| 6:39 am on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We crawl according to the reputation for a page, so one way to get crawled is to have more people link to you.
| 6:48 am on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I hate to add a comment to a Google thread after Googleguy because obviously he is "the man" when it comes to anything Google.
Just a few ideas.
| 2:38 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If I didn't know better, I'd be tempted to think that GG was downright inviting me to go join a bunch of "link farms" in order to prove my "reputation".
Point in fact--our "reputation" is actually being built by pay for click service.
If Google REALLY wanted to ACCURATELY measure a page's TRUE "reputation" or "popularity", then surely it would figure out a way to measure the ACTUAL visitors to a site on a periodic basis.
Links are, in my estimation, wholly IRRELEVANT to the question of whether a site is truly useful to its intended users. What is more important is the actual level and quality of information available on that site once the user gets there.
But getting there is the whole problem.
So, we're back to where one company now dominates the "get there" market.
And what THEY say is that "links determine popularity".
GG: I went and checked on one of my main competitors to see just where they happened to rank on the link test. Turns out, they have about 90ish "inbound" links. Ok, so I think I'm going to just backtrack their links and try and get as many of those other folks to link to my site. Right? So far so good, wouldn't you say?
Well guess what?
100% of those 90-some odd links...every cotton picking one of them...happens to be an INTERNAL link within that competitor's site. Every ONE of them.
Translated: That competitor of mine who ranks WAY ahead of me (6 versus 4) is ranked that far ahead because they have figured out a way to "trick" google into thinking that 90 some odd OTHER sites out there have linked to them, when in fact, they have done nothing but link to themselves. Period.
If we were in elementary school, I'd call that CHEATING. But we're in the google world, and so I opt to call it humbug.
mack: you're entirely correct--this is my next major project--reoptimizing for google based on creating an internal link farm.
(GG--don't take my rantings personally...it's your company's philosophy that drives me nuts...not you personally)
| 2:51 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jbage007, the Google backlink check has been known to be wrong. There was a case mentioned last month where somebody was questioning how a site ranked high on a competive search term with few inbound links. We found quite a few inbound links that should have been shown by link: but weren't. This may be what is happening with this site. Also, have you checked backlinks on all those 90 internal pages? This site may have a link from a PR7 site that links only to one of these internal pages. That PR then gets spread around the whole site because of the internal linking. There's no way a site can get a high PR just from internal links. If this happened, the site wouldn't be cheating. This would mean Google had a bug.
| 2:55 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Follow up for GG (or anyone else who may be able to answer this Q):
Earlier in this thread, GG invited me to have more sites link to mine. Question is this--how do we know which site(s) are GOOD sites to get links from? In other words, how do we know that google will actually COUNT a link we get from another site?
When I do those link popularity tests, I'm amazed at how often a site may have hundreds of links recognized by other "major" search engines, yet google only "recognizes" 8, or maybe 12 of them--a ridiculously low percentage.
I know the answer to this has something to do with all the recent changes we've all read about, but here's what I'm really trying to get to: When Google tells us to "get inbound links" that is a very broad statement--it truly seems as if they are saying get as many sites as possible to link to you--but what they really MEAN is to say this: Get as many links as possible that WE will actually RECOGNIZE. There is a HUGE difference between the two. And just exactly HOW are we...the little guys....supposed to know the difference?
hmmm, hope that makes sense.
| 2:58 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There is no "trick" to getting google to crawl you. It seems like a lot of people are partial to tricks, is it laziness or superstition? I'm not sure.
No offense intended, I'm not calling you lazy or superstitious, but the superstitious attitude is the usual approach many people, at the beginning, take because the information overload can be quite much. Again, I want to stress that I'm not calling you lazy or superstitious.
There is no "trick." Just some common sense steps to take.
Are you listed in DMOZ? That one is so basic. If you're not in DMOZ then you are crippling your web site.
Are you bothering with Yahoo? I myself don't, I may, but others find it absolutely necessary.
For your industry, there must be a Hub Site, perhaps one that reviews your industry, or perhaps a related industry that can link to you.
These are just a couple ideas. You will find much more ideas if you linger around here long enough and learn to study SE results on your own.
You can adapt and ween yourself off ppc or keep on paying.
[edited by: martinibuster at 3:01 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2002]
| 3:01 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
rfg: yes, I did check a few links and they all linked back to internal pages...didn't have the fortitude to check ALL links of course
I dunno...I see this a lot...where internal links DEFINITELY count for something with google
I mean, when you think about it, it is really preposterous that you should be able to get "popularity" credit for essentially voting for yourself.
Kinda like the homecoming queen whose only votes were from herself--stuffing the ballot box, ya know? That is precisely what this practice is all about.
I don't think it's a bug. I think it's a really bad practice on part of google to allow ANY internal links to count for ANY "popularity" credits, period.
That being said, I've got to quit responding to this thread and get back to being busy...building even more internal links!
Say, is there a "primer" out there anywhere for the best way to build an internal link farm? Sure would appreciate the help!
| 3:02 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think what GG meant was for you to seek links with sites that have similar content. Not just links for the sake of links. If you focus your links around what the user (or searcher) is looking for, in the end you will not go wrong.
| 3:04 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I get crawled. I think GG's comments have led some to believe we aren't crawled.
We ARE crawled.
But...what this thread was all about really is that I have already begun to build the internal link farm and am waiting ever so patiently for google to magically "discover" all those other pages within our site--not necessarily for link credit--but for page building credit.
right now, we're getting neither. Hopefully one day, we'll get both.
Just kinda wonderin' how long it takes for google to rediscover all the cool new page content--which it now CAN find by internal links.
I hope I'm making more sense, and not less, as this thread continues.
| 3:12 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>rfg: yes, I did check a few links and they all linked back to internal pages...didn't have the fortitude to check ALL links of course
You may have missed the page with the inbound link from a high PR page. BTW, you still haven't answered what this sites PR is? Please also note the Google link: command doesn't show links from page with a PR less than 4. Thus, this site could have a lot of inbound links from pages with a PR of 3 or less, yet they don't show.
| 4:46 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|That competitor of mine who ranks WAY ahead of me (6 versus 4) is ranked that far ahead because they have figured out a way to "trick" google into thinking that 90 some odd OTHER sites out there have linked to them, when in fact, they have done nothing but link to themselves. Period. |
they're a 6
we're a puny little 4
(so , yes we DO get crawled--again, I think GG's statement is off point and is leading people to think I was asking how to get crawled in the first place when all I was really asking here is how long does it take--what do you have to do, etc.--to get google to "discover" all those rich new pages in your site that are all linked together now, etc.)
| 4:53 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Heck, I just check the PR of THIS forum.
It's a 7.
Then I did a back links check.
It's ALL backlinks TO THIS SITE. Every forum link is counting toward this forum's OWN reputation.
Somebody tell me I'm nuts.
| 4:58 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jbage007, backlinks from your own site *do* matter as do the keywords within them. this isn't any kind of trick. it's google basically ranking well architected sites better than those that are done poorly.
as for getting all your pages spidered, do you have a site map? if not create one that links using standard text links to all the important pages of your site, and you should be all set.
| 5:01 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Since I wouldn't expect many sites, if any at all to link to just the Google forum here, this forum should be getting all its PR from the internal links within the site. People link to the home page, and this site distributes that around with internal links.
| 5:04 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jbage007, also remember that every page in your site should have a link to elsewhere in your site. Otherwise if someone links to a deeplinked page, you wont be able to spread the PR you get from that other site around your site.
| 5:07 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|all I was really asking here is how long does it take--what do you have to do, etc.--to get google to "discover" all those rich new pages in your site that are all linked together now, etc.) |
Probably a month or two, assuming that you're talking about new pages and those pages are accessible to Googlebot (Google's spider). The exact time is likely to depend on when you published the pages. (If the pages were published right after Googlebot's most recent visit, it may be nearly a month before Googlebot comes back and discovers them...and it will be another month before they're indexed.)
By the way, you complained about Google giving a site credit for internal links when calculating PageRank. To be sure, internal links may not be "votes" in the same way that inbound links (or at least unreciprocated inbound links) are. But they do help to show Google that a site, or perhaps even a section of a site, is large enough to be a "critical mass" in terms of information content. Nobody outside Google knows how much weight is given to a site's size, but size does appear to be a factor. My own site has a PR of 6 (occasionally rising to 7), and I suspect that some of that has to do with the fact that it has more than 2,500 pages of content. And About.com has managed to acquire a PageRank of 8 largely through internal linking (i.e., linking between several hundred subdomains) and, presumably, from the sheer volume of content on a site with a few hundred "sites within a site."
Also, don't focus exclusively on PageRank when comparing your site with your competitor's. Give some thought to the relevance and quality of your content. I have pages with a PR of 4 that rank #1 over competitors' pages with much higher PageRank. Why? Because those pages are more relevant for a given keyphrase according to Google's algorithm. It's been said here (and perhaps by Google) that more than 100 factors go into determining a page's placement in Google search results. PageRank is one of those factors, and it's an important one, butit's still only a tiebreaker. If you have a page that's highly relevant for a keyword or search phrase, it can do very well in Google even if doesn't have a spectacular PageRank.
| 5:09 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Internal link farming is not the right idea....what you basicly need is a good navigational feature ON EACH PAGE to have the internal linking faciltate the ease of use for your visitors...the easier for visitors to get around the site, the easier it is for the 'bot to do it too. :)
| 5:10 pm on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jbage007, take a peek here;
| 5:16 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
thanx for the input, everyone!