| 9:00 pm on Apr 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
are you getting any traffic from the links? if you are then who cares what google thinks, keep doing it.
links aren't the be-all and end-all anymore anyway. it's starting to become more about what the user actually does while he's on your site.
google measure it through their toolbar, analytics and cookies.
if a site has a billion links - but everyone clicks away from the page after two seconds - then google is still going to know it's rubbish.
| 4:49 am on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It's actually a very high quality site, aesthetically, and content-wise.
We get some traffic through the links, but nothing like what Google sends.
| 5:19 am on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I've definitely seen the results of linking campaigns hit plateaus. The early gains are the easiest. Later on, especially in competitive areas, it takes more to nudge upward. Links also seem to take some time to reach their full power - Google mentioned this possibility in their "Historical and Age Data" patent and I'm pretty sure Isee this in action.
[edited by: tedster at 5:09 pm (utc) on April 3, 2008]
| 6:38 am on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
no one know about google Algorithm.keep doing to collect backlink link.
| 7:09 am on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|We plan on holding steady, and continuing with the link building for this site. It's just been frustrating not to see any changes for so long. |
Is that all one needs to do these days? Just link building? Nah. It can't be that easy. Is it?
| 12:50 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like you have hit the "link wall"
Time to start looking for links with high trust from relevant pages which go to your target pages. These will have an impact, and whilst your waiting for the full force of the link to kick in you should get some traffic from clickers.
| 1:01 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm just hazarding a guess here, but might your links be less than perfect? You can only go so far on easily found links - for real progress you need to start bringing in links from really trusted sites; authorities on their topic which Google is certain would never link to somewhere that wasn't the gold standard.
| 1:27 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, definately seen this.
There's a site - extremely high competition, high ROI - which I was able to get into the top league in about two months... and then couldn't get pass over the leading few for the rest of the year.
If I really wanted a conspiration theory, it'd be related to the fact that we got more links to a 2nd tier page than the homepage, but if I keep sane...
It's just this hard, and that's that.
And an analogy to your story: it was trust ( TrustRank )+ relevance that I went after first and foremost. And the idea worked extremely well, as it lifted the site to the top 10 with one tenth, sometimes 1/20 of the linkage the competition had. The site cleared the trust thresholds for the top bracket and was ready to compete with the big ones.
But from then on it was plain old PageRank and anchor text pounding. The simple answer seems to be: not enough links. Not enough power. Trust is not an issue, the site can rank for anything at will, it's just that...
...the top few has been around for 8/10+ yrs while this site is 1 year old, and simply doesn't have enough of the same.
Not to mention that the old timers were sure not to miss out on mass-link exchanges. Some of them have pretty strong linkage brokered from informative sites as well. One in particluar is one step from the backbone of the Internet. They have great connections.
( and out of the top 10, it seems to me the site in my care is the only one that doesn't have a spending budget )
So, we're up against a wall allright, but this wall is not in front but behind us. The starting line where you're clear to go, all you have to do is mass up more of the same and nothing else matters.
( to the dear reader who doesn't know anything about trust/co occurrence/relevance/authority sites/thresholds/-950 ... don't try this at home )
[edited by: Miamacs at 1:47 pm (utc) on April 3, 2008]
| 2:25 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Pagerank isn't linear... If you gain links at a linear rate (say, 10 per month) then you will see this pattern of initial growth then a plateau. Your efforts are still helping, but it just takes more at each "level" to have an effect.
You really need to look for a link building strategy that can grow exponentially if you want to maintain linear gains in Google. In other words, viral/linkbait type stuff.
| 2:59 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Dunno about viral marketing in the sector I'm talking about though
Perhaps we needed some kinda scandal...
That'd get some news coverage to the site.
yeah. "leveling up" costs more and more.
Most of the sites that are really good can take care of their own campaigns after an initial push but... in some industries it's the USERS who can't take initiatives, don't want you to be creative - just deliver them the service and guarantees. There's nothing about this particular theme that'd get a link, ever.
You can always build a portal around it though.
Events, blogs, pictures, forums, whatever that is even mildly related.
Which is what I've pushed for since day 1.
Explore stuff around the topic, relevant, just in a different sector. Informative, not commercial, etc. Then you'll get some additional links to the domain at least. From then on it's your call.
| 7:05 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Look for ways you can keep or improve on the effect of links already coming in...one ex is to redirect www or non www for your site, there are many more. I'm not sure what pos your in now but it may be your never going to get out of it no matter what you do, as you have the "i sent too many links to my site penalty"
| 7:18 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How come that a site with around 550 strictly old organic inbounds including dmoz, google, yahoo directories goes on 8 whilst 30 meaningless inbounds keep you on the No.1 spot.
30 weak links earn a PR 4, the 550 organic to only PR 3.
I know another page 1 site, which has only 3 inbound links with PR 0. One of them is even sponsored spam.
My feel is, that this inbound link algo is coming to a critical point.
| 7:52 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The quality of the link, i.e., on topic to on topic is more important than the PR, IMHO.
A link from a yellow banana site to your red tomato site will have less value, than say a red tomato link to your red tomato site.
| 9:15 pm on Apr 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
pageoneresults: I know, I know, we're working on content too, don't worry...
Miamacs: Thanks for sharing your experience.
Whoisgregg: I agree totally.
Thanks for all the feedback guys! I hadn't expected my little post to make the front page! :)
| 12:21 am on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Here's a wild concept. How about looking inward instead of outward? Improving/increasing content, making navigation easier.
It seems to me too many people focus on SEO and links and all the things not related to the purpose of a website which is to provide information in an easy to read and navigate manner.
You can drive yourself crazy trying to second guess what the search engines are doing or will do. At the end of the day they are always trying to improve search relevance. If your constantly trying to find shortcuts around that simple fact your probably going to lose in the long run.
My 2 cents.
| 3:16 am on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My 2 cents, your site is ranked right where Google wants it. Those ahead of you are there because of human editor most likely, a glass ceiling of sorts.
Be thankful you're not in the city directory sector, even if you know your city better than Google.
| 3:39 am on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Theoretically, if everybody ahead of you kept getting links similar to the ones you are getting, at a similar pace, you would not move up, right?
I think people usually forget that competitors are also working at improving and maintaining rankings, so, it is not at all surprising that you are stuck where you are.
| 8:05 am on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Although you may not be seeing direct results at the moment in terms of rankings take into account that links from trusted sources may actually be adding value to the website - so look at from that positive effect.
I'm sure loads of people here will have an idea of how long a link takes to reach full value - but if you've only been building them for 6 months I reckon you haven't gained the full benefit of them yet..
Keep going and keep positive - good luck!
| 8:23 am on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
containes some observations about a currently well working black hat recipe that improves PR and Google ranking even if your site is trash or only containing a bunch of youtube videos.
| 12:44 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Have you looked closely at the sites ahead of you? Sometimes I might hit like #12 and stall....then I realize there is not a single non gov/edu/amazon/wiki ahead of me. This is when I have to evaluate whether or not it is worth it to take these chumps on :)
| 4:11 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am in almost exactly the same situation - link campaign started around six months ago, an initial SERPS rise and now - nothing.
It's my belief that Google is just taking longer to give credit to backlinks, so it's more a waiting game than ever. This makes sense for two reasons that I can think of - spam, cause obviously spam links are less permanent than freely given editorial links, and the whole paid links debacle, because it might discourage webmasters who pay for links if they find that their first six months of money just goes into a black hole and brings no results.
| 4:51 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Have you looked at the coding of the sites that are out ranking you?
How do the competitors' coding compare to yours? (i.e. Are the competitors' sites using a tableless design? is your site using a tableless design?)
If you look at the coding for the majority of top ranked sites for a given keyword phrase, you'll see more and more of them are tableless.
So I guess my question is: Is your site tableless?
[edited by: Judah_Ben at 4:51 pm (utc) on April 4, 2008]
| 4:58 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Add content now! That helps the most!
| 5:06 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Yesterday Tedster pointed out, that not even proper meta tags and coding have a meaning for Google. I was looking at the No.1 site for a popular International kw which produces over 800 validation errors.
For what reason should Google bother about tables or no tables ?
| 5:29 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
From what I hear, tableless designs are easier to read for spiders. From what I see, Google likes tableless designs.
Most of the sites I'm reffering to, that contain tableless designs, produce tons of validation errors as well.
You probably already know this, but just to clarify for any newbies reading this post... A tableless design doesn't mean that the site's code validates without errors. It means that it doesn't use tables in the HTML code.
I'm not saying that a tableless design would make or break the site's ranking, I'm just curious if the website in question uses tables or not.
My other question would be "when was the last time content was added?"
| 6:38 pm on Apr 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The whole taleless design is a non-issue in my opinion. I have top ranking sites that still use tables, and some that don't.
The only reason you see more tabeleless designs at the top these days is because that's the way most sites are being designed now.
In response to Judah_Ben:
The website in question doesn't use a tableless design. New content is being added at different rates over the past 6 months.
| 10:50 am on Apr 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Go for long tail. It is amazing what that can send you instead of focusing on a few main words.
| 4:42 pm on Apr 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
the rank scale is likely logarithmic, which requires tons more effort to go from 3 to 4 as from 1 to 2.
| 7:41 am on Apr 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
<tin foil hat>
Question for you seoArt, do your link-builders have the G toolbar installed on the machines they are using? I ask because I get the distinct feeling these days that the 'plex might be compiling lists of IPs/user profiles associated with link building.
</tin foil hat>
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |