| 1:16 pm on Mar 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I wonder if Brandy was all about adding back in the influence of ODP listing in a related topic cat"
*I sincerely hope that is not the case* that the listing carries enough weight to influence the actual merchantability of a site.
<self sacred cow snip>
| 2:30 pm on Mar 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Instead of giving outbound links, getting a decent link with targeted anchor text would do better IMHO. "
What you said makes sense in the old Google, but now things have changed. Look at the top sites, consistly they have many links out. It is the directory that dominates now, the king of content has been de-throned and exiled.
"I am still confused by alanp73's strategy. Since site A and C both link to B, and B doesn't link to either one, wouldn't it make sense that site B would be at the top of the serps? Wouldn't this make site B the "authority" between the sites? Does that me that inbound links do not count? Only how many outbound links to top ranking sites? I would think that it would be the opposite. "
Yes, you are confused.
- Site A links to B and C (site A has rich content on city widgets)
- Site B links to neither (B has rich content on city widgets)
- Site C links to B (site C is a directory)
Site A ranks well for "city widgets"
Well, site A links out to both a relevent directory and a relevent content site, therefore it appears to be an authority. Because it doesn't get links back from these two sites it doesn't look like an affiliate, which is bad in the new Google. When linking out to site B it uses "city widgets" which re-enforces that it is an authority on "city widgets". Also, site C (a directory or authority) links to B which means site B has relevent content and sites linking to it must be authorities. Site A is proven to be an authority and ranks well. Site B is proven to be commercial (or content site) and is no where to be found for "city widgets".
I hope this makes sense. The Google filter places preference on directories over content that is all you really have to understand.
| 9:59 pm on Mar 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"the king of content has been de-throned and exiled."
Inbound anchor text links being called "king of content", man o man, now maybe I've seen everything.
| 4:59 am on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anyone see any consistancies with the real estate issue/filter? A few of our Clients have came back, but most are still lost in the wind..
| 5:59 am on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well I haven't read every post of this thread or the 20 page locked thread. But something has definitely changed in the last few days. My hobby site previously not on the first page results of a relatively obscure one word search term that I always thought my site would do well in.
I had of course previously put the word in the title and it must appear a lot in my site over the 200 or so pages of content. Now all of a sudden I'm number one at least at google.co.jp which is doubly odd as my site is in English, I just happen to be in Japan right now so I default to there.
I most definitely didn't do anything new and different. Like I said I'm in Japan so updating my website is non trivial. The only thing I have done is perhaps added a few outgoing links and perhaps gained a few incoming links. Nothing major just fellow site owners exchanging links no high page rank sites.
Just more food for thought for the professional google watchers out their. Like I said I just have a little hobby site, plus of course a personal domain that is used by my friends and family. Certainly nothing like "London" or "Tokyo".
| 10:30 am on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Set you Google prefs to 100 results per page. That brings in a lot more "double results" ie one page supported by an inset second page. If you look at the highlighted words in the two cached pages you get some quite interesting insight.
For example when I search for big widget financial.
I have two pages #1 and #2 in both cases the term "big widget financial" occurs in that exact form only once on each page and only in anchor text. On the supporting page I have "big alternative widget financial" three times on the page and once in the title. There's a smattering of "big","widget financial" etc on each page but not repeated in the exact search term like we used to do. Oh and theres also some stems like widgets, widgeting etc.
Go take a look at your SERPs and look at what is highlighted in the cached pages of the first few in results its quite an eye openner.
| 3:46 pm on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
""the king of content has been de-throned and exiled."
Inbound anchor text links being called "king of content", man o man, now maybe I've seen everything. "
I was referring to sites with information on a subject not anchor text links. Sites with rich content (information) are no where to be found. However, sites linking to these resources dominate the serps.
| 4:37 pm on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Go take a look at your SERPs and look at what is highlighted in the cached pages of the first few in results its quite an eye openner. |
I have, and it is not much of an eye opener in my niche'.
Search for widgets
#1 - Zero occurrences of the term. Total of 10 words of spiderable content. 'Widgets' only appears in inbound anchor text. (The site is #5 for allinanchor:widgets).
#2 - 10 occurrences of the term. URL is www.widgets.com #1 for allinanchor:widgets
#3 - 1 occurrence of the term. It is a splash page - mostly Flash - with very little spiderable content. #2 for allinanchor:widgets
#4 - 1 occurrence on the page. 37 words of content. #3 allinanchor:widgets
#5 - 8 occurrences on page. #4 allinanchor:widgets
All 5 sites are in the same ballpark as far as PR.
The sites show varying degrees of 'optimization' ranging from poor (no alt or meta tags) to relatively sophisticated.
The pattern is the same for the top ten. Interestingly, the top ten sites for the term are also the top ten sites for allinanchor:widgets, only reshuffled a bit.
Looking at 'widgets for sale' or 'widget manufacturer' produces generally similar results, although the results of stemming singular and plural terms is more evident.
SERPs have been relatively stable for the past month. Some minor movement, but that can be explained via the age of the cached page.
Not a real competitive niche'. Your mileage may vary...
| 4:47 pm on Mar 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Madman21 wrote on page 1:
|When I add +A to my search, my site is in the top ten |
Just for fun, try putting any of the following in your search -, +, =, / and you should get a different result each time.
Its because you're adding criteria to the search...
|Okey then, let me rephrase that then. IMHO in order to beat the "filter" you need to get links from sites ranking high for the particular keyword you're being "filtered" on. |
Links have always been important. Have you tried adding text that describes your topic? Look in the dictionary for adjectives, add plural forms of the text, use words that help describe your topic. For instance, if you deal in rental properties, try using words like apartments, rentals, leases, real estate, landlords, etc. Anything that helps describe your topic.
| 12:06 am on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just did a recent test where I used my technique and it worked again. I made the changes to a site three days ago and it went from nowhere to #3. It seems easy to turn on and off the Google filter.
| 2:57 am on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Sites with rich content (information) are no where to be found. However, sites linking to these resources dominate the serps."
I see a few examples of this for search phrases we closely monitor! Amazing that the content sites, well written rank WAY lower than the resources page containing the anchor text to our site.
Glad someone else wrote it, as I thought it was just a fluke we were experiencing..
| 6:24 am on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When you link the sites are you linking just 1 page or many pages between A B and C. What would you do if your sites are 100 pages. Also do you use semantic keywords for the anchor text linking out or your target keyword.
Thanks for the input.
| 8:30 am on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When you link the sites are you linking just 1 page or many pages between A B and C. What would you do if your sites are 100 pages. Also do you use semantic keywords for the anchor text linking out or your target keyword. |
If you think that it is important that you control three sites to make Allans method work then you are hold of a red herring. Correct me if I'm wrong Allan but the main reason that you decided to do this linking excercise with other sites that you control was to avoid giving PR and traffic to a competitor as a side effect.
My point is that if you have links to sites which are big authorities but which do not directly compete with you then you get the same effect. To this end I have linked to the ODP, Google and Yahoo directory categories that link to my page, to major trade organisations sites and to sites on exactly the same subject offering the same service in other parts of the World. The links out that I've added are all on my home page.
This technique is not a panacia and I guess that Allans sites have other strong merits in terms of content, structure and optimisation. What he has added is the missing ingedient that Google was looking for.
| 8:35 am on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I added 5 outbound links using your idea and I tweaked a few words in my site title. My site started showing up using a very old cached version and now it is no where to be seen for keyphrase or keyphrase +a and on top of that, inbound links are listing higher in the SERPS then my site.
This is very discouraging. I am not in a competitive field and my primary keyphrase only returns around 400k results. Only the first 200 results are close to relevant. I am not in the top 1000 and still looking.
I have a feeling I may have inccured some sort of dupe content penalty due to a recent domain name change. Half of my site is indexed. Some of my key-phrases still show results, but I don't understand why Google would revert to an older cached version of my site.
I've heard rumors that 301 redirecting mysite.com to www.mysite.com can cause problems. I removed the 301 and mysite.com promptly popped up in the SERPS with no title or description. I think I will try to wait this out.
P.S. No response from GG and I e-mailed him about a week ago.
Wow! I checked out the top results for my phrase: #1 site had the phrase once and no content at all; #2 didn't even have the keyword and next to no content.
<Google Quote> "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page:widget phrase"</Google Quote>
THey are both PR5. My site is around PR4+ if they ever update PR.
| 10:28 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
well 2 days ago I added some outgoing links to a test site and as of today I have risen 5 spots. Tough to say if this is just everflux or not, but I'll post again if I see any more movement.
Had anybody else been testing this out?
| This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 3 4  ) |