| 3:45 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
maybe they have good content and people link to them because they're useful. It's a different concept from SEO. Someone would suggest the SEOs corrupt the results...
| 4:38 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They dont have many incoming links or anything else google is supposed to like.
| 5:46 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
nzmatt, this discuss is pointless since we will never see the websites you are talking about. If we could see the sites, I bet webmasterworld community could point out any number of things which give them a good pr
| 6:23 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have also noticed this kind of thing where a site I'm competing with for search terms gets excellent positioning but has very few inbound links and the information hasnt been updated for at least 2 years.
| 6:28 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When you find a site like that, you've found a gem -- study the devil out of it because the evidence is clear that they DO get good rankings with the current algo.
And no, I don't think that it has anything to do with corruption. It has to do with the nooks and crannies of a very complex algorithm. And you just found a very telling piece of data.
| 2:43 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
New pages often do very well in Google, esp in non-competitive areas. As for pages doing well that do not appear to be optimized, perhaps their designers know more than the rest of us. Perhaps they have a few critical backlinks - you may not find these very easily.
Having said that, low PR pages seem to jump up the SERPS if there are lots of keyword-rich links on the page. However, that can't go on forever.
| 10:06 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Zulufox, good point – “we will never see the sites…” but results that include sites without good or even basic google SEO (including pr, content and all the others) are fairly standard. You don't need me to point you to keyword/s that illustrate this. They are quite common. However, if you want me to, I will. Have a look in smaller niche areas that pay well for sponsored links and traffic.
So if its not corruption what is it?
Tedster, you point out that "it has to do with the nooks and crannies of a very complex algorithm". This is true in many cases. But in others, small cottage industry sites hold the top position over large modern professional sites that have great pr, prolific content and fluent use of the relevant keyword in all areas of design, navigation and text. Why?
Tedster, you logically suggest we "study the devil out of it because the evidence is clear". However, if they are very simple sites that do not follow any of the algo’ rules, what is there to study? They are often indistinguishable from all the other little sites that make up the bulk of the lower rankings.
Kaled, I agree that new pages can do very well. It is very important to get things just right before submission. It is often harder to hold on to good rankings than it is to achieve them with new pages.
I'm just concerned that while there seems to be a loose logic behind google rankings and its algo’ we also suffer the exception of these anomalies. Does anyone agree, or do you think there is science behind every ranking?
Is it my knowledge of what makes up a successful google ranking that is corrupt?
| 10:16 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
check your sticky mail please.
| 10:38 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
- seems to be a bit sticky!
| 10:47 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Is there significant corruption in google's ranking results or are some result rankigs just random?
Neither. You just haven't figured out what these sites are doing right (which quite likely is by total accident rather than sharp SEO techniques.) As for the thought of Google corruption, I'd think it'd be a whole lot easier for a Google insider to just arrange for the site to have free Adwords at the top of the desired SERPs. This has gotta be a lot easier than dorking around with a highly complex algo.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 10:50 pm (utc) on Mar. 17, 2004]
| 10:49 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
rfgdxm1, you are most likely right. I'm trying hard to beleive...
| 11:20 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What shade is their background? I hear that purple is the in color this month.
It's real easy to say that the site does not meet "SEO rules" but it is important to remember that google does not want to rank pages according to the "SEO rules", their realistic goal is that they want to have good pages (not necessarily the best pages) coming up on top in most (not possible to get all) searches.
You then change to saying the site does not follow the "algo rules". Well obviously they do follow them because their site beat the site that followed the "SEO rules". The only people with access to the "algo rules" work at google, and those rules change several times a month.
| 11:26 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know a site that is No 1. out of 10000 results and it has the keyword in the title of the page..... thats it. The whole page is one image... no other text. Low pr. The cached version is the same as the actual (i.e. not cloaking) no hidden text etc etc.
| 11:28 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So that's a vote for science is it BigDave?
| 11:31 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
trimmer80, so I'm not the only one who acknowledges these anomalies? I’m sure we all know of a few…
| 11:36 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The science is pretty thin, if there is any. A close study of a page that happens to be #1 at a point in time might be a waste of time and misleading too, or on another day it might be a useful exercise. From what I've seen recently, Google's SERPS are prone to follow no observably consistent logic, giving the impression that their 'algo' is truly understood by no-one at Google or anywhere else.
| 11:40 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My point was that there is any number of things that Google might include in their algo that are not in your SEO rules. Google is nout bound by those rules, and in fact, other than a few basics, everything I have ever read from them suggests that you ignore those lists of rules.
In fact, it has been suggested in the last few months that folloing SEO rules too closely has hurt sites in their rankings for what they considered "their keywords".
Maybe all the other pages in that category are so over SEOed that these obscure little pages just floated to the top.
| 11:45 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BigDave, so what's the long term key? Is there one? Content and percieved popularily (backward links)?
| 11:50 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As a matter of fact, that what I been wondering as well for a long time.
Searching for my city+travelkeyword I come up normally between first 5,
another company as well 1-5, but the funny thing is that their webdesign company has an link to that site, and saying in the text of that page city+travelkeyword only once... and that page (not index page) is also between first 5.
That is very bad search result.
And I wonder why?
All 3 of us have same Pr ranking
| 11:53 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looking at the keywords you search... and I sent you a sticky reply...
Corruption in Google would mean that somebody or Google has the ability for a specific search term to
"lock" that page so it stays in the specific slot. And then tell the algorithm... #1 can't move and either can #2 and #3 etc..
ALSO bear in mind... what Google is using this week may not apply next week... lots of changes going on.
For my key search terms the top 10 NEVER move... then after 10 its the dog and pony race back and forth.
You gave me a two word, keyword search, try expanding your search with more "keywords".
For example my site went from since "Brady" number 12 which I was quite happy with considering the "lock" in the top 10... to as of this week #30... This is for a two word "keyword" search... So if I enter my other keyword(s) and the two word "keyword" search... I do very well.
for example if I enter New York... I wouldn't do well.
But if I enter restaurant New York I do well...
and if I enter
restaurant Manhattan New York I do very well.
Corruption is always there in any business... but for what you are talking about... No... unless, there is a "locking" mechanism in G... and that would be something we would see in the Drudge Report before we saw it here.
p.s. My position in Google to #30 is probably because of the structuring of my website... and the alogrithm that is now running... I've been waiting and just watching, mountain biking and enjoying March before I reorgainize my site to the "new" trend that fits the algorithm. My site is all content, no ads, no affiliates... about 300 or so pages etc etc.
| 11:59 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know what you mean about the top 10 being fixed in stone.
Cheers to enjoying March - although mine is autumn...
| 12:00 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Good natural content for your users is the long term key. Link to good useful sites for your users, and have content worth linking to.
Yeah, you will likely get beaten regularly on you money keyword by the SEO du jour, but you asked about long term, not "how do I win right now?"
Forget about "your keyword" for a while, and work on producing content that is about that keyword. Worry about the content, and not how many different ways you can fit the keyword into that content.
There are other words related to your keyword. Use them. And use them without always having to force your keyword in there. If the user does not need the keyword jammed in there, the search engine doesn't really need it either.
When a page that uses a phrase more discretely works its way to the top, it tends to have a lot more staying power. If you use tricks, it is likely to jump around a lot more.
| 12:07 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What Google really has to do...
especially with all the money it is making...
Is have a TV show nightly like the "Daily Show"...
and joking make fun of all the frustrations and
turmoils we and they go thru sorting all this out.
Whether you are a Repub or Democ you can laugh at
the "show" each night and take your mind off the "race".
Come'on Google... go for it... of course
the host would be "GG". :-)
| 12:12 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know what the prizes could be...a trip to the Wonker factory
| 12:14 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yes that's "wonker" with an "o"
| 12:16 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What shade is their background? I hear that purple is the in color this month.
Hahahah! As a matter of fact the one I'm looking at IS purple.
Ever since I added this woman's site to mine (not a "links" page but regular part of my site) she has shot to the #1 position and I really debated adding her because I was afraid something like that would happen but when she wrote and asked to be added I had to say yes because mine's a resource site and she fits into it. Mine was consistently in #2 spot for at least 3 yrs before Nov. She aggressively links to everyone on the planet though and has one of those boring lengthy links pages on her site. I keep waiting for Google to tweak them down a little because right now those are about the only things at the top of the heap.
| 1:46 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Use Yahoo everyone will be before long.
Google serps are very poor right now, and have been for months
Sour grapes? nope, my main search term is number #4 in google, number #6 in yahoo.
Thing is all sites are relevant in yahoo, in google they are not, google is now showing news articles from 2002 from a few sites for my main search query
As a former "google fan" I have junked the google toolbar, and installed the yahoo alternative.
My stats speak for themselves, 40% yahoo, 30% msn, 20% google and 10% the rest.
I suppose it depends on the industry, but I do know google serps suck big time in my particular industry.
6-months ago my referrals were 90% google, but hey they did me a favor with new spam/filters (or didn't like me anymore filters)
I may be in a unique position, because as luck would have it, I simply swapped positions from google to yahoo/msn for the same search queries.
So I have something to go on
I can say this, conversions are 1000% up on comparrison results I now enjoy with yahoo and msn, compared to my old google results (which for the most part no longer exist, page 4 and beyond)
| 2:05 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo forgot to set the background color on their main page. Looks like crap with my default non white color!
| 3:02 am on Mar 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nice one Steve128, this makes very interesting reading.
Presently I'm developing a new site. I'm determined to create a site which enjoys long term and stable traffic. I guess I need to get my traffic from a long term and stable source.
| This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: 74 (  2 3 ) > > |