| 8:19 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'd like to hear any suggestions about WHY Google is ranking these above |
wait for it...
wait for it...
WAIT FOR IT...
here it comes...
Unfortunately, it seems that you have a quality control complaint concerning Google. This may be a better venue for you: [google.com...]
| 8:24 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Unfortunately, it seems that you have a quality control complaint concerning Google. This may be a better venue for you: [google.com...] |
Your post sounded very sarcastic, I can't understand why? Also, it wasn't really a "quality control" complaint as such, I was trying to start a thread to work out the reasons these sites are ranking higher. I listed the factors (the ones you tried taking the p*ss out of) so that discussions could begin on what factors these search engines results pages have that are causing them to rank higher than sites that have the qualities generally associated with high rankings.
I've seen some immature posts in my time on these boards but that one really made me cringe at the thought of the person writing it ...
|WAIT FOR IT... |
here it comes...
are you serious?
| 8:36 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi Internet Heaven
Just curious were you checking for something that you target or a genuine search.
If you did not like the results and from your description sounds like spam , then as mod says report to G .
You better just be sure before you report to g that if your own site is listed further down that IT IS IN FACT SQUEEKY CLEAN
or you may just find you throw the baby out with the bathwater
If you ask G to look at results for a serp all will be looked at not those just you identify
| 8:37 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is a lot of crap in the SERPs, and high PR, older sites have nothing to do with it IMO.
Google is lacking a clue, not too constructive I know, but I think they are easily fooled by spammy no-content garbage these days.
| 8:45 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Just curious were you checking for something that you target or a genuine search. |
I'm talking about Google's results in general. I use Google daily for tracking my own industry and for general searches and there are search engine results pages filling up the top twenty in all of them.
Like I said, this isn't a complaint about a specific term or market area, this is Google in general or is it some weird co-incidence that I am the only one that gets plagued by spam listings when I search Google?
| 8:47 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Like I said, this isn't a complaint about a specific term or market area, this is Google in general or is it some weird co-incidence that I am the only one that gets plagued by spam listings when I search Google? |
Tell me, internetheaven, what do you expect the membership of WebmasterWorld to do about your quality control problems with Google?
| 8:56 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think you are forgetting about the secret contact form in the supporters forum that allows us to tell Larry and Serg how to run Google. :) just kidding, couldn't resist
Google is doing what they think is best. As much as we may hate or love it, we have no control over it. They are a publicly owned company whose stock has risen about 20% in two months time. They must be making some people happy. Our job is achieve the best results for our own companies. I don't care if Google has relevant results or not. I only care if I am getting traffic from Google and if my business is making money from that traffic. The relevancy of Google's result are Larry and Serg's concern not mine.
| 9:08 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Every person on this board has their own agenda.
For the area I'm concerned with and for my own personal searches I don't see any problem at all. The SERPs are squeaky clean and in fact the cleanest I have ever seen them.
As mentioned, if you have problem with a particular areas quality, best you report since a lot of the board members here might not be experiencing the same thing in their respective areas and thus would have no reason to nor would they devote any time to combating something that is not affecting them.
Time is money and best spent not fighting other peoples battles.
[edited by: phpdude at 9:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 20, 2004]
| 9:08 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On my private site I have a few pages reporting on search engine referrals made during the most recent 2 days. At the most these pages will show referrals for 48 hours at the least 24. Right.
Now, the curious thing is that the page showing Y referrals shows up in a lot of G SERPs and the other way around. Often in quite good positions (2-10).
I find this hilarious.
As for "older sites"... the site has been up since 1997 and these pages for the last 3 years. I once put them up for my own convenience, to keep track of what exactly drew visitors to the site. They are openly linked on the site, and since the content on them is always fresh and they do include links (a lot of them) to authority sites (namely Y and G), the bots really like them.
Yes, it's plain stupd that these pages should show up in SERPs at all, but it is really not my problem.
| 8:15 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Tell me, internetheaven, what do you expect the membership of WebmasterWorld to do about your quality control problems with Google? |
Ummm ... if I said "this isn't a quality control issue" once more would you hear it? Beside that, the membership of WW is to help people with any question. I've seen you answer many ridiculous newbie questions with dignity and co-operation - what happened here?
I was looking for answers as to why search engine result pages rank highly in Google results. That's only quality control if I was asking you what I could do about it. Not one post has bothered to try and understand that question, they have all responded to the sly comments posted by bakedjake so in effect the thread has been sunk by someone's ego. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you have to pick on the question ....
| 1:33 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
" Not one post has bothered to try and understand that question, they have all responded to the sly comments posted by bakedjake"
Thats because BakedJake answered your question in his post, regardless of whether or not you liked the posting style, the answer is still within it.
| 3:25 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Seemed like an innocent question to me and I can't see any answer. You must have upset them somewhere.
| 3:41 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Internetheaven, obviously some people can't grasp what 'why' means.
| 4:00 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
First off those sites are probably owned by people on this board. You have to remember that this site represents both sides. Second the rason those sites do well is because the sites that should be there are not doing there job. Sites like that only do well when there is trash in the SERPS. They are bottom feeding. Third G does not care. One of their parters does this. I big site that was purchased for a zillion dollars that everyone knows about. Which does not make sense because they are stealing money from G. They show up in the SERPS for free then have their own PPC program.
| 4:09 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
First off, the poster is making broad assumptions: “I'm sure we're all aware of the problems Google is facing with search engine results pages.” That is the posters opinion and in fact I see the exact opposite and in fact if I happened to own the sites in question I would say Google is doing a great job!
Second, he asks for suggestions and the best suggestion was given in the very next post and in fact he already answered his own question in his own post: “on-topic, well back linked, high PR, older sites.”
That pretty much sums up what he is seeing for the terms he happens to be searching on and why nobody has anything else to offer. The question has been answered.
Again, another assumption is made: “There must be something and if we can work out why, then we can combat it. “ Why would I want to combat something that may be mine or I may not be seeing?
Perhaps the poster should of targeted his post at the folks who are seeing what he is experiencing and not make broad assumptions that because he thinks Google is messed so must everybody else.
| 4:25 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>> bakedjake top reply!
I saw you dishing it out on another post to fellow members. Not so smug now...
| 4:29 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You must have upset them somewhere |
|I saw you dishing it out on another post to fellow members |
Ahh you had upset someone.
| 4:41 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Suggestion: When you come across a result full of crud (they're out there, I've seen them), use the "Help us improve" link at the bottom of the search results page to send in a comment.
It's fast, it's easy, and it makes you feel better so you can get back to working on productive things for your own site. There's no need to deconstruct why certain pages rank well ... just point out problem results if you're so inclined, then get back to your own work.
As for why those pages rank well, who knows? One could expend a lot of energy trying to figure out why, but the ground will shift in a few weeks no matter what conclusion one reaches. For most of us it's more productive to analyze what the good sites are doing right and learn from them. That's far more likely to lead to a stable, sustainable foundation for our own strategies.
| 5:06 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think that the point is here the question was answered way back in message #2.
| 5:39 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think that internetheaven's question is a very fair one and s/he is being bashed unnecessarily.
I too have seen a proliferation of these types of pages. These pages are proliferating because there is cheap and readily available software to build them - they continue to be popular because they are successful in search engines.
One reason why I think they may be sucessful in Google is because they exhibit properties of hubs.
| 7:37 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Sites like that only do well when there is trash in the SERPS. |
Thanks alot! ;) I think it would be prudent to mention that I'm not talking about a 10-20 page site that I haven't optimized properly. My network covers approximately 1,000,000 pages just over 400,000 of which are in Google. My techniques rank very well under most keywords but there just seems to be a few areas where the results are completely full of these search engine results pages (most of which are Overture and Espotting affiliates).
|in fact he already answered his own question in his own post: “on-topic, well back linked, high PR, older sites.” That pretty much sums up what he is seeing for the terms he happens to be searching on and why nobody has anything else to offer. The question has been answered. |
I think you misread the post. I was saying that the pages being beaten were on-topic, well back linked, high PR, older sites whereas the results pages had none of these qualities which is why it was confusing. So, the question you have made up in your head has been answered, mine hasn't.
|union_jack I saw you dishing it out on another post to fellow members. Not so smug now... |
Leveldisc Ahh you had upset someone.
Yeah, I was dishing it out to union_jack because he said something very misleading to newbies whereas this is a question that people are not understanding and therefore trying to sound knowledgable by trying to change what the question means so they have an answer.
|... so you can get back to working on productive things for your own site |
That makes no sense. What is the point of trying to use all the regular optimization, anchor text etc. techniques if these pages are ranking in the top twenty with none of those properties? What productive things would you recommend that I haven't already tried?
|... As for why those pages rank well, who knows? One could expend a lot of energy trying to figure out why |
That is the whole point of SEO, trying to find out what works, isn't it? Or should I not try to work out why certain pages are ranking well and go shooting in the dark? What on earth are you smoking while typing this?
As for the "bashing", I'll take whatever people want to throw but it really wastes space on these boards when people don't read the question and just start buddying up with each other. It's pretty obvious that the agreements with bakedjake are coming from people looking to "agree" with him as they is no way their answers indicate they actually read the inital question .... you giving out coupons for some service jakey-boy?
| 8:07 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The problem is that Google is ranking these very highly despite there being no backlinks (none showing anyway), large amounts of hidden text, dynamic pages (which everyone else seems to have some difficulty with) and maybe only one actual listing on it that contains the keywords that I originally searched for on Google. --
Your right, I didn't read your post carefully enough. Your first part about Google basically sucking for everyone biased the way I read it.
Now that I have read it again, your saying there are no backlinks showing. Are there no backlinks showing in Yahoo or are they just not showing in Google?
| 8:28 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Or should I not try to work out why certain pages are ranking well and go shooting in the dark? |
My point is that you ARE shooting in the dark if you spend too much time trying to figure out something that's certain to change in short order. Whatever Amazing Secret Trick the junk pages have stumbled into, it won't be sustainable for long. It's the sustainable things that are worth the detective work.
If you're doing everything right that you say you are, you'll still be here after the algo shift that cleans the junk pages out.
|What on earth are you smoking while typing this? |
It must be good stuff, because it's making me mellow enough not to comment on anyone's manners.
[edited by: buckworks at 8:29 pm (utc) on Oct. 22, 2004]
| 8:29 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think that in some cases these sites that list search engine results rank well because they have good keyword content. Basically by their very nature they contain 10 (say) bits of independent sales copy all targeting the same bid keyword
I think they gain not only from the 10x repetition but also from not being written as SEO copy (and hence repeating the same keywords and maybe triggering an overoptimisation filter) but written as sales copy for PPC and hence containing a variety of related keywords all around the same topic.
Strange thread this