Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.206.194.83

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Top 5 Criteria for ranking in Google

     
7:37 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 15, 2007
posts:20
votes: 0


What is your top 5 important criteria of the Google algo. Lets say that the age of a domain is one of the criteria's. What are the rest 4?
3:47 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 10, 2004
posts:422
votes: 0


1. IB Links
2. IB Links
3. IB Links
4. IB Links
5. onsite content

I left out age because I have domains that aren't even old enough to show TB PR ranking top ten in Google for moderate to low competitive KW's.

Age may play a factor in the algo for more competitive KW's as I have some older sites ranking 1-5 for more competitive KW's.

my 3 cents

M

4:15 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 19, 2004
posts:13
votes: 0


no suprise that people didnt post here
how about
-keyword on page
-keyword in alt tag of image
-keyword in white text on white page
-keyword in meta keyword area
-keyword repeted hundreds of times in a list on the page
6:40 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 19, 2006
posts:125
votes: 0



-keyword on page
-keyword in alt tag of image
-keyword in white text on white page
-keyword in meta keyword area
-keyword repeted hundreds of times in a list on the page

the OP was referring to Google, not Yahoo! or live.com

9:48 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:6140
votes: 24


Let's not get facetious. This could be a good thread.

1. Inbound links
2. Appropriate Meta Content
3. Appropriate use of KWs on page
4. Appropriate page content
5. Hyperlinking within site.

11:19 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 14, 2003
posts:236
votes: 0


1. onpage content
2. entire website topic
3. ibls
4. file structure & server settings
5. domain name
11:40 am on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 5, 2002
posts:872
votes: 0


five is definitely not enough to even mention the very basic issues.

1. inbound links
2. parseability
3. title tag and description
4. relevant onpage content
5. relevant outbound links

2. + 4. are necessarily fuzzy due to your limitation to five and should be explained in farmore detail, but I'd regard the other three as equally fundamental.

Are you talking about domains or URIs (sites or pages)?

12:11 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 17, 2005
posts:432
votes: 0


Without being more specific about where and what, It's going to be a whole load of good/bad/fuzzy info.

Rank with a single dictionary term.
Rank with a phrase.
Rank on .com .de .uk etc

Do some work.

Get on whatever google search your trying to rank for, enter the keyword you "assume" to be the money maker.

Take every site that ranks in that top 50, 100,? apart see how, what, why. Don't just look for the good look for the bad also. If they have less backlinks or a new domain why do they rank compared to?

Look at the sites past 50, 100,? to give you some indication of what doesn't work that well or what may hinder.

Factors to consider?

Server location.
Domain age.
Domain history.
Domain keywords.
On page keywords.
Number of times keyword is used.
% of keyword to page words.
Backlinks.
Keywords in those backlinks.
Keywords associated with your chosen keyword.
Number of pages.
Plus whatever is said above or below this post.

Helping hands?

Yahoo site explorer.
msn search operators.
A spider.
User agent spoofing. ( a google ip ;)
Disable css js
Text browser
Database of your findings.
TIME.

Or forgo the above and follow the big boys...

Forget ranking, manipulate the press, blogs, users (with shiny objects). BS hype and use your way to the top of the buzz.

or

Date googlers and goverment employees.

or

All of the above and that secret that we are sworn never to tell.

Oh, and welcome to WebmasterWorld ;)
I'd advise you to ignore appi2, can be a silly person.

12:26 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 16, 2002
posts:2744
votes: 0


Keyword in text
keyword in meta tags
keyword in title
keyword in URL
age of site
freshness
inbound one way links
outbound one way links
KISS principle in design
simple site map
1:08 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


for filtered searches (non money terms very different):
network of sites under your control
bought links
age of site
top proven professional seo
reciprocal links
professionally optimised site (does not mean keyword stuffed)
content
2:38 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 9, 2006
posts:800
votes: 0


Date googlers and goverment employees.

the only safe and reliable method. :) Social SEO

3:50 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2001
posts:1357
votes: 0


Hi,

If someoine is prepared to give you information that appears to be valuable in this thread then assume it is worthless.

Except this ;)

Sid

4:47 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 28, 2006
posts:22
votes: 0


Google is moved to lexical analysis, those old stuff with kew word in meta alt title all those matters but if you do it in any unnatural way you will get 950 penalty. In lexical analysis if you are expaining about President of US and if you have not mentioned about white house or past presidents or something like that then your page may be considered as spam, because how can a page on President of US will be completed with white house, because of this lexical analysis or overoptimized page content like meta, title and alt tag people are getting lot of problem. Just see the 950 penalty stuff, people who has well optimized page with unique content and historically high ranking are listed at the bottom of result means on the 100th page. So things are not that simple.

If your content is good and a normal visitor will get benefit from it then I guess you are ok because that is what lexical analysis means. Those old stuff or dumb robot who crawls your page and rank your site because of ALT, META and title and interlinking is history now. Even yahoo is on the same path. Make your site for visitor not for robot that is it.

7:08 pm on Jan 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


are you actually saying you can find top ranking sites in money serps that havent manipulated their inbound links?
9:53 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member quadrille is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 22, 2002
posts:3455
votes: 0


[ Nice Thread! ;) ]

Of course you can; certainly, some niches are entirely overrun by spammers, but I've regularly used Google and found organically optimised, quality sites in the top ten.

Even among travel sites. Granted, I've never tried in real estate, viagra or porn - but Google is actually quite a good Search Engine, if you 'think like a customer'. And I often am a customer, so that's easy ;)

Even where the manipulators abound, 9 out of ten such sites are visibly (and unreadably!) over-optimized, so zooming down to Quality Sites isn't a challenge, is it?

Five out of my Top Six? NOT in order ;)

1. Page Design; get the seo as an integral part of the site, not an afterthought

2. Content is king; unique and interesting - link bait, if you insist. But then, everything on a quality site SHOULD be link bait.

3. A few links from selected, free Quality Directories. Period.

4. Appropriate TITLE and META KW, descr, author and charset tags, following guidelines. Others only if there's a reason to.

5. Perfect internal navigation (xenu is your friend). I said 'perfect'!.

And to make this even more interesting, ONE item that I see as closest to search engine suicide:

1. Anything remotely resembling a link farm, or that could, in Google's most careless of moments, be considered just possibly a link farm.

[edited by: Quadrille at 10:08 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]

10:27 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


organically optimised

is that not an oxymoron?

BTW...link manipulation has nothing to do with the quality of the site. I see quality sites in money terms, but not a single one has not bought, spammed and/or manufactured links. Exceptions being a few social engineering sites.

10:47 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member quadrille is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 22, 2002
posts:3455
votes: 0


Really?

While they are different articles, in my viewing they often go together. Very often.

Those who fiddle in one area, tend to fiddle in others. It's a self-control thing ;)

That's the real difference between the organics and the manipulators; the organics focus on the site, and trust the site; the manipulators focus on Google, and trust neither Google not their own site.

So in one sense, "Organically Optimised" is an oxymoron; because the builders are simply "building a site for purpose"; the SEO is very much a side effect.

The manipulators tend to build a site for Google, optimize like crrrazy, and even when they get the serps, folk either don't follow the overdone link, or don't return once they've looked in vain for quality.

And they won't be told ;)

Of course there are exceptions; I am sure there are fine sites with manipulated incoming links, and all else is just tickety-boo. But they are very much the exceptions in the Google I use.

[edited by: Quadrille at 10:48 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]

11:08 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 7, 2005
posts:98
votes: 0


People think Google checks whether links are reciprocal or one-way. I'm not sure because I know a *lot* of sites that do reciprocal links exchange and rank incredibly high.

My TOP-3 is :

- âge (in my experience, a site which is less than 1 year old won't rank high on competitive termes, no matter how many backlinks it receives)

- backlinks (they should be numerous and high PR if possible)

- keywords in <title>, <meta> description, <body>, <img alt="keywords">, and backlinks anchor text

[edited by: Frederic1 at 11:09 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]

12:06 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:6140
votes: 24


are you actually saying you can find top ranking sites in money serps that havent manipulated their inbound links?

This does happen. Do a search in Google for "computers" (valid money SERP?). You will always find Dell and Apple in the top ten of 640,000,000 results. Actual position will depend on where you are in the World.

Look at their home pages and you will see that they don't even bother to mention the word "computers" on the page or in the Meta content, but I am quite sure that they have not manipulated their inbound links or even actively sought inbound links.

Isn't the reason they rank so high because so many other sites link to them using the word computers in the hyperlink?

In some ways this reflects badly on Google's SERPs. Why should they feature these two sites in the top ten of 640M when they don't even mention the KW that was used in the search? I appreciate that inbounds are important but I would have thought that the KW should also be a primary criterion ...

... but then perhaps that's why I'm not working for Google. ;)

12:30 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 13, 2004
posts:650
votes: 0


Interesting to see different opinions and experiences here.
Here is my list:

    Off page/site factors:

  • Belonging to a club of mutually recognized (interlinked) authority sites

  • Quality links from other trusted sites (Google trusted)

  • Other non-spammy, good PR links

  • Non-spammy anchor texts of the IB links, position of the links (higher - the better) or proximity of (highlighted) keywords

  • Not having more than 5-6 non-related sites (whois info)

  • IP and even nameservers and whois registrant belonging (geo) to the targeted market

  • Trusted owner (not known as a spammer)

    On page/site factors:

  • No spam

  • On topic site

  • Title tag

  • (Re)freshness

  • Meta description

  • Validated good enough for Lynx to read it, relatively high accessability

  • No duplicate pages indexed

  • Good linking design (no more than level-three deep links)

  • No too many OB links

  • No too many ads

[edited by: activeco at 12:38 pm (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]

12:37 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 19, 2006
posts:69
votes: 0


Top 5 criteria for ranking in google.

[1] Your domain must be wikipedia.org
[2] Your domain must be wikipedia.org
[3] Your domain must be wikipedia.org
[4] Your domain must be wikipedia.org
[5] You must know Larry or Sergey personally.

12:46 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 1, 2004
posts:3181
votes: 0


IBL (the higher quality, the higher you go)
Age of page
On-page SEO
1:00 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 1, 2004
posts:1987
votes: 0


On-page SEO (organically optimized :~)
Internal links
url name

Don't worry about IB links

1:12 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


Don't worry about IB links

?...lets keep this thread serious guys!

1:28 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:6140
votes: 24


SailorJWD read my post above regarding the importance of inbound links. I think this proves that IBLs should be the #1 criterion.
1:38 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2006
posts:2095
votes: 2


Unique content
Unique meta tags
Site built W3C standards
Text outweighs HTML
Flash on pages (People love that)

We do not worry about inbound links at all.

1:50 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


Flash on pages (People love that)

yes i agree. If I browse a site and dont see any flash then im outta there. Flash makes a site so much more accessible and the load times are so much quicker.

2:03 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2006
posts:2095
votes: 2


You just have to make sure your text outweighs the html though.
2:08 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 13, 2004
posts:650
votes: 0


You just have to make sure your text outweighs the html though.

I don't agree.

2:15 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2006
posts:2095
votes: 2


Google struggles a bit reading words in flash. Typically if you have a short paragraph of text about the flash movie, then you outweigh the html of the flash.

Additionally, some people can not view flash! Especially the blind and may be the color blind as well depending on the colors! So by having the text, it will help to support the visually impared or color blind people!

This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members