| 12:23 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, maybe I am not alone in trying to work out what your "current link structure" is from what you said.
| 12:44 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Alot of "this page has moved" from a single site ... navagation changes from the same site to the new pages. A few new links form other sites (not yet taken effect although cached in google). Several home page links to the new pages. The new URL content has been reworked so it is different.
Overall the transfere of old url PR to new urls maybe to high to fast. In a category that is often spammed.
| 12:46 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I am still none the clearer on what you are trying to say.
| 1:01 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
OK consider a yahoo directory with a moderate amount of interlinking between categories (well below any flag levels). But the entire directory has a few keywords as a theme (3 or 4, theme words) that is expressed on every page and 90% of the links from the site.
So only 3 primary keywords but over 5,000 related phases. Actually the phases are several times that but I've not gotten traffic from all of them yet. The category is alittle tight (even though ROI is currently _very_ poor ... the category is business related).
Pages that did not have external links were moved to a new site. Nearly all of the interlinking of those pages point to the new URL. The old URL have a link to the new site. A few stray links still point to the old URLs. A few new links have been captured, two or three are high grade.
| 3:13 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am still not 100% clear but I do not think it is the cross linking between pages that is the problem, that sounds natural.
It sounds like you have solely targetted a certain key phrase on virtually every page. Now, for me that would already certainly say you would be stretched over 5000 pages? to provide unqiue content on each page.
From what I can understand / see, you got dropped for doorway pages / excessive focus on a single key phrase.
I theme as well, but not focus anymore (and I just got #1 for a really hard search term, and #2 for one of the hardest). What I do is;
1) Main Keyword Page "Widgets"
2) Directory / Information pages (one also targetted at my main keywords) - the rest are targetted at "Blue Widgets", "Red Widgets"
3) Product pages - targetted at "Round Blue Widgets", "Square Blue Widgets", "Nice Blue Widgets", "Gay Blue Widgets", "Cultural Blue Widgets", "Sporty Blue Widgets", etc.
Also, use a site map.
Also, put some of the more important product page links on your index page.
Also, have some related inbound and outbound links.
Also, don't do anything Spammy in the slightest
Also, make sure the html is good, fast, fat free and loads fast
I think your question about internal linking is mute. I think internal linking is key. But it seems your problem is you have 5000 pages for "Hormel sandwich meat"!
| 3:50 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>anyone else but me not even read post that are paragraphs long?
Would you have read it if the post were formatted like this?
5 Tips To Help Your Site Rank Better
1. Create a Site Map - A site map ensures that spiders find all of your important content.
2. Link To Your Most Important Pages From Your Index Page - Don't use the "supermarket" technique". Make sure your important content is visible.
3. Use Relevant Links - Acquire inbound links from relevant sites. Link out to relevant sites. Don't bother with links that don't interest your surfers.
4. Don't Violate the TOS of Search Engines - Forget about spam, read the TOS provided by the search engines and do not violate those terms. If you do, don't cry when your site drops like a rock.
5. Make Sure Your Code Validates - Write clean code that validates and keep page sizes to a minimum.
Didn't mean to pick on you GrinninGordon, just wanted to show how formatting text aids the reader.
[edited by: digitalghost at 3:59 am (utc) on April 14, 2003]
| 3:55 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Many links from high PR pages dont seem to have been included in this update |
I'm seeing this in every site I have. Big PR drops, well from 5 to 3 anyway and no backlinks showing. (Including YAHOO!, Dmoz and Google directory)
Some are linked together, some not. Sometimes the Google directory links show up next to the listings sometimes no.
Looks like the update is still in process or from this small sample, Google choked on some sites.
| 4:45 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>no backlinks showing. (Including YAHOO!, Dmoz and Google directory)
Same here. Site has been in dmoz for about 2 months now after a category change. This update and last, the site has been in the google directory and shows as being in on the toolbar, but the DMOZ and google directory backlinks don't show up (both PR7). So it is very discouraging for me. Luckily I'm holding ground for all my key search terms.
I've also added several sites to the "web" and had them linked from various sites for a speedy inclusion. Some are included, some are still PR0, and all are on the same server (so no difference in downtime), and some were linked from the same page yet some are in and others are not? All sites were deep spidered. So who knows what is going on, maybe it wasn't a full update?
I guess the big question is, when is the next update, in a week from now (back on schedule), or 5 weeks from now (skip a month)? I wish GG would tell us at least +/- 1 week so we could relax a bit ;)
| 4:50 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Luckily I'm holding ground for all my key search terms. |
Same here, just seems strange the back links aren't showing and the PR is way down.
| 5:40 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have experienced similar problems.
| 5:59 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have dropped from PR6 to PR4, mainly because I had moved a PR7 subfolder from another site and placed a 301 redirect. That resource had over 1000 backlinks. It now shows 20 (because most of the 1000 used to point to my old site).
Technically the downgrading is fair, because I cannot write to 1000 sites and get them to fix their links. But it suggests that a 301 redirect does not carry over the PR from the original backlinks.
| 9:16 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't mind. Yours looks like a sales pitch made by the former Iraqi Minister of Information (bullet points, highlites, but less content) :-)
My reply was trying to make sure I got the facts right first. And yours left out any meat about specific theeming. So let wasmith decide. And where was everyone when he was struggling to get an answer? Seems many people like to correct (not always very well), but not help.
Maybe you should start a "short questions" only section for these forums!
| 9:21 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am also not seeing the backlinks from last month on all my sites :(
I can see a few knew ones, but not all the ones from last month.
| 9:29 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Same here, just seems strange the back links aren't showing and the PR is way down."
Backlinks aren't showing because those sites dropped PR and don't show anymore because they are too low plus google has stopped showing multiple links from the same domain it appears. It is a relative drop so you shouldn't be affected SERP wise.
| 9:35 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Alot of sites that link to me have actualy increased in PR, but the backlinks have not been credited to my sites... I am pretty sure they didnt have any donwtime during the last deepcrawl.
Double checking now and one of my sites that links to another of my sites has increased in PR but the backlink isnt showing at present.
Have to do abit more searching around and see what is going on :)
| 10:11 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing the same on a couple of sites also. On one of them my Dmoz link hasn't even been counted.
It looks to me as though they've messed up the link popularity this time around.
| 7:08 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>And yours left out any meat about specific theeming.
That's because there isn't any "meat" in regards to theming and Google. I wasn't trying to correct anyone either. I was responding to Notepad with a post that hopefully shows the benefit of formatting text for readers. Yeah, it was off-topic but the overall "theme" of this forum is "news and discussion for web professionals". ;)
There's a discussion going on in the back room about Google calculating PR on the fly. I disagree with the theory and I've noticed on more than one occasion that it takes Google longer to get the PR numbers straight than it does for them to add pages to the index.
I've seen several examples in which new pages are found and added but the PR from the backlinks isn't added for a month or two. In fact, in this index I've seen a site included but the PR is a white bar. The backlinks for the new site are a PR9, two PR8s and 2 PR7s.
It also seems that every month right after the Google update that people notice that some backlinks aren't showing. Backlinks don't always show up in one index cycle. This remains true month after month.
As for backlinks for DMOZ not showing up in two months, yes, that happens. DMOZ is not hosted on the best equipment. A site listed after the deep crawl can take three months or more to show up as a backlink.
Finally, not all backlinks will show up. Even after years. Unless the PR is 4 or higher.
In closing, I'd like to add that there is no such thing as PageRank. Pagerank is the creation of the infidels. Send your inspectors, you will find no PageRank here, even if there were Pagerank, it is being crushed on the drives of our web server. We have surrounded the Pagerank and now we are driving it from the web.
Comical Ali Lives!
| 1:36 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Disagree about theeming and PR. Although they are just two of the factors, they are factors.
A site gets a higher relevancy for being theemed. So if the sub pages from the main index all have the keyword (legitimaely placed) on around 85% or so of the sibbling pages, this will help the index. Also, IMHO, Google look and rank relevancy of a keyword based mainly from secondary pages, with reference to the index page. That is to say, there is no point in just optimizing your index page for a keyword or phrase.
It is also important to include associated words.
PR counts. The link text relevancy that you get with that PR probably counts more, but PR counts and I hope your servers do not get indigestion!
My favorite speach given by "Ali" was;
"We have defeated the American Army, all of the criminals (Americans and British) are on the run. We destroyed one tank and 2 helicopters."
Laugh? I laughed so much I really cried!
| 1:44 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>A site gets a higher relevancy for being theemed
Agreed, with that definition. I was talking about links from inbounds from relevant or themed sites. I know that relevant links help the surfer but I can't positively say that Google compares sites that link to each other and gives them a boost if the links are on the same theme. There have been several discussion about theming here but I can't find one of them at the moment. It's really hard to prove that Google places more emphasis on a link from a site with a similar topic than it does on a link from any 'ole site. Again though, for the user, on topic links are the way to go.
I prefer themed websites, they tend to speak in a unified voice and are much easier to optimize than the catch-all sites.
>>but PR counts
Again, agreed. The Comical Ali bit was pure jest. I like those high PR links but I'll take all the targeted anchor text links I can get, even from those PR4 sites.
| 7:39 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, and the web address you sent me was perfect. The world media will miss that man. I used to try and catch the mistakes (how many). One of my favorities was "We destroyed one American tank". Then he went through his notes (did you see, they were all on different bits / colours of paper, often pink and purple) and then said "We destroyed four American tanks" (having forgotten what he said just before).
"but I'll take all the targeted anchor text links I can get, even from those PR4 sites."
What about those proprietory links from PR3 sites that no-one else can see? Actually, not quite true. A link: on Google won't show them, but a search on the target domain site alone will. This foxed me once, why a site did so well with so few links. Did a search on it's domain alone, not link:domain) and then I saw! Tons of PR1 to 3 sites, and they obviously counted.
| 9:19 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|There's a discussion going on in the back room about Google calculating PR on the fly. I disagree with the theory and I've noticed on more than one occasion that it takes Google longer to get the PR numbers straight than it does for them to add pages to the index. |
I agree with you on this point as well. I have seen many a time, that my site can be ranked number one for at least 99% of my keywords, due to anchor text, descriptive titles etc etc.. once the PR has been calculated my site then drops to fifth on the serps (it did this month). I have a PR of 5 and the top 4 all have 6+ with the top spot having a PR of 7.
| 1:54 am on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
was there some reason my post was deleted?
| 2:08 am on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Was yours the one that criticised the excessively long post for being long? If so, it was the way you expressed it. Normally moderators will send you a sticky to say what and why.
| 3:03 am on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
oh i see, i'm sorry. i have a bad habit of saying what i think, often without thinking about it first...