homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.2.88
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
Get PageRank 'Before' the site is even online!
It works, done it with over twenty domains now ...
MikeBeverley




msg:80248
 9:17 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Before anyone starts, I'm well aware of the ever-decreasing importance Google places on PageRank in regards to the ranking algorithms they use. I just thought that this experiment was interesting in repect to the way Google builds its database and indexes pages/URL's.

What I did was, I selected (but didn't buy) 50 domain names and placed a link to one of them on 50 sites I already have in the Google index. Six weeks later - I waited until a PR update had been - I actually purchased the domains and sure enough, they all had PR3-5's from the moment they came online.

Now a pratical application I drew from this was pre-empting pages I was going to create in the future and creating links early. For example: I run a newsletter and every week the page created on the site is named after the date - e.g. 23052004.html - and it takes Google a while to index these and rank them. NOW what I do is, create links to pages I'm going to have in the future and then when they are actually created they are listed AND ranked within 48 hours. This also seems to bypass the 'Sandbox Effect' as the pages did not drop over a two month period of tracking them.
So if I create links to newsletter pages I intend to create in August - e.g. 01082004.html, 08082004.html etc. NOW, when the time comes to actually write them I will already have PageRank and Google will have had the URL in it's index for three months so I shouldn't be hit with 'Sandbox'.

Like I said, this worked in that PR is instantly attributed when the domain/page comes online. It also seemed to have bypassed the Sandbox (if it does actually exist) as rankings stayed within the top 5 for two months straight.

You may have guessed from this that I am Anti-Sandbox and I think Google's results have become very stale since it (or whatever it was) was introduced near the beginning of this year. Therefore I'm always trying to find ways to jump the queue. I'm an avid user of Google, I just wish they wouldn't screw around with such daft ideas.

 

Marcia




msg:80249
 11:18 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nice, Mike. Thanks! :)

jcoronella




msg:80250
 11:34 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nice. I'd probably modify your method by actually buying the urls before linking so that someone doesn't snatch them up on you.

Scarecrow




msg:80251
 11:48 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think you can go one step further than what you've described. My experience tells me that you can not only develop prenatal PageRank, but can also develop prenatal Google juice for keywords.

Consider that Google bombing works on Google and Yahoo even though the keyword appears nowhere on the target page. And consider that if you sell a domain that once ranked on top for a keyword, and the new owner of the domain does not use that keyword at all because he's doing a different type of site, his domain will nevertheless rank for your keyword forever and ever, Amen.

And that's after four months of redirects and an additional 14 months of "not found" for all content requested that was once on the original site.

I've seen pages rank number one for a keyword and they are simply an empty Unix root directory. Then I look it up in Alexa and discover that the directory has been empty for over a year.

The problem is that links, and their anchor text, are considered sacred by Google (and Yahoo), without any cross checking of whether the link or anchor text is valid. A 404 "not found" will eventually get a page removed from the index. But the juice from external linking remains in cyberspace through link rot, and there is no effort by the engines to clean up or validate this residue.

It requires too much overhead to run this sort of cross-checking, apparently.

If you control a few websites, and if you cloak or use hidden links so that your normal readers aren't distracted by non-working or irrelevant linking, you can build up an entire virtual empire of Google ranking juice before the first eyeball ever meets with any actual content.

jcoronella




msg:80252
 11:54 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

SEO1 "I have 45,000 pages in google"

SEO2 "Oh yeah? I have 70,000 pages in google but you can't see them"

stuartc1




msg:80253
 11:58 am on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sshhhhhhhhh dont tell everyone..LOL :)

One thing I have also noticed is that it's easier to get a higher PR sites by using less competitive keywords. This may be common knowledge, but I just came acrros it by accident (I think so anyway). For example if you have a website about tasty soup and use 'tasty soup' as your main target words, but if several other sites are aiming at this you may only ever reach PR6, but if you have 'taste soup' it's highly probably this could get higher than PR6 with no other changes needed. Anyone else noticed this?

bekyed




msg:80254
 12:10 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes we do this on a number of our sites stuart
especialy the <extremely competitive niche> ones. shhhhhh!
Bek.

[edited by: Marcia at 12:37 am (utc) on May 26, 2004]

gopi




msg:80255
 12:59 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Its nothing new ...after this sandbox thingy , for new sites i normally put a one page dummy page with a logo and a paragraph or two of keyword rich text and link to it from my PR sources .

When the site is developed and ready to launch the sandbox would be cleared :)

IMO its better to buy the domain and put atleast one page , rather than not buying/hosting the domain

johannamck




msg:80256
 1:14 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Remember Brett's excellent "Successful site in 12 months with Google alone"?

> Don't put it online before you have a
> quality site to put online. It's worse
> to put a "nothing" site online, than
> no site at all. You want it flushed
> out from the start.

Seems that, the times they are a-changing...

Kirby




msg:80257
 1:27 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Good observation, Mike. I was surprised to discover that I have a parked domain with a PR2.

gopi




msg:80258
 1:27 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> it's easier to get a higher PR sites by using less competitive keywords

Stuartc1 , PR is nothing to do with a subject of the page ... Its just a mathematical representation of the quality of link refrences a particular webpage have - Read the
famous paper [www-db.stanford.edu] written by Larry and Sergey when they were poor ,inncoent and virgin :)


We assume page A has pages T1...Tn which point to it (i.e., are citations). The parameter d is a damping factor which can be set between 0 and 1. We usually set d to 0.85. There are more details about d in the next section. Also C(A) is defined as the number of links going out of page A. The PageRank of a page A is given as follows:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))


MikeBeverley




msg:80259
 1:53 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

IMO its better to buy the domain and put atleast one page , rather than not buying/hosting the domain.

Okay, I thought it would have been quite clear but I guess I'll have to explain it. The object of not buying the domains was to ensure that they were no other influencing factors in the PR other than the links I created six weeks before. I was NOT suggesting that you don't buy the domain until you've had links for six weeks - I only did it for the purposes of the experiment.

it's easier to get a higher PR sites by using less competitive keywords

Are you confusing PR (PageRank - the google green bar) and PR (Page Rank the ranking you have on the search engine results page)?

But yes, I agree that Brett's advice of not placing a site on the web until it's ready is good advice from a user point of view - BUT Google has created some sort of (useless) Sandbox and this forces webmasters to find ways around it.
Apparently Sandbox is supposed to weed out auto-generated spam pages or something but it is just NOT WORKING, all it does is make Google look stale! (Sorry, I had to shout that but Google are a little too interested in IPO right now to hear about their search engine.)

caveman




msg:80260
 2:04 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a feeling that the ability to do this is about to go away. :-(

stuartc1




msg:80261
 2:23 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Stuartc1 , PR is nothing to do with a subject of the page ... Its just a mathematical representation of the quality of link refrences a particular webpage have - Read the
famous paper written by Larry and Sergey when they were poor ,inncoent and virgin :)

Sorry, I never explained it very well. What I was meaning was linked keywords. And I know PR = green in the toolbar.

I was thinking that it may be possible to get a higher PR if by using less competitive linked keywords (other sites linking to you), that way you have a better change of being number 1 in the search results (which in turn might go towards PR as a bonus!). OK, so this may be wrong, who knows. But Im not even going to bother reading some out dated articles, because we all know the rules change every couple of weeks (at least)....

gopi




msg:80262
 2:51 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> I have a feeling that the ability to do this is about to go away

Me too caveman , remember the good ol "-link:" command? :)

>> which in turn might go towards PR as a bonus

stuartc1 , obviously you can rank relatively easy for less competitive terms with good anchor text links , on page optimisation , some PR etc .

But PR is nothing to do with anchor text or competitiveness or the subject of the page or of the linking page... Its just a matamatical representation of how many pages linked to you and how important (PR wise) they are .Period

I beleive you are still confusing with the PageRank (PR) with SERP ranking!

EliteWeb




msg:80263
 5:03 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I too noticed this, I forgot to setup a domain name in the web server so no pages were loading, no server responding ect. However when I went to it the site had a PageRank.

DVDBurning




msg:80264
 6:10 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Remember Brett's excellent "Successful site in 12 months with Google alone"?
> Don't put it online before you have a
> quality site to put online. It's worse
> to put a "nothing" site online, than
> no site at all. You want it flushed
> out from the start.

Flushed out, or fleshed out?

In any case, what is the value of links to nowhere? Sure it takes a while for the Googlebot to come by and find the links, and more time for the new links to be processed and placed into the index... but if these are real links to non-existent future pages, how many of your site visitors attempt to follow them only to get an error? Is the benefit worth the aggravation to your site visitors?

MikeBeverley




msg:80265
 6:30 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a feeling that the ability to do this is about to go away.

I certainly hope so, why do you think I'm announcing this? This was a great secret that I could use to get my pages ranked months before I release them/write them.
But I'm sick of Sandbox and anything I can do to point out to Google that it sucks (like telling everyone ways around it) might get them to actually try fighting spam instead of simply delaying it.

In any case, what is the value of links to nowhere? ... how many of your site visitors attempt to follow them only to get an error? Is the benefit worth the aggravation to your site visitors?

Good point but obviously I wouldn't be placing the links in user's reach, just in Googlebot's. Another example is one of my current sites. It has over 500,000 pages which were only uploaded two months ago. Googlebot is taking forever to find them and currently I'm only at 3,000 pages in their index. (BTW - Yahoo is storming away at 30,000!)
Now six months ago when I started that project I already knew what all the page names were going to be. I could have created sitemap pages linked to from the main page and left them there until the site was ready to go online. Therefore, right now Google would have that majority of the site in it's index and ranked already.

nuevojefe




msg:80266
 7:10 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Mike,

I think when he said he has a feeling the ability to do this is going to go away, he was referring to the ability to do what you've brought up, not the sandboxing.

The sandboxing will be here to stay. It's like this, why should a 1 month old domain/site rank higher than a 6 year old one that has consistently had the same rankings and built links up slowly over the years? I'm not saying there are no reason why the new one shouldn't but, it is somewhat safer to prevent a new site from skyrocketing to the top.

jcoronella




msg:80267
 9:45 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

have a feeling that the ability to do this is about to go away.

Not sure why they would bother... seems relatively useless to me. Fun? yes. useful? No. You can send links to a splash page just as easily.

caveman




msg:80268
 10:40 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just one less thing in our bag of tricks soon, that's all. Oh well, CaveMama never said life would be easy. ;-)

As to why they would fix this: It would be relatively easy for G to address, and things like this (i.e., having domains ranking without sites behind them) are the sorts of things G might prefer not to have people writing about at the present time...or any time, for that matter.

MikeBeverley




msg:80269
 6:27 pm on May 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google have a whole host of 'backdoors' that they are not trying to lock right now. I read that the Cheech & Chong (or whatever the Google creators names are) are only keeping 6% of the company's shares each. Seems like there are far too many stories about IPO recently, if they're all over the place giving press releases, who is actually doing any work on the search algorithm? Even the regular engineer's at Google seem to be getting around in newsletters and interviews lately.

Like caveman said - "It would be relatively easy for G to address, and things like this" - so what are they doing right now?

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