SmallTime
msg:220373 | 10:07 am on Aug 12, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Hi and welcome to WebMasterWorld.
You might start with this
[webmasterworld.com...]
Good clean short pages are about all I know.
|
jaski
msg:220374 | 12:19 pm on Aug 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Thanks SmallTime.
I have just read messages in the thread you suggested.
What I have concluded from that is .. "Just optimize for Google and Fast will be taken care of automatically." If any one reading this finds this conclusion faulty please correct. Thanks
Jaski
|
gmoney
msg:220375 | 6:33 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0) |
jaski,
Your conclusion about Google/Fast pretty much sums up my approach as well. Most of my rankings compare quite well between Google and Fast. However, I still find some major differences. As a quick example I ranked 4 for a term in Google and only 208 in Fast. This gives me a bit of incentive to explore the differences between the Fast and Google algorithms.
|
angiolo
msg:220376 | 7:17 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Doing a three-keyword search, alltheweb.com sometimes put two keywords in quote and ranking differs. See on the right side:
Your query was rewritten into:
keywords "keyword2 keyword3"
|
Rumbas
msg:220377 | 7:30 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0) |
>I ranked 4 for a term in Google and only 208 in Fast Well they are different. Fast is not so easy to rank well on with just a few highly themed inbound links with good anchor text. Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff. Angiolo, you're right. Fast have a habbit of rewriting longer queries. This also have an effect on the serps.
|
Tor
msg:220378 | 8:13 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0) |
| Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff. |
|
That is our experience also Rumbas and should explain why gmoney sees theese differencies in his SERP`s.
|
glengara
msg:220379 | 7:54 am on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0) |
*Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff.*
Are we talking content with KWs, metas and Alts, or a combination?
|
|
