Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
joined:Dec 29, 2003
My hypotesy is about overall theme of the content, about 'core bussines'. This is very dificult to verify.
KW2 is region and KW3 is a country where that ragion belongs. So far my business is focused on that region I would be highly listed. Becouse my business/agency doesn't operate on country level I'm not considered to be highly listed for this word. But remains question why it doesn't give me a page that DOES contain KW2?
Perhaps you are forgetting that "miserable failure" is not exactly a competitive term.
It's not like those 30 links got that site to beat Amazon.com for "books" or some commercial phrase.
I could probably make your site #1 for "Purple Mayonnaise" with fewer links than that within 15 days, but that doesn't mean diddly.
joined:Dec 29, 2003
There need to be some on-page factors to moderate these results and make them more relevant. The term 'miserable failure' isn't mentioned once on the George Bush site. And I gather they mostly came from a couple of dozen blogs. This doesn't make any sense at all (unless outbound links to 'authority' sites carry more weight.)
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 3:40 am (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
[edit reason] Removed off topic comments [/edit]
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: key words
That should mean that some page is linking to you with that as an anchor. I don't know how to search for exactly what page that would be.
How could you possibly know? It's quite impossible to get a listing of all backlinks, even with all the Web.com.
> The 'miserable failure' example is a classic case of the failure of Google's algo
It's one factor that made Google's algo superior to others.
a normal search, without 'link:'
I tried that, but I don't think that a normal search will turn up link urls - only link text.
why it doesn't give me a second level page
I don't know why the second page isn't coming up, but it's in the index.
to give me 4/10 PR
Google says you have links from 30 different pages of a PR5 site. That would easily give you a PR4.
In what way does this make Google's algo superior?
It makes Google look far from superior to me.
If the search phrase or keyword is not on the page that rates top in the SERPS, then it's crazy for that page to be anywhere in the results.
But lots of other pages must have "voted" that page to be relevant for the search term.
Of course, you can game any algo. But some algos just make it a little bit harder.
Seriously though there seems to be a link between Google bombing commercial terms and what has happened post Florida. Before Google closed the allinanchor: "bug" searching for allinanchor:widget financial put me back to #1. This is only slightly interesting on its own.
Someone stickied me with a search term and URL for a search which was badly hit by Florida and the really interesting thing with the site at #1 in the standard search was that it did not contain the term on the page but it did contain words which described the word better than the word itself.
I guess that this could have been an anomoly. Before I saw it I thought that the whole Florida effect might just be that Google had grabbed a whole list of commercial search terms and switched of anchor text in the algo just for those terms. After seeing it and checking that the term had been affected by Florida I decided that the semantics theories might have a part to play as in this category anchor text was still very important.
Does anyone else have examples where the term is not on the page but where that page held its position while others around it fell. I would very much like to look at examples.