homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.28.193
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 56 message thread spans 2 pages: 56 ( [1] 2 > >     
Common Google SEO Myths
grant




msg:3501197
 1:07 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'd like to point out what topics I hear all the time that I believe are myths, and explain why.

1. Myth: Time on site matters
Some of the most valuable sites to me are the ones I stay on the LEAST amount of time, because I got my information FAST.

2. Myth: Bounce Rates affect my ranking
When I can get the information I am looking for on the page G finds most relevant, voila! No need to go any further! Awesome!

3. Myth: Natural link text is important
The most natural link is either “click here” (Adobe ranks #1 for Acrobat reader) or the name of the company. “Varied” link text is actually unnatural.

4. Myth: Link acquisition rates shouldn't be too fast
News worthy items generate a ton of links quickly. Example: the host of a future Olympics is announced. A site (Olympic site) that is new, had no links, suddenly has a ton overnight.

But one could argue these are from “authoritative” sites and won't raise a flag. Ok, think of all the esoteric niches that have the equivalent of a major announcement happen.

By ignoring or even penalizing these links, Google does the opposite of serving good results. I think Google LIKES seeing sites that get links fast, it is a clue that something is "hot".

5. Myth: Links from topically relevant sites are critical
Search for “financial services” and Adobe appears #5. Why? Because their homepage (PR 10) links to a page with the words “financial services”. That’s it. And they are beating every single financial services company for that term except Primerica. And don’t you think AMEX, VISA, and all the banks get links from “topically” relevant sites? Face it, Google doesn't know topical relevancy, it is too much of a wishy washy thing to comprehend for a computer. It understands PageRank.

6. Myth: PR doesn’t matter
See #5 above. Adobe is a great case study on how PR works.

 

Quadrille




msg:3501247
 2:52 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow. I never heard of:

1. Myth: Time on site matters
2. Myth: Bounce Rates affect my ranking
5. Myth: Links from topically relevant sites are critical

Mind you, I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'bounce rate'

And I think I prefer the myths to your non-mythological versions!

For example, "Google doesn't know topical relevancy, it is too much of a wishy washy thing to comprehend for a computer." is total tosh :)

Google may or may not 'like' sites that gain multiple links fast; that's hardly the issue. The issue is what credit Google gives to those links.

Links from topically relevant sites are not critical, and no-oe ever said they were. But they are generally better than links from non-topically relevant sites, and less likely to be interpreted as paidlinks.

PR matters little, toolbar PR matters not at all. PR is one among about many factors. By all means obsess about it, if that makes you happy. But don't tell us toolbar pr is 'important' - because it isn't. And you don't know what 'real' pr is, any more than I do.

No one site among a few billion 'proves' anything. There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations why one site may not behave 'as expected' - but that does not change the rules that apply to most sites.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but your rationalizations and theories really need more thought and a little evidence.

[edited by: Quadrille at 2:56 am (utc) on Nov. 10, 2007]

grant




msg:3501255
 3:07 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you've never heard of:

1. Myth: Time on site matters
2. Myth: Bounce Rates affect my ranking
5. Myth: Links from topically relevant sites are critical

then see: [webmasterworld.com...]

Insofar as:
Mind you, I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'bounce rate'

Um, have you ever used Google Analytics? This is also known as "single access reports" in other analytics. If you are not looking at this metric...well, let's say you should be and it's kind of scary you have never heard of it.

For example, "Google doesn't know topical relevancy, it is too much of a wishy washy thing to comprehend for a computer." is total tosh :)

I gave an example. You did not. I showed a very significant example of Adobe KICKING THE ASSES of all the top financial companies. Give me an example. Please.

Google may or may not 'like' sites that gain multiple links fast; that's hardly the issue. The issue is what credit Google gives to those links.

Yes, we are saying the same thing here. Arrived at the same conclusion from different points of view.

Links from topically relevant sites are not critical, and no-oe ever said they were. But they are generally better than links from non-topically relevant sites, and less likely to be interpreted as paidlinks.

Define "topically relevant" and give me the opportunity to respond with a plethora of exceptions which will demonstrate why Adobe ranks so well for "financial services", "government", etc.

PR matters little, toolbar PR matters not at all. PR is one among about many factors. By all means obsess about it, if that makes you happy. But don't tell us toolbar pr is 'important' - because it isn't. And you you don't know 'real' pr, any more than I do.

I just showed you how Adobe ranks for "financial services", "government" and more. From one damn link on their PAGERANK 10 homepage. You think it doesn't matter? Please, for the love of God, give me a better data point to convince me otherwise. Speculation holds no water here.

No one site among a few billion 'proves' anything. There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations why one site may not behave 'as expected' - but that does not change the rules that apply to most sites.

You're right. I come from a science background. You can't prove anything, you can only demonstrate that it is likely to be so. WITH EXAMPLES. Please provide some.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but your rationalizations and theories really need more thought and a little evidence.

It will take a lot more to rain on my parade. Like examples.

jakegotmail




msg:3501257
 3:13 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

wow thanks to the mods for letting the OP use actual REAL terms. makes this a great post :)

grant




msg:3501258
 3:14 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Oh, let me add one more thing for those that believe in topical relevance.

We all know that Wikipedia kicks ass for nearly ever search planet on the term.

Please define their topical relevance. What is their "topic" in the eyes of Google?

tedster




msg:3501265
 4:01 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'd hate to see a stimulating thread be stifled because it gets personally confrontational. There's a good discussion in our Foo forum [webmasterworld.com] right now about this topic. So let's stay away from the "steel cage death match" approach and instead, let's welcome varying points of view. We've had previous myth-buster threads that were quite thought provoking, especially because they did not get into personal back-and-forth exchanges that tend to lock out new participants in a thread.

thanks to the mods for letting the OP use actual REAL terms

Yes, these examples are worth making an isolated policy exception for - they're excellent examples, as a matter of fact. Thanks, grant.

-----

When we ask a question like "myth or truth", it asks for a yes-or-no answer at a time when Google is more and more getting into AI, fuzzy logic and machine learning. My sense of things is that new factors, some of which are mentioned in recent patent applications, get a chance to play in the real results, learn for a bit, then dialed back in their influence. Since there are many factors at play at the same time, apparent one-off examples and counter-examples will not be conclusive, only suggestive.

For example:

Link acquisition rates shouldn't be too fast

Google has a wealth of data on what the norms are for link acquisition, even broken down into various website types. Especially in some website taxonomies, some degree of burstiness would be the norm for link acquisition. The algo can easily be looking for statistically exceptional rate growth - and it also can fold in other modulating factors, such as the type of site where the link burts occur. An unnaturally generated burst would have other attendant signals.

Bounce Rates affect my ranking

Matt Cutts recently talked about this. He said bounce rate is a "noisy signal" - and that tells us right way that Google has measured it, but taken on it's own bounce rate cannot be trusted as a usable sign of quality for a given search result. OK - but since it's only noisy and not irrelevant, how might it be made useful? My bet is that this is exactly what Google is hoping to learn.

"Watch this space" for further ingredients in the witches' brew. Google badly needs to evolve their algo beyond the current dependence on backlinks, and I'm certain they are working on many fronts to do that.

grant




msg:3501269
 4:20 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

You can call me suspicious, but I think Google has a wealth of information they can't act on. Because every situation has too many exceptions.

Google has a wealth of data on what the norms are for link acquisition, even broken down into various website types.

What do norms do? Again, a major announcement is made. Out of the norm. Penalized for being so newsworthy?

And look at how their website typing is serving Universal Search.

If it is newsworthy, they need to publish their results FAST.

Human intervention is not an option.

My POV is that theories on how these filters or penalties (whatever you want to call them) quickly fall apart with real world examples.


tedster




msg:3501303
 6:06 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

For News Search, the human intervention can come before a site is accepted in to Google News.

And when we're talking about many standard deviations from a statistical norm, I think we need look no further than the -950 phenomenon to see what can happen: a re-ranking of the preliminary list of relevant results that can throw top results to the bottom, or even the middle of the list. That's not done by human intervention the way that the -30 penalty seemed to be. It's algorithmic all the way, from what I can see.

In fact, the "end of results" or "-950" is a good example of the complexity that the current algo exhibits. The sandbox pheonmenon is another. It was the final result of a complex tangle of various trust related filters that actually surprised Google engineers at first when webmasters began discussing it.

The challenge of such complexity for webmasters who would like a degree of reverse engineering on the algo is that until a threshold is passed, a certian practice can bring benefits. Other areas of the algortihm may offer a kind of immunity to some domains but not to others, and so on.

mattg3




msg:3501435
 12:23 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

What about the algo

if PR > 7 do
use no filter (You have money, we have money, it's all good)
else
no chance mate

or this variation

weight of penalties = sum of penalties of filters * 1/PR

leadegroot




msg:3501445
 12:47 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

on bounce rate -
I think it is important to distinguish between what Google Analytics labels as 'bounce rate' and what 'google search' probably labels as 'bounce rate'
Analytics is telling you data about your website - bounce rate means those who came, looked at one page and left. It is indeed a noisy signal as it may mean they got exactly what they wanted on that one page.

I think that 'bounce rate' for Google Search is a different critter - it is 'did the searcher return from that page and click on a different result?' That's a bounce for search.

While the analytics bounce rate may be of interest to the algo, it is only an indicator because it is noisy.
The search bounce rate is much less noisy (although not perfect - I don't know about you, but I will open several results in tabs over the space of 2 seconds and then let them all load to look at them) and has a far higher relevance when applied to your SERP placement

Marcia




msg:3501462
 1:56 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

7. Myth: What you eat for breakfast isn't important to Google
I ate wheat bran chex for breakfast instead of shredded wheat and my rankings dropped on two sites.

3. Myth: Natural link text is important
The most natural link is either “click here” (Adobe ranks #1 for Acrobat reader) or the name of the company. “Varied” link text is actually unnatural.

Bad example. Adobe ranks #1 for Acrobat Reader because:
a) They're authoritative for Acrobat Reader
b) There is plenty of IBL anchor text that includes "Acrobat Reader"
c) Co-occurrence, with even "Click here"in close proxity to the phrase.

They also rank #1 & #2 for "Click here."

5. Myth: Links from topically relevant sites are critical
Search for “financial services” and Adobe appears #5. Why? Because their homepage (PR 10) links to a page with the words “financial services”.

Another flimsy example. Look again: that page is optimized for financial services.

Your statement #5 is in complete disregard and contradiction of keyword co-occurrence and computation of related phrases. These myths are just about as logical as Myth #7.

[edited by: Marcia at 2:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 10, 2007]

lorien1973




msg:3501573
 5:03 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)


Please define their topical relevance. What is their "topic" in the eyes of Google?

Well; given that a topical site (say a site about superman) probably would not link to a wikipedia page about the bellagio (in vegas) but would link to a wikipedia superman/comic book/batman page or something. That's your relevance.

I don't think it's "sitewide" relevance. Rather than page-to-page relevance. Why would my page about wishing trolls (for example) link to someone else's "couch" page. I think that's the relevance they usually refer to. If I have a "couch" page it might link to another "couch page" and would be a relevant link.

youfoundjake




msg:3501665
 7:18 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

tedster
Google badly needs to evolve their algo beyond the current dependence on backlinks, and I'm certain they are working on many fronts to do that.

I've been thinking about this for a short time, and am starting to wonder if Google is backing out of "Backrub" bit by bit due to the SEO world manipulating rankings because of linkings. I see this happening through the NOFOLLOW movement on paid advertising, as well as not being able to purchase links, and google frowning on link exchanges.
I do think they are starting to put more weight into relevancy, such as Wikipedia, because it's ALOT of content on one single page per topic. (granted there are the one-offs of incorrect data or vandalism or whatever... just to pacify those that say Wikipedia isn't a resource because of yada yada..) but as a whole, quite a bit of info.
I think also (speculation) that because of the power placed into linking as a result of Backrub, Wikipedia added the NOFOLLOW to prevent spamming.
Eventually, links may very well become an SEO myth, but ehh, what do I know?

Miamacs




msg:3501702
 8:21 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I see more myths created in the OP than busted but that's allright, the less competition the better.

...

As for how deep they are, you only need to pair up bounce rates (ie. 1 p/v, exit ) with time spent on site to get an idea on whether that was a visit or a(n) ________ . ( insert whatever you feel fit )

...

As for themes, topics, PR, I'm comfortable with the top 10 in a month results the way I build links, as for their numbers, they are rarely more than a couple of dozens. Topics and themes are mentioned btw in a categorization page at Google, although not affecting organic search directly, there's a pretty good list for categorizing sites that are currently running AdSense. Mind you it's official.

But again, you may carry on telling all these things, for it's pretty accurate, if only for low-profile, low-competition, unpopular or just way too special searches that the 'dumb computer' has no idea about.

For you see, the dumb computer is actually but people ( linguists among them ) of whom some look for patterns, while others write programs to gather data, then yet other programs look for signals that match the patterns.

Meaning if your area of expertise in Google is still in 2002 mode ( high PR links, fast, nothing else matters, there can be only one etc. ), it's probably because there isn't enough data on it. No trust is calculated. No relevance is known to major or mainstream themes and topics. No phrase sets to check co-occurrance for no stop words, for what it's worth it could be written in martian... basically, it's a free for all sector.

I see this kind of enthusiasm all the time from people marketing unmarketed stuff, or who found a loophole in the phrase sets Google currently ( algorithmically ) monitors, only to see how meaningless this approach is in areas where a single, well defined, ultra competitive keyword can be used to build an entire company around it.

I have websites in areas where, as you mention, it's about PR, there's no link profile check, and no topics set at all. But that doesn't mean this is the norm and I can dismiss the knowledge I gathered throughout the years, rather that - as I've predicted for these sites too - it's in a sector yet to be explored by most of Google's modern age algos and filters. Either because it's not written in a language Google can translate ( hint hint ) or because it's not popular enough. But I have mainstream sites to care for so... let me believe in some of the stuff you dismissed as myths just a little bit, until I can come up with news ones.

...

martinibuster




msg:3501709
 8:29 pm on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Search for “financial services” and Adobe appears #5. Why? Because their homepage (PR 10) links to a page with the words “financial services”... Please, for the love of God, give me a better data point to convince me otherwise.

Putting on my devil horns: Playing the Devil's Advocate :)
The page ranking for that term is not the home page, it's an inner page with the three words, "Adobe - Financial Services" in the title tag. The page itself uses at least a dozen terms associated with Financial Services.

The term itself is somewhat general- it can mean many things, which is probably why a dot gov site is listed there. However with Adobe one can still make a point that topically related links may be helping it rank for that term. For instance, virtually every top financial services company advertising on AdWords for the term "Financial Services" is linking to Adobe. Wachovia alone has over four thousand links. Fidelity has over a thousand links pointing to Adobe, and so on. Those are significant data points that cannot be ignored.

Define "topically relevant"

This is important and where people get hung up. What is topically relevant? Getting links from your competitors? Many people believe so but I think not, and I think that's part of what grant may be getting at. Even if topically relevant links play a role, an important question is, how big a role is it? In my opinion it's one of several data points related to a link and how much PR it's going to pass.

Would it be fair to say that Topical Relevance plays a role in links, but that other data points (like page placement, neighborhood, inlinks to page, quantity of total links) also play a role? Would it be fair to say that it's not a certainty what Topically Relevant even means?

At an SES session about four years ago a Googler introduced for the first time the concept of PR deprecation for links from irrelevant sites. It was an outstanding statement for it's time and people I told about it were incredulous. I asked her specifically if a web design credit link from an EDU page to a web design site would pass deprecated PR and her response was why should it pass PR? How are they related?

Imo the important point is that the PR was deprecated, not eliminated. So even if it's deprecated at one data point, there are other points that can still salvage that link and with the strength of numbers overcome that.

g1smd




msg:3502010
 9:02 am on Nov 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

Don't forget that Google can track users way beyond their click from SERP to site.

If the sites they visit use adsense, they can track every page that they then visit.

nippi




msg:3502080
 12:56 pm on Nov 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

its you've got links, becuase your site is newsworthy, the links will predominantly be one way, and from news sites.

a flood of links, from non news sites, means you've been flagged for an un natural link growth.

Schleppguy




msg:3502506
 4:11 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

My 2 cents:

Marcia-
"Bad example. Adobe ranks #1 for Acrobat Reader because:
a) They're authoritative for Acrobat Reader
b) There is plenty of IBL anchor text that includes "Acrobat Reader"
c) Co-occurrence, with even "Click here"in close proxity to the phrase."

I think you misunderstood grant. What he meant was that Adobe ranks #1 for "click here" and not for "Acrobat Reader". This is a great example of how important link text still is. It is obvious that the millions of pages linking into the Acrobat download page are linking to it with the text "click here".

Also - "Another flimsy example. Look again: that page is optimized for financial services."

Yes, the page has "financial services" in the title tag, H1 and a few times throughout the body copy. I think that the real question is, why would Google rank this page #5 over the 489,000,000 other results for the same term when Adobe is a software company? When someone says "financial services" do you think Adobe?

One item missed by grant is that the "financial services" link on the Adobe homepage is also in the global nav under "solutions". Note - It looks like Adobe is using CSS for the global nav and NOT javascript creating a great internal linking structure to these pages while maintaining usability. A backlink analysis on the page shows pretty much all of the links coming from Adobe.

The URL that the nav points to is not the same URL however that URL 301 redirects to the Adobe financial services page (they must be tracking their user behavior with URLs). This is the case with the entire nav. If you search for all of the terms under Adobe's "solutions" section in the global nav you will see that they are ranking very well for all of these terms. This supports the notion that PR is very important and that link text is important as well.

On PR's importance -
I believe that it is not the PR of the page in the SERPs that is important (search any highly competitive term on Google and you can see a wide variety of PRs) but the PR of the pages linking to the page in the SERPs.

Grant-
I agree with you on myth #5 however; I'm not sure your example really illustrates this based on my comments above. I think this is a great example of how important keyword-rich linking (internal and external) is as well as how important PR is. It does illustrate however that Google still has a long way to go in understanding the "topic" of a site.

I can't give any specific examples here but, I have, in many occasions, acquired keyword-rich links from off topic sites and seen significant improvement in rankings.

martinibuster




msg:3502525
 4:49 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think that the real question is, why would Google rank this page #5 over the 489,000,000 other results for the same term when Adobe is a software company? When someone says "financial services" do you think Adobe?

The answer to the phrase Financial Services seems to be obvious, but there are more meanings than the seemingly obvious one and the SERP reflects that.

Financial Services is a broad term. That's why you see a dot gov in the results. Google's SERPs often reflects multiple user intentions and that's why you'll see news reports and dot gov sites.

Why Adobe? In this case Adobe has thousands of inbounds from financial services companies, has relevant text on the page, and the page is relevant for the phrase, financial services- although not in the way you would anticipate it to be. I'm not saying those are the exact reasons why it's ranking, only showing there are ample reasons for it to be there. So the better question is, Why not Adobe? It's totally relevant for alternative meanings of the phrase Financial Services - which means many different things to different people.

The most important thing to contemplate is that general terms have many meanings and that's when the SERPs tend to reflect the diversity of those meanings, regardless of what the seemingly obvious meaning is.

Marcia




msg:3502533
 5:27 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Adobe has thousands of inbounds from financial services companies

Oh? So then, the relevant keyword phrases do co-occur on the pages with the IBLs, making it links from topically and semantically related pages that they have.

Schleppguy




msg:3502535
 5:36 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm still not sold on the "topical relevance" issue and here's why. Let's look at some other terms that Adobe has on their homepage and global nav and see where they're ranking on Google:

press # 7
showcase #3 and 4
exchange #4
education #13
government #7
manufacturing #8
mobile #9
customer service #11
forums #8
partners #3

hmm.....I guess Adobe must be topically relevant for everything then?

Schleppguy




msg:3502544
 5:52 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here's some more....try doing some searches of terms from Apple's PR 9 site map.

Hot news #1
rss feeds #20
user groups #2
job opportunities #4 (really? they must have a lot of links from job opportunity sites)
environment #27
workshops #2
finger tips/fingertips #13/#11

CainIV




msg:3502546
 5:58 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here's a summary I have learned to live and work by in the last 6 months:

1. Myth: Time on site matters
Impossible at this time to setup a controlled experiment which might conclude for or against this one, but would love to see a WebmasterWorld member setup a controlled experiment for this.

2. See #1

3. 3. Myth: Natural link text is important
The most natural link is either “click here” (Adobe ranks #1 for Acrobat reader) or the name of the company. “Varied” link text is actually unnatural.

If it is the most natural profile, then websites that link extensively using stronger keyword text in the anchor would not rank as well, unless it logically follows that Google likes to reward 'unnatural linking profiles'.

4. Myth: Link acquisition rates shouldn't be too fast
News worthy items generate a ton of links quickly. Example: the host of a future Olympics is announced. A site (Olympic site) that is new, had no links, suddenly has a ton overnight.

Google understands the difference between newsworthy links and 500 links from links pages from competitor websites, just as it is beginning to discern between paid and non paid links to some degree. Try registering a domain for competitive keywords and building 200 links per month to that website and then get back to me on that on :P

As you have aludedto, authority websites with high pagenrank(read: 8+) do not qualify by the same ranking factors as lesser authority websites, it is that simple. Those websites are indeed ranked differently and are a case study on their own. If your website is not an authority in its own field with hundreds of thousands of links then comparing it verbatim to Adobe.com is useless as a case study.

I do however, concur with the statement regarding relevancy as I see a lack of it at work in the current results. However, I believe Google will find a way to work with relevancy soon enough.

Schleppguy




msg:3502550
 6:09 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

CainIV

"Google understands the difference between newsworthy links and 500 links from links pages from competitor websites, just as it is beginning to discern between paid and non paid links to some degree. Try registering a domain for competitive keywords and building 200 links per month to that website and then get back to me on that on :P"

I've done it and it worked. It is still working with the majority of links coming from link purchases. BTW - the majority of the sites that these links were acquired from had nothing to do with the topic of the site I'm optimizing. They just have good PR.

CainIV




msg:3502574
 7:16 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I agree with you in terms of the non relevancy of links working, but not with the rate of links building at the onset of the site being live and a newly registered domain.

My experience is that new domains cannot have a quick build but I am certainly open to examples.

lorien1973




msg:3502882
 5:05 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)


I've done it and it worked. It is still working with the majority of links coming from link purchases. BTW - the majority of the sites that these links were acquired from had nothing to do with the topic of the site I'm optimizing. They just have good PR.

Am I reading this backwards? Are you suggesting that links from -less- relevant sites are better than links from relevant sites?

Pass the Dutchie




msg:3503694
 2:14 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Any idea what <!--googleoff: index--> is referring to in the source?

[edited by: Pass_the_Dutchie at 2:15 pm (utc) on Nov. 13, 2007]

glengara




msg:3503725
 2:47 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

"At an SES session about four years ago a Googler...."

Outstanding statement is right, looking back on it now MB, would you put it down to disinformation or misinformation?

And has the young lady been seen since?

potentialgeek




msg:3503726
 2:48 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

The term [financial services] itself is somewhat general--it can mean many things, which is probably why a dot gov site is listed there. However with Adobe one can still make a point that topically related links may be helping it rank for that term.

PR 10 can't hurt, either!

p/g

P.S. Adobe is missing a nice little golden opportunity by not displaying financial services ads on that page for all the people (and you can imagine thousands) who weren't looking for financial services of the type Adobe offers. Potentially 90% of traffic to that page is from Google, not an internal Adobe link.

Miamacs




msg:3503728
 2:50 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Who ever said that there is traffic to that page?

...

This 56 message thread spans 2 pages: 56 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved