| 10:45 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hi Temi and welcome to WW! :)
2. Type it in to a Google search and start scrolling (my incentive to be in the top 5 is so i dont have to scroll to see what position im on! ;))
3. Not that I know of. You could set up an excel spreadsheet and manually enter phrases and positions over time.
4. Not sure - doubt it though.
5. Where are you hearing all this? :) I would say that a link is a link is a link. Yes, certain links may flag your site, and certain patterns of flags may cause your site to be penalised.
6. PR is inbound links (pretty much 100% AFAIK) - rankings are based on hundreds of factors.
7. No, it's accumulative. You won't get a reduction, you'll just get less of a boost (but a boost nonetheless).
I could be wrong though! ;)
| 10:56 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Some good links to read :)
Welcome to webmasterworld [webmasterworld.com]
WebmasterWorld Google Knowledgebase [webmasterworld.com]
Google webmaster FAQ [google.com]
| 6:25 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your response. Regarding Dave have a look discussion: [webmasterworld.com...] and response by a user called fathom towards the bottom of the article. There is a reference to " Even "Dave's Top 10 list" does not cut it.
" and I keep coming across this Dave''s top 10 list in other articles
Thanks for clearing some of the "old wife's SEO tales" I have picked up and the links has been useful. Thanks gentlemen.
| 6:40 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ah Fathom's just a troublemaker! :P
| 7:22 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see, I will put Fathom in my "Avoid at all cost book" :-)
| 11:31 pm on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Marketing Guy: (1) / Fathom (1) (inside joke)
but I at least didn't need to change my handle. :)
TemiTheOne to expand on comments from the previous thread.
Good ranking in Google is a combination of 100 variables that no one really knows for sure what they are.
We observe and analysis, and some even share their findings for open debate.
Dave lists is a short version of this (highly probable findings) however, in the context of "ranking" following the list of 10 verbatim (and only) -- may or may not produce top 10 ranks.
I was not discrediting his list - only suggesting that there are 90 more variables and although possibly weaker in ranking potential "individual", if compiling those 90 versus the "Dave's list" then you may not actually achieve what you hope to.