| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 49 ( 1  ) || |
|Lots of trusted sites ranking on Internals alone|
| 11:42 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I do not post here much these days but just to let those with ranking woes know I have seen a change recently since all the trustrank come into the ranking sphere. I now see mega sites or trusted sites ranking on internals alone, which is a real first where we play. Going through the backlinks of some of the mega travel sites I see not one external link and them ranking for some money keywords. So IMO I definately see internals as a BIG factor if you have a big site with a load of trust. Go and experiment and I reckon if you have a good enough site you will see changes in 2 to 3 weeks.
| 1:19 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"but for now volume of external crap links rules"
Seems to be the case in a lot of instances. I'm amazed that MC talks about how good google is at discerning natural links from paid links considering how well paid external links seem to work for some sites.
What do you think about the contextual blog links that are now being sold?
| 2:39 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
*Lots of trusted sites..*
Is there any consensus on what constitutes a "trusted site"?
| 3:26 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
| 3:56 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Could you clarify?
| 6:27 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I added a new page to my site recently and it was cached by Google on the same day. Would I be correct to call that trust?
Two internal pages rank top100 on my main search term (trust!), yet my homepage is nowhere to be seen. On Yahoo this is common.
I think we're dealing with something that is very different to traditional SEO. That's why I have reacted a bit prickly (sorry Ted :-), because we're just not going to crack this by looking at links and on-page factors.
My search category is a mess. It can't last, but it does!
| 6:28 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In the financial area I look at we are seing a lot of sites rankings from out of nowhere. Serious monetized ranking results are being populated with sites which although they are likley to have a high trust rank they do have lots of internal links but offer very little in terms of content compared to other sites.
These are not irrelevant, just not as relevant - and how did they get to rank so high so quickly? Do a search for incoming links using Yahoo! Site Explorer and almost all have very little and with only a few using anchor text - apart from the internal links.
It frustrating when it seems all you need is a big site with a ton of internals and you can get ranked almost anywhere. And 'niche' sites, and by niche I mean not that niche, just regualr sites you would expect to rank, are being demoted.
I am sure Google is iaware of this, witness Florida and 'removing' Amazon a couple of years ago so all of this may change. But in teh meantime it's kind of hard to accept.
| 6:42 pm on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Trusted site" is like "Authority site" and "Sandbox". It possibly meant something at one time.
| 10:30 am on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Easy to do a test. WebmasterWorld just needs to add a sitewide internal link on the whole site as a test to either prove or disprove it.
| 12:29 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|mega sites or trusted sites ranking on internals alone |
How do you propose to remove all the EXTERNAL links?
No-one has said that internal links have no uses (though sitemaps rule, if done right); but your claim was internals alone
| 2:03 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
A colleague of mine, for whom I set up the website, writes on serious topics like business strategy. Over a period of about 6-9 months with no proactive program at our end, she got some good links from other serious websites. The PR is 5 and the traffic is just about 500 visitors a day - not much but the goal was not to make money with this one but to create a brand for her. Almost anything she writes is on page one as soon as the article is indexed within a day or two
Later on she started another "personal" blog talking about recipes or movies or vacations. To our surprise, even for these highly competitive terms, we are seeing the same, with not a single external link for those terms.
In other words, if you build trust with Google or any other search engine through a few good links and then do nothing black-hat, you are all set for life.
| 2:16 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Tripad,,,, has enough link power coming in to justify a google TBPR 8
Everything else is consequential
| 3:20 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|In other words, if you build trust with Google or any other search engine through a few good links and then do nothing black-hat, you are all set for life. |
That's what I thought, but I'm in the doldrums anyway. And with me the other high-content sites in my search cat. The former number one has only one linkpage with 10 links or so. Nevertheless it has PR5, because it has hundreds of natural links. This site has been number one for years, but now, for the first time, such sites are becoming vulnarable to "updates".
Link buying sites are doing great, Adsense using sites are doing poorly.
| 5:00 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"you are all set for life"
Forget about that. Been there, thought that. Experienced the opposite...
| 5:39 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As I've said, this is relatively new, and I have very little data to prove it even for myself, but it's working, and since it's quite close to common sense, I believe it is to stay this way:
With the phrase-based reranking, if you can get inbounds that are the possible broadest ( highest level ) match for a given phrase-set, you basically have the licence to create trust with internals alone.
For example your site has 10 inbounds from trusted sources, all with an anchor text that's the top level, or includes the top level word/phrase ( i.e. most searches, shortest possible variant, broadest meaning... etc ), and you add different categories to your site that match the generic set, you've created your own trust for those terms.
If your homepage is linked to from trsuted domains with the term "USA" in the anchor, you can add subpages with link texts such as "United States Map", "50 States" and "North America" ( see how the word USA is not within the anchors ), and still pass on the trust from the homepage.
10 well targeted inbounds with a broad anchor text, and good internal linking is more valuable than 10,000 off-topic inbounds with a lot of variants, but the internal linking not passing the relevancy based trust. ( Your homepage linked to with "USA" links to subpages with the words "Click Here" and "See More" will get those pages nowhere fast. At least not even near to the desired position. )
- If tripadvisor was linked to from the NYT and the Harvard with "sponge cake" and "strawberry shortcake" it could not rank its own pages for travel related phrases with internal links only, even if it was THE most trusted site for cakes.
- But it could become a good source for recipies, if only it was to realize it now has the potential, all that's left to do is add a new menu item titled "recipies".
- If their internal links were not using semantic hierarchy, they wouldn't be able to rank subpages even if their homepage was relevant to travel.
And before everyone sets their link building campaigns to the broadest possible phrase, it's a good time to reconsider to do the exact opposite. If your site is a niche site, you will be better off having the exact topic as your inbounds, rather than trying to grab it all. For major players will outrank the site when it comes to generic terms, while a niche site NEEDS the highest possible trust for its trophy phrases to be able to outrank the subpages these big sites put up. In short, you'll need to target what you're offering, and this is what Google is trying to achieve.
Niche sites will need to let go of many things they weren't relevant for in the first place, and start concentrating their efforts to be able to come close to the top, or even outrank sites like Wikipedia... which in return will NOT have an inbound with every term to their homepage. But even if they do, the page does not pass relevancy-trust to its on-topic subpages as well as a well planned niche site.
It's just that sending relevancy signals and trust is now tied together, and it became even more complex to understand the way Google is trying to categorize websites.
Unless you stop looking at it from an old SEO perspective, and look at it in the way I've outlined above, which may sound pre-trustrank but in fact it is even more advanced. Google tries to inch closer to simulating user experience, with which effort we can either play along by fixing the inbounds' anchor and the internal navigation...
... or open a new thread on "Google is irrelevant", "Google is broken", "Google is blech".
ps.: I don't like it either, but until online search reaches some spam-free clear waters - if ever - If I don't play along, someone else will.
| 6:28 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I know for a fact that you mean well, but I fail to see what
|if you can get inbounds that are the possible broadest ( highest level ) match for a given phrase-set, you basically have the licence to create trust with internals alone. |
...has to do with homepages disappearing. Crush's original post was about ranking woes, I think.
|- If tripadvisor was linked to from the NYT and the Harvard with "sponge cake" and "strawberry shortcake" it could not rank its own pages for travel related phrases with internal links only, even if it was THE most trusted site for cakes. |
- But it could become a good source for recipies, if only it was to realize it now has the potential, all that's left to do is add a new menu item titled "recipies".
That sounds like your IBLs dictating the theme of your site, or do I get you wrong? If the NYT start linking to me spongecake related, do I have to change my theme from art to spongecakes? Knowing the media, they'd LOVE such control :-))))))))))))))
[edited by: Martin40 at 6:48 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2007]
| 6:55 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Relevance and trust travels both ways as does pagerank. If your subpages don't get any from your homepage, you can't make your homepage relevant for anything in this new system because the internal pages' votes will dillute the votes. With words like HOME. And click here. And "cars" on the "cakes" website.
Also, the phrase-based reranking works both ways, resulting in pages that are linked with off-topic words, or from off-topic pages now being not only devalued more intensly, but in much more cases penalized for alleged spamming.
Also, I'm very well aware of that thread, I was trying to be sarcastic, pointing out how pointless it is in my opinion. Uless it is a bug that is being discussed, I'm not sure if Google values a thread on WW - that is being populated by many, but not all webmasters - as a reliable source of public opinion.
Blech was meant to be a sound I sometimes make when a sigh is not enough anymore.
And yes, if tomorrow the NYT would relate to your site as the spongecake heaven you'd have a pretty good kickstart for a page about spongecakes, if you were into such things. It won't cause you problems though if you don't.
[edited by: Miamacs at 6:58 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2007]
| 10:27 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|because the internal pages' votes will dillute the votes. With words like HOME. And click here. |
Very good point. That's something to watch, although from what I've seen I think it applies to MSN rather than Google.
But actually, the SEO-gurus have been emphasizing the importance of link text for years. I don't see the novelty of phrase-based indexing.
|Also, I'm very well aware of that thread, I was trying to be sarcastic, pointing out how pointless it is in my opinion. Uless it is a bug that is being discussed, I'm not sure if Google values a thread on WW - that is being populated by many, but not all webmasters - as a reliable source of public opinion. |
You're right, WebmasterWorld has little to do with public opinion. I started to get interested in SEO mid 2004, so it all happened before my time, but many webmasters say Google got big through webmaster support. Honestly, I have no way of knowing if that is true, I wasn't there.
Having said that, Google does seem to be interested in WebmasterWorld. They read it, as they have repeatedly stated and sometimes participate, either using their real name or an alias. As their SEO related groups demonstrate it's extremely difficult to get a quality forum going.
I used to study economics and they made a really big point about "opinion leaders", 2% of the public that gets the masses moving. Here on WebmasterWorld there's just "guys posting in their underware" (Webwork's famous quote). It's up to Google to determine were the opinion leaders are and how to adequately manipulate them.
|Blech was meant to be a sound I sometimes make when a sigh is not enough anymore. |
That's cool. I thought you were referring to John Hartfield's poster "Adolf, der ‹bermensch: Schluckt Gold und redet Blech" ...Adolf the Superman swallows gold and spouts junk. Think of that the next time you have to blech :-)).
Cheers - thanks for the conversation.
| 11:46 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't commenting parts of sentences in my post make this thread a bit more off-topic than it should be?
*I* think it is interesing to know how the system works.
At least more interesting than whining, ( not you, but the threads I mentioned, which btw. hold zero interest to Google in my opinion as opposed to me saying trustrank one more time ).
I know that this may sound old news to some people.
Because it is similar to the link-text based voting system.
You know the one that you needed an INBOUND link for every phrase you wanted to rank for?
Or collect trustrank that offset the SERPs and made your entire domain pass the threshold to even appear in the primary index?
Yes, well THIS system is not it.
THIS is something new.
Now, if you're interested in how THIS system works, read my earlier posts and we may learn more from each other about relevancy-based trustrank, internal pages voting each other trust, phrases passing ( or NOT passing ) votes for an entire theme instead of just the words the anchors use, and so on.
I posted to tell everyone what I've been seeing.
It's only slightly different from two old time factors, which now however seem to be combined at the level of computing relevancy, and not just offsetting each other before they're displayed.
Those who know what I was talking about might find some value to this information. The rest of the dear webmasters might just ignore me, and all of my posts as well. Perhaps they're not sophisticated enough, but recently I've been trying to spark some discussion in a topic I believe to be the trend in how Google not only adds, but also combines layers in its ranking system, making small but important changes to it.
I'm well aware of the importance in communicating with Google through the posts of Webmaster World. They constantly monitor this place, not to mention PubCon and all the big names associated with this board. I am honored to be here, and feel respect for the ones who KNOW what they're talking about.
I've seen enough instances of Google watching/commenting/actually changing anything based on the information here, to know, that it quite rarely originated from a thread titled "Google is no longer relevant", which contains nothing but bashing and conspiration theories.
And Martin, I can see you point, I didn't mean disrespect.
Bashing and conspiration theories are also a necessity in webmaster life, the first to let out the steam and frustration trying to understand something through thick smoke, and the second to let Google know that there are at least a hundred times more people playing chess with their figures, and that these people KNOW what they COULD do, and warn them of things they should NOT do.
But there's a thread ( make that a thread each week ) for this, let's keep it there. I might post something within minutes there.
But this thread is about
Lots of trusted sites ranking on Internals alone
or more precisely... what I'm saying is:
Lots of sites trsuted for a given theme are ranking for keywords within that theme on Internals alone, but will gradually lose the ability to rank for things outside their theme.
Let's rename the phrase-based reranking "detecting the overall theme of a site and what that site is trusted for", which is not even site, but page based now. Which is a good trend at Google, for they're likely as tired as we are seeing sites that are "trusted" being able to produce a page for anything, and rank it at will. And will now be discounting such placeholder pages because trust will be theme based.
It's important to watch out for this, to keep your sites relevant, and to escape being labeled as spam / sent to 950+ / not being able to rank.
[edited by: Miamacs at 12:06 am (utc) on Feb. 19, 2007]
| 3:22 pm on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ok, what you're saying is that a high ranking digital camera site that links to you with "digital cameras" can make you rank on a digital camera brand name, because Google knows the brand is a digital camera?
By the way, I didn't think you were disrespectful - whether or not Google reads WebmasterWorld is an interesting question, for the way such a company works and thinks.
I've gone through you previous posts and you said some interesting things.
|it's not trust but the sheer amount and relevancy of inbound and navigation links to and within Wikipedia |
That suggests you have a clear picture of what trust is and how it's not related to links. How does Google define and determine trust?
[edited by: Martin40 at 3:54 pm (utc) on Feb. 19, 2007]
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 49 ( 1  ) |