| 1:01 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|what do the top ranking sites have in common |
They are doing something right
>>The manufacturers site is in the top 10.
its number 1 on my search
>>Huge sites like epinions and amazon are in the top 10.
>>Does the amount of pages your site has have anything to do with how high you rank?
Whats your point caller?
| 11:39 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My point is that it seems impossible to optimize a page for any popular product where the search term is manufacturer/product name. Things you have no control over are taken into consideration. Would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
| 11:44 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>My point is that it seems impossible to optimize a page for any popular product where the search term is manufacturer/product name
It's not. My sites regularly rank above manufacturers' product names - and that's without even any emphasis on SEO.
They shouldn't but that's another story. (The manufacturer's pages are good resources and the visitor is best served by these being in #1.)
| 12:17 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So you agree then, on page SEO has little to do with why sites rank first?
Your right the manufacturers site should rank first, it's the other sites that are up there with them I am curious about. They all seem huge, they don't have the best product info.
| 1:30 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They may not have the best product info but you can bet your bottom doller that they have a hell of a lot of quality inbound links with good anchor text!
| 2:51 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So how does a small mom and pop vac store compete with the likes of Amazon and epinions and magazines that report on products Doesn't make sense for these people to exchange links with their competition.
| 3:02 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So you agree then, on page SEO has little to do with why sites rank first? |
I certainly don't agree with this. Google has made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on on-page factors. Then it made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on off-page factors. I believe they have found the right balance now - unfortunately, so have the spammers ...
| 4:03 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
another good example is the search term level switch
An industrial product, no affiliate sites or such. Seems the big companies, the ones with the most pages win. They certainly don't link to each other.
| 4:26 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So how does a small mom and pop vac store compete with the likes of Amazon and epinions and magazines that report on products Doesn't make sense for these people to exchange links with their competition. |
1) If the store has really, really useful content--e.g., an objective and comprehensive "complete guide to selecting and using a vacuum cleaner" or "the universal guide to vacuum-cleaner bags" or "Herbert's Hoovering Guide"--then it may well receive inbound links from editorial, reference, or community sites that normally wouldn't link to an online retailer. And by having pages on many different topics, the Web site will have more points of entry (and more chances to do well for various keyphrases related to vacuum cleaners, cleaning techniques, etc.).
2) The store may need to advertise, just as it would do in the brick-and-mortar world.
| 4:28 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So how does a small mom and pop vac store compete |
You may need to alter what you are aiming for. Perhaps instead of "brand widgets", you would need to go for "mycity brand widgets" or something along those lines.
| 4:40 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You took the words out of my mouth!
Mom and pop businesses shouldn't be aiming to compete with the Amazons or Ebays. That's a dangerous game in more ways than one. Should they have some limited success they could easily get wiped out by the big boys tweaking their ad campaigns. Imagine the mountains of $4.00 a month text links Amazon could buy if they so wished :)
| 9:30 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To go back to the opening comment, no I'm not surprised that manufacturers and large suppliers make the first 10.
If - to follow that rather generic example - I typed "Hoover" into Google, I wouldn't want 400 small-time shops on the first 40 pages, I'd want the big suppliers.
If I wanted a small shop, I'd add my town or county to the search. For a start, I'd never find anything local to ME in the first 40 pages of "everybody's local results"!
This has always been the way us in the UK search for something - we either use Google.co.uk to omit all those US sites, or we add our town or county.
Is this any more of a problem than walking into a library and saying "I want a book of fiction" without being more specific?
| 9:45 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It seems to me that in many areas the only way to get to the top is to be a big company. |
In my category (travel), mom-and-pop businesses rank at or near the top for many important keywords and keyphrases. Some are editorial sites like mine, some are travel agencies, and others are affiliate sites.
| 10:24 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
1) If the store has really, really useful content--e.g., an objective and comprehensive "complete guide to selecting and using a vacuum cleaner" or "the
blah blah blah blah
If you do more seo you will win.
If you are on page 10 do ten times the seo and you will get to page 1.
Dont know what seo really is.
Than you are s o l
Noone on this board will give away any real secrets to good seo.
pay a firm to do it for you .
Just make sure they have competive listings as proof of there work.
| 11:30 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Noone on this board will give away any real secrets to good seo. |
That's patently not true.
Brett and many others try very hard to give good, ethical, practical advice.
Indeed, if you are so convinced that no-one (or noone, as you would have it) gives (or give, as you would have it) away any real secrets, one wonders what the point is in your being here.
Many of us try to post questions and answers in equal quantity. For you to suggest that no answer is worth the pixels it's written on makes me wonder what is your point exactly?
| 12:19 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was not asking anyone to give away any secrets. I wanted to know if others had noticed that larger sites seem to be ranking first. Do you think the size is now part of what google thinks is important?
My several sites that still rank high in google are large sites. They don't rank well in MSN or Yahoo. My sites that Google doesn't like anymore are on the first page of Yahoo and MSN results.
Guess they haven't got to the travel sites yet but they will. Consumer and industrial product searches seem to bring up the largest sites first.
The other type of sites I see coming up first in google are nothing but links. Again they are large sites and their main purpose seems to be to make money off google adwords.
| 12:49 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I wanted to know if others had noticed that larger sites seem to be ranking first. Do you think the size is now part of what google thinks is important? |
I haven't noticed any big differences. Maybe some small moves towards bigger sites, but there are so many issues to consider, especially if you're only focusing on a handful of search terms.
Are the big sites climbing because they have much broader supporting internal link structures? Possibly because their site happens to be properly themed? Maybe it's because their PageRank far exceeds everyone else? It could be good old fashion incoming link text... That's just scratching the surface...
If you've been noticing big changes with the larger sites, maybe there is something up, but it's most likely that these sites have been around the top for a long time and as a result have picked up a lot of the basics that G looks for when ranking sites.
SEO can get you a long ways, but when you look at the basic tips on this board that actually produce results, you'll find most of them revolve around content and links. Big sites in general have been generating content for a while and have been pulling links in for a while as well.
You can compete, it is hard and you have to be creative about it. You should be targetting derivitive terms to get started and see where that takes you.
| 1:06 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's definately not the page rank. I see many low page rank sites in the top of the serps, always have. Amazon doesn't seem to have any page rank, just a white bar. Maybe they have been banned ;)
| 1:40 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I didnt want to upset anyone.
The advice here is very good and helpful but its just a start.
If the advice here was all that was needed for a top ten site then everyone here would have tons of top ten sites.
The posts would all be wow another top listing this is so easy good thing we used the advice on webmasterworld.
I looked but I havent seen any posts like that recently.
As fo why im here
There are lots of good examples of what can get you in trouble, and Im great at seo but I cant build sites that convert to well.
| 2:12 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It all comes down to quality content and quality incoming links.
For the big-time brand keywords you may never reach the very top of the SERPS. Sometimes, the actual manufacturers have nearly a ten year head start of acquiring incoming links with the proper anchor text. So good luck.
However all is not lost, as somebody already suggested, target the brand keywords with an extra word or two. Like:
<big-brand X> city Y
<big-brand X> buy
<big-brand X> model XYZ
Or a million other combinations. Targeting thousands of keyword combinations is a short term way to establish traffic for the more competitive keywords.
| 2:18 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Now that is a helpful post.
Some poeple just have to stop competing with the big dogs and start getting rich with the little dogs.
| 2:45 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess I should have made the title Why do they rank high, instead of how to rank high. I wasn't really asking how to rank high. I wanted to give some specific examples instead of talking about blue widgets. I want to know if Google is counting pages since I see large sites like Amazon and huge directories built to make money off adwords coming up first for main keyword searches.
I know about on page SEO, I know about incoming links and I think by now Google must know these link exchanges have nothing to do with page value. I know about targeting less popular keywords. I don't think there are any big secrets unless you are talking black hat SEO, which I have no interest in.
I know you can tell someone exactly what to do and they will still mess it up.
I mainly wante to discuss the things Google is taking into account that people have little control over. That is what Google wants to do, find a way to rank pages that webmasters can not manipulate. It used to be so much fun to wait for the monthly Google update and see how you ranked. Just isn't as much fun these days :(
| 4:15 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Amazons pages rank well because the main directory carries huge page rank with massive amounts of links.
If you had more links than amazon you would have similar results.
| 4:32 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How about Hilltop playing a roll. This link has been posted many times here at WW, some people buy into Hilltop, some people don't.
| 7:25 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I didnt want to upset anyone.
Then please don't think you upset *me* - sometimes I get a bit mischievous when I post if a thread seems to have more opinion than fact - sometimes it gets the thread moving again :-)
| 8:05 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi cant we ignore SE altogether.Interlinking with others or being a part of a bad neighbourhood may result in google penalising me , but if you are having good traffic as a result of reciprocal exchanges , why complain?
Is it OK to join a webring?
| 1:38 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Is it OK to join a webring?
There is a question that has been asked so many times here.
If you want my opinion of webrings.... I say it is not ok. Only because I can rank much higher than my competition who are involved with webrings. So it may be hurting them or.... it may not be helping them. There you go... an answer that is clear as mud.
| 3:44 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Rugles for your reply.I just want to know if reciprocal linking and bad neighbourhoods and webrings bring about great traffic , then cant we simply ignore SE? After all why are we after SEO? To get hgh rankings , whihc will lead to good traffic!
But if you can get them through otehr ways cant we ignore SEO?
After all 100s of ppl compete for top 10 position in every category!
| 4:07 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On page SEO is the easiest thing to do, why would you ignore it? Many other engines still use it, so even if it is only a small part of what Google looks at, why ignore it?
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 (  2 ) > > |