sure it does now! >

It works fine for our competition. No pagerank at all and they're on the first page on a highly competitive search term.

Axacta




msg:1606285
 11:35 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Yes. You are all making me paranoid!<

world end soon,

Well then ... welcome to WW! ;)

The new frontier after the X-files ... "The truth is out there." (Until Google changes their algo, of course.)

Axacta




msg:1606286
 11:50 am on May 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Seriously, though. Because of the tremendous influence Google has over so very many website's incoming traffic, it is palying with fire to try to pull one over on Google.

Not only that, however, there are many instances of sites being penalized for no apparent reason, which of course can be devastating. Just try looking for "PR0" in the site search feature at the bottom of this page, and you will find many testimonials of anguish and frustration.

wasmith




msg:1606287
 1:55 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

For long term PR hunting I look for sites I can get to link to me that will provide traffic via those links. When i get one of those the search engine traffic always goes up.

For short term I seem to alway's be doing something new and maybe it helps for a month or two? Maybe not but it keeps me busy. Lately i've been making sure all my outgoing links are valid (no 404) to sites with a PR > zero. If the site is a PR0 i look to see if they link to sites i would not want to send people too?

I also make sure I have links to other parts of my site from high PR pages (although i think that is detectable ... one would be hard pressed to find a high PR page that did not have links to key locations on the site but many low PR pages don't contain the same internal links).

Marcia




msg:1606288
 3:43 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

wasmith, the penalty was lifted on some PR0 sites and now some are PR3 and more, so not being PR0 now might not be an indicator. They're likely still branded as being the "criminal element." They can get zapped again just as quickly as they got unzapped.

And who's to say Google didn't lift that penalty deliberately as a trap, just because webmasters knew better than to link to them? It would be awful goodie_two_shoes of us to think that Google is any less sneaky and underhanded than SEOs.

Besides, they've got more edjicayshun, so they're better at it. Remember, they've got over 50 PHDs who are infamayshun_psyantists.

Beachboy




msg:1606289
 5:46 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

GG, you guys aren't underhanded and sneaky...are you???

Beachboy




msg:1606290
 6:05 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

Much as I love Google, I have learned that Google presents a huge threat, which is only being amplified as it continues to gain market share.

We are all vulnerable to Google goofs, to changes in algos, to new rules (what is acceptable, what is not).

Speaking only for myself, I have taken steps to decentralize our larger websites over a wider variety of domains, with the notion in mind of survivability come the next big goof or change. Part of our business will no doubt be affected, other parts will be untouched.

As WG pointed out, all our eggs are pretty much in one basket now. That basket will be dropped at some point. Therefore I am making regular eggs, hard-boiled eggs, rubber eggs, plastic eggs, steel and aluminum eggs.

world end soon




msg:1606291
 6:37 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

A couple years ago it was possible to spread my risk by listing on all the main search engines, but now Google is dominant.

It seems to me Google has a corporate responsibility. If I was wiped from Google, my business would go down the pan within a month, and I'm sure this applies to many of you. This is not about me. It's about anyone who has a small business based on the internet.

As a corporate citizen, Google should be aware of this. It's bad publicity to ruin people's live's right? If you're listening Google, I'd be interested in your policy on avoiding putting hard working small businessmen on the street. Whether or not you have one now, you will need one in the future.

(edited by: Marcia at 7:20 am (utc) on May 23, 2002)

starec




msg:1606292
 7:38 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

well, this is not about PR hunting techniques anymore...

You can't compare Google with McDonalds, w_e_s. You BUY the coffee in McDonalds, so you potentially may get burned by a product that you paid for.

You paid nothing to Google. If you did (AdWords) then you would need not to worry about being dropped.

BTW, "Corporate citizen" is an oxymoron.

chiyo




msg:1606293
 7:52 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

"...As a corporate citizen, Google should be aware of this. It's bad publicity to ruin people's live's right?.."

Nope.. Google provides ways for you not to be listed if you like. They are providing you a free service, as long as it helps their index, they will in 99% of cases end up with a ranking that reflects that.

Key thing is that if your life depends on Google, please get another one! not being rude, but you have to diversify as you say.... use PPC in other engines, use Adwords.

My personal take is that chasing after PR is a futile short term game. They can change the algos at any time. Concentrate on making content that google and surfers and other webmasters like. Update frequently. Make sure you title and layout is simple and clean and that the title and sub headings and content all work together, just like any document you write. Webmasters link to you without asking becuase your content enhances their offerings to their people. Share.

Now i know that may be difficult for sites that are selling something and the more related sites you compete with the less likely you will get good links in. But expecting commercial or selling sites to sit up top of google is based on the past, not the future.

Just my very humble opinion. PR chasing is a waste of time.

fathom




msg:1606294
 8:03 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

Agree with Chiyo. It's a score, nothing more, that in school you received on a test and if you did poorly you needed to do more homework so that you could do better on the re-write.

Since PR is only based on Google's "KNOWN" Internet pages what is still out there (lots) just makes the test longer.

Zips




msg:1606295
 8:07 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

Ive got to agree with chiyo.....Google is the best SE and its also the only free major player. True it would hurt many websites if they are dropped but surely you cant hold a business together purely by being listed on a free directory!
I take any referals from google as a bonus and continue to hope that they will remain free. Plus you shouldnt worry about being dropped from google if you do nothing wrong and if you do get PR0 it is surely your own fault.

world end soon




msg:1606296
 9:23 am on May 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

Well guys, I have to say, I don't agree with your defence of Google. I know this is not a legal forum, but I just want to put the record straight.

1) Every man has a responsibility to another. It's called tort. Whether one man pays the other or not. It's not normally applied to financial loss, but can be in the case where it can cause complete ruin. I don't know if it exists in US law but it is commonplace in Europe.

2) We don't pay to go into google's index, but we do offer a legal payment, called a "consideration". We provide content. Many companies pay for content. Google gets it for free.

Just thinking out of the box guys. The small man needs a voice too. No need to reply to this message (unless you work for google). I don't want to change the forum subject.

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive / Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved