Why canīt I beat a PR5 with my PR6?

[Seb1492]

Hi,
First thing: I am new here and I love this board. I read the "FAQ" about google but I couldnt fin an answer for this question:
Why can`t I beat a PR5page with a PR6?

Does anybody have an answer? Is it normal, that google doesnt care about PR5 or PR6?

Thanks

Sebastian

[Macguru]

Hi Sebastian,

Welcome to WebmasterWorld.
Did you read paynt's welcome post [webmasterworld.com]? Nice way to get started here.

I will try a shot. There can be 2 main reasons.

1- Your competitior has a better keywords agencement in the following ereas:

Page title, body text, heading, domain name, filename, bold, italics , alt, link text, ect.

2- Your competitor has a better link text from other sites.

Working "on page" criterias would be the priority.

[mortalfrog]

Here is a thread that outlines the importance of inbound link text for relevancy:

[webmasterworld.com...]

[JamesR]

Solid on page optimization can trump higher PR in some situations.

[probe]

a directory listing within dmoz/google dir/yahoo might help too ...
ala regional/cities/mycityname/mycityname.com
would give you a higher rank ...
(dont know if this applies to you ...)
basically you might want to be a part of the corresponding dir as well.

[McMohan]

Dear McGuru,

Perhaps it was easier reasoning Seb1492's doubt. But I have a problem here which one might feel difficult to reason. I can not beat a site of PR4 with my PR5 site, with proper DMOZ listing, 7% Keyword density in visible content, Title, ALT with Keywords. As opposed to this, the PR4 site doesn't even have one keyword in entire content, no ALT, DMOZ listing in a non-related category. In effect this site is entirely an unrelated site vis-a-vis the keyword and ranked at 2! and mine at 11.

Some one out there please...

[mortalfrog]

check the incoming link text on your competitors pages. I have had an extremely similar experience - turns out the competitor had a few highly relevant incoming links from relevant pages with good PR, and this alone was enough to put it ahead of my optimized page on the key-phrase in question.

[Macguru]

>>the PR4 site doesn't even have one keyword in entire content

Dear McMohan,

Does he have a cached page in Google?
What kind of text is linking to him?

[Seb1492]

Thanks for all answers. Now his page is after mine...but my page became PR5(before PR6) now.:)

Google confuses me. There is a page on number one,which is listet iN a non existing dmoz directory.
Number 2 is a page on a university server with the content of 1994!

Maybe google has some problems, but an updated page from 1994 shouldnīt be Number 2 with a general searchword like "medicine".

Thanks for all the help!

Sebastian

[McMohan]

>>Does he have a cached page in Google?
What kind of text is linking to him?

Macguru.. Your questions are absolutely relevant and opens a pandora's box, particularly the 2nd part.

There is a cached page in google and its same as the present one.. without the Phrase. Now coming to the second part, he has one inward link (from DMOZ) as shown by google. But the issue is just how much weightage is given to the text in inward link vis-a-vis the page content and PR. The phrase here is actually a word related to a chemical product. His musical company has this product's name and so you'll find the text as keyword in the inward link, and domain name. But nowhere in content. Ofcourse it is a shortcoming in Google's algorithm(if I may say so), that I couldn't beat this irrelevant site with my higher PR and optimized page. So, the point of concern here is just how should the weightage be given to those aspects vis-a-vis a proper optimized page.

Thanx

[xMadx]

Hello,

I have the same problem a PR4 befroe some PR5.
If some can explain why this site www.keyword1-keyword2-word3.com is before www.word4-word5.net in google with the keywords keyword1 keyword2.
Thanks

[edited by: ciml at 1:12 pm (utc) on July 29, 2002]
[edit reason] Generalised URLs [/edit]

[dazz]

Domain name is a big clue, also its a .com which might also give it a lift.

[xMadx]

Ok but [the second site] has 10 times more backwards links.
I tought that backward link were more important that domain name

[edited by: ciml at 1:13 pm (utc) on July 29, 2002]
[edit reason] URL removed. [/edit]