homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.10.244
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >     
Could one page be highly positioned (11/4730) for non-contained word?
Natko




msg:192581
 12:17 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

Could anyone tell me if some page be listed and highly positioned an ranked too, for a word that page doesn't contain?
thanks

 

mcavic




msg:192582
 3:27 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

It could be a word that people use to link to the page (anchor text).

antrat




msg:192583
 4:02 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

It may also be due to word stemming.

Jesse_Smith




msg:192584
 4:33 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

Enter the words "miserable failure" in the search from the index and press 'I'm filling lucky!" Trust me, that page does NOT contain those words! That's from over 30 sites doing a Googlebomb.

Natko




msg:192585
 9:10 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

no anchor, no stem. no inbound link,... simly nothing. Why Google doesn't give me a page that does contain this word insted of giving me the one it doesn't?
Let me explain better.
We have KW1 KW2 and KW3.
PG1 cont. KW1 and KW3 (home P - enter for 4 diferent language)
PG2 cont. KW1 and KW2 (next italian 'intro'page')
Listing:
1)KW1+KW2=PG1 11/4730
2)permutation ... KW2+KW1=PG1 12/4730
3)KW1+KW3 ... I'm nowhere. Why not PG1?

My hypotesy is about overall theme of the content, about 'core bussines'. This is very dificult to verify.
KW2 is region and KW3 is a country where that ragion belongs. So far my business is focused on that region I would be highly listed. Becouse my business/agency doesn't operate on country level I'm not considered to be highly listed for this word. But remains question why it doesn't give me a page that DOES contain KW2?

Natko




msg:192586
 9:14 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

about "miserable failure" this is something else. I think this is manualy adjusted listing.

mcavic




msg:192587
 11:44 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

There are no manually adjusted listings. The miserable failure thing is from anchor text.

What does the cached page say? At the top it should say something like "the following words appear only in links pointing to this page: keyword"

Natko




msg:192588
 11:59 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

are you sure about non manual adjustment? It is very strange that it lists il #1 only from 30 anchor, and has PR 8. Well, I'm not so sure.
But, this doesn't metter in my case!

garry




msg:192589
 12:11 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

Another senario I gather what you are getting at is why would an index page show up (month after month) with the only text of "This is just a place holder" , when it was hogging 8th place in the SERPS.......and I am busting my guts at #46

PatrickDeese




msg:192590
 12:44 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

> are you sure about non manual adjustment? It is very strange that it lists il #1 only from 30 anchor, and has PR 8.

Perhaps you are forgetting that "miserable failure" is not exactly a competitive term.

It's not like those 30 links got that site to beat Amazon.com for "books" or some commercial phrase.

I could probably make your site #1 for "Purple Mayonnaise" with fewer links than that within 15 days, but that doesn't mean diddly.

Natko




msg:192591
 1:14 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

maybe or probably you are right but nobody gave me an answer to my question

PatrickDeese




msg:192592
 2:03 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

> but nobody gave me an answer to my question

yes they did, they gave you a website that is "listed and highly positioned an ranked too, for a word that page doesn't contain".

Find "miserable failure" anywhere on that page.

Natko




msg:192593
 2:42 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

It explains those with inbound anchors, but in my case ... my site doesn't have them. That's the point I'm talking about ... no inbound anchors.

mcavic




msg:192594
 4:12 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

What does the cached page say?

Natko




msg:192595
 5:52 pm on Jan 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

The cashed copy says nothing, that KW was never present on that page.
mcavic I sent you a PM of my URL. Did you receive it?

dasboot




msg:192596
 6:03 pm on Jan 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

The 'miserable failure' example is a classic case of the failure of Google's algo. The new 'algo' has been discussed at so much length, and in so much detail, that it is possible to overlook the stupidity of it all.

There need to be some on-page factors to moderate these results and make them more relevant. The term 'miserable failure' isn't mentioned once on the George Bush site. And I gather they mostly came from a couple of dozen blogs. This doesn't make any sense at all (unless outbound links to 'authority' sites carry more weight.)

p.s. snipped

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 3:40 am (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
[edit reason] Removed off topic comments [/edit]

PatrickDeese




msg:192597
 9:51 pm on Jan 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

If it is ranking because of links alone, the cached copy should show this text in the "google info" part of the page:

These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: keyword

mcavic




msg:192598
 11:01 pm on Jan 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Natko, on the cached page for the url you sent me, it says at the top:

These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: key words

That should mean that some page is linking to you with that as an anchor. I don't know how to search for exactly what page that would be.

dirkz




msg:192599
 3:57 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

> no anchor

How could you possibly know? It's quite impossible to get a listing of all backlinks, even with all the Web.com.

> The 'miserable failure' example is a classic case of the failure of Google's algo

It's one factor that made Google's algo superior to others.

dirkz




msg:192600
 4:01 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

> That should mean that some page is linking to you with that as an anchor. I don't know how to search for exactly what page that would be.

One thing that could work is searching for the link AND the keyword. But its way beyond exact.

takagi




msg:192601
 4:07 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> One thing that could work is searching for the link AND the keyword. But its way beyond exact.

Google doesn't allow a search for 'link:' to be combined with something else.

Natko




msg:192602
 4:34 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

mcavic >>> yes, you have right. I'm present in some directories, but it would be for the PR not for regural listing.
Another question is why it doesn't give me a second level page where that phrase is present in page's body text?
Why some anchors is more important than my body text?
I have to admit that I'm confuset about SEO and SEM nowdays.
These few directories arn't so IMPORTANT to give me 4/10 PR.
But even we assume they are, the page that phrase is contained is more relevant than page this phrase is absent or?

dirkz




msg:192603
 4:48 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

> Google doesn't allow a search for 'link:' to be combined with something else.

I was referring to a normal search, without 'link:'. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

dirkz




msg:192604
 4:50 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

> Why some anchors is more important than my body text?

How long does it take for you to write a keyword on a given page 1000 times?
How long does it take for you to collect 1000 links with the keyword in the anchor text?

mcavic




msg:192605
 5:27 pm on Jan 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

a normal search, without 'link:'

I tried that, but I don't think that a normal search will turn up link urls - only link text.

why it doesn't give me a second level page

I don't know why the second page isn't coming up, but it's in the index.

to give me 4/10 PR

Google says you have links from 30 different pages of a PR5 site. That would easily give you a PR4.

Natko




msg:192606
 9:05 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

where did you find those 30+ URLs. I see only one site with my banner on and those KW in this alt tag?
Could we say that a few alt tag or backlinks are more important than regular body taxt for the regular listing?

GodLikeLotus




msg:192607
 9:36 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

<It's one factor that made Google's algo superior to others.> dirkz

In what way does this make Google's algo superior?

It makes Google look far from superior to me.

If the search phrase or keyword is not on the page that rates top in the SERPS, then it's crazy for that page to be anywhere in the results.

dirkz




msg:192608
 9:48 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

> where did you find those 30+ URLs

Probably alltheweb.com

dirkz




msg:192609
 9:51 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

> If the search phrase or keyword is not on the page that rates top in the SERPS, then it's crazy for that page to be anywhere in the results.

But lots of other pages must have "voted" that page to be relevant for the search term.

Of course, you can game any algo. But some algos just make it a little bit harder.

Hissingsid




msg:192610
 10:02 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why does everyone refer to "miserable failure" when "weapons of mass destruction" is much more amusing. ;o]

Seriously though there seems to be a link between Google bombing commercial terms and what has happened post Florida. Before Google closed the allinanchor: "bug" searching for allinanchor:widget financial put me back to #1. This is only slightly interesting on its own.

Someone stickied me with a search term and URL for a search which was badly hit by Florida and the really interesting thing with the site at #1 in the standard search was that it did not contain the term on the page but it did contain words which described the word better than the word itself.

I guess that this could have been an anomoly. Before I saw it I thought that the whole Florida effect might just be that Google had grabbed a whole list of commercial search terms and switched of anchor text in the algo just for those terms. After seeing it and checking that the term had been affected by Florida I decided that the semantics theories might have a part to play as in this category anchor text was still very important.

Does anyone else have examples where the term is not on the page but where that page held its position while others around it fell. I would very much like to look at examples.

Best wishes

Sid

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

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

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved