The Model of Good Google Linking

Is there one?

[austtr]

After a few days away, I have just caught up with the latest posts about eggs, baskets, risk exposure, slipped rankings, no guarantees etc.

I'm one of those who felt Google's wrath with a slip from top 20 to page 28 on one site. So be it, I'll just have to freshen up the pheremones and get Google to fancy me again. That comes with the territory so don't look at this post as being a grizzle/whinge session.

Now I know that 200 odd sites did not move above me in a fairly small regional topic by all similtaneously improving their Googlism's. A slip from top 10 to top 20.. maybe, but 200 odd places? I don't think so.

Nothing changed on the site, it still has its original PR, it still has good rankings on other se's ... so there has to be another factor.

I've pored over this forum and others and the more I read the more I suspect that some perceived breach of linking is the culprit. Maybe these forums have been saying that all along and I have not understood the messages or could not relate to the examples.

For the benefit of folks like me, does anyone know if there is a "Google links for dummies" type of reference material available?

I think there is a large group within the Webmasterworld family who are genuinely mystified/hurt/angry at why their sites have seemingly been treated harshly. To be able to review their linking arrangements by comparison to known recommended practice would seem to be a sensible start to making repairs.

Does anyone know if there is any reference materials/examples available... or am I asking people to divulge trade secrets?

[john316]

"perceived breach of linking is the culprit"

A rather boneheaded observation is that there is a trend underway with yahoo/google to play "let's hide the directory (yahoo!)".

I've seen the common denominator across hundreds of sites. If your site had its major link coming from a Y! listing you probably took a nice hit.

[annej]

Are you saying we are no longer getting credit for being linked from the Yahoo directory? Sometimes I am a bit dense about all this.

[john316]

It's better to have many links to your site. Some sites (particularly those in "Shopping and Services/....") were overly dependent on the yahoo listing for page rank, and it looks like the value of that rank may have diminished a bit.

The new update, which should be coming soon may shed more light on this.

[edited by: john316 at 4:22 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2002]

[Marcia]

john, it looks like numbers count now, it's not as easy to just depend on only a couple, regardless of PR. Yet I've seen some sites out there with loads of links drop way down - which may have something to do with the on-page criteria.

>a slip from top 20 to page 28 on one site.

austtr, what's the PR of the site, and how competive is the search term? How many inbound links (roughly), and did it drop for all search terms, or just the major one that had the big drop?

[john316]

Well, I did say it was a "boneheaded" observation. It could any one of hundreds of factors, but I do see a blatant commonality.

Unfortunately for google surfers in need of shopping bargains, they will probably have to switch over to MSN or FAST for good deals.

[rfgdxm1]

>Are you saying we are no longer getting credit for being linked from the Yahoo directory? Sometimes I am a bit dense about all this.

I think what he is suggesting is that previously the Yahoo directory link was given more value then it is now. This might make some sense. Commercial Yahoo directory listings do look a lot like buying PageRank.

[austtr]

Marcia.... details you requested sent via sticky mail.