Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
There you go. If you didn't get the gold then create a race that you will get the gold. But the person who wins the gold didn't take it away from someone else.
There you go. Missing the point. Again.
The person who won the gold took it away from those who might have won the gold.
Want more gold (after winning it in your races)?
Enter more races. Win more gold.
Failing to place in one race, and running off to try in another race, is a loser's mentality. Face up, compete, win. Or explain away your losses with intellectual mind games.
Definitely no sign of that in my area. The results are very literally. Seeing sites with low PR, 4 backlinks, but the keyword phrase stuffed into their page fifteen times.
Google is going more literal. What's working well on this update is pages solely focused on one keyword phrase. You don't need many links, but if don't use your thesaurus either. Repetition seems to be the key!
And, that's why good content sites are dropping. Because most wouldn't dream of stuffing a single keyword phrase into even link, heading, and paragraph on the page!
Suggy.
All I can think is that there's a duplicate content problem (I can't see any sign of this) or my link structure is setting off an anti-spam penalty. Either that or I'm being penalised for having too many incoming links. I gave up tracking those long ago because there were simply too many.
My consolation prize is that Google Images really likes my photographs -- I'm now getting 12x as many referrals from images.google.com as from www.google.com! Maybe it's a sign that I should give up writing and take up photography more seriously.
There are two bits of evidence I can bring to support this - one is that many sites are clearly not indexed properly, and I'm talking about small sites with much less that 100 pages which are listed in the ODP, and second the Googlebot is crawling at an incredibly fast rate on many sites, probably trying to fill in the holes in the index.
FACK. This topic is worth a thread of its own .
2)
I also found quite interesting what bobx reported on page 28 on the lenght of url ands folder-levels. Any other supports on that?
3)
Quite recently I followed the sources on LSI given in webmasterworld. Most research papers I found were several years old. What if substantial progress has been made meanwhile by shifting from statistical vector-space-based analysis towards a deeper understanding of webpages, integrating research from linguistics and not only shannon-like information science?
A website on trees, for example, might be an authority for other websites dealing with oaks and the like. The thorrough relationsship between oaks and trees cannot be covered by statistic measurements of word-occurence, but semantic research has done a lot on that and I'm quite sure large databases exist. Has google bounced into this? Has anyone followed their job offers in this respect? Calum? wasn't this your major field of interest?
They have been for years (or rather the outbound anchor text has counted).
> LSI
vitaplease, DigitalGhost and some other folks have followed LSI closer than I have. As normal, I think it'll take a while to formulate firm opinions on the main difference here.
"The person who won the gold took it away from those who might have won the gold."
Explain how this takes away from the other when he never had it in the first place nor gave the necessary value for the exchange. It is a value for value exchange. If the other person didn't create enough value, the exchange for the gold medal isn't made. He gets the silver, bronze, or a nice try. (But due to the subjectivness of humans the guy who just gave it his all, the experience was just as valuable to him as the gold medal.
"Failing to place in one race, and running off to try in another race, is a loser's mentality. Face up, compete, win. Or explain away your losses with intellectual mind games."
If what you are doing isn't working change your approach. You can keep competing all you want if you maintain the same value and that value is below someone elses then you will never win the gold (if that is what you value from the experience). You have to change the circumstances by changing you approach. Try going fishing in the middle of a field with just a rock and no pond. Just keep tossing the rock around all day for the rest of your life. Compete and persevere all you want. Face up to the challenge. Unless you change your approach, which creates different circumstances and value, all you will get is me crossig your path asking you if you had any luck.
Edison kept on going many many times before the lightbulb was invented. He didn't run the same race. If he ran the same race over and over again he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. He learned from the other races he attempted. Each time he took that value of his experiences and created new races with different circumstances. He kept creating more new races, learning from experience, and changing his approach until he finally won the gold.
A looser's mentality isn't walking away from the race. A looser's mentality is one who gives up without deriving something of value from the experience.
Well enough about this stuff. It is way off topic. It is best for another thread or by sticky.
Yes, but some - including me - have the feeling that outbound links in some manner may have a positive impact on the linking site itself. Maybe in such a way that with valuable outbound links a site looks more like an authority on a given topic. I know that this would be very much contradictory to googles initial approach but things have dveloped a lot since then. How could we test/verify this speculation?
Joseph Swan actually invented the light bulb. Edison fell foul of a duplicate content filter and wasn't granted a patent as his invention was too similar to Swans existing invention of a filament in a vacuum tube. It wasn't until Swan and Edision teamed up that the first practical light bulb was perfected (after Swan sued).
