Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
For example, on one of my favorite keywords, the #1 ranking site only shows nine backlinks on Google (they are all internal links). The site has only 79 pages (according to archive.org they had over 140 pages this time last year). The PageRank on their pages are all PR4 and PR5 for the most part, with about a dozen PR0 pages. The prefered keyword shows up 384 times in their entire website.
In contrast, my website - which has gradually lost Google ranking over the last year (it used to be at #1 on this keyword) - shows 118 inbound links (a mix of internal and external). My website has 213 pages. Most of my pages are PR5, with a few of them at PR4 and about 15 PR0 pages. The prefered keyword shows up 294 times in my website.
I used to be able to look at a website, view its source, and run a few search engine scripts to determine why it was ranking high or low on Google - but not anymore. Can any of you explain what kind of logic Google is currently using to determine a site's ranking, or is it just a roll of the dice nowadays? Here are a few questions that I would love to have answers for:
1. Does fresh content on a regular basis increase your chances for a higher ranking?
2. Do incoming links even factor into the SERPS anymore?
3. Does Google penalize for having a few 302 and 404 pages?
4. Do you score points with Google by using one- and two-tier subdirectories with keywords in the folder titles?
5. Does Gogle penalize for having too many image ALT tags with the same keywords in them?
6. Has Google tossed out all of the above factors and gone to a random pick to determine the top-ranking sites?
These are just a few of the questions off the top of my head. If you have answers to these or information on other factors that Google is currently using to determine a website's ranking, I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks!
See: [webmasterworld.com...]
Prior to December, two older domains were ranking 4 and 13 on the average. Content hasn't changed in years. Neither site has more than 10 backlinks. The three sites ahead of the site ranking number 4 are heavily optimized, white hat/grey hat, but the domains are 2-4 years old.
After December, the number 4 site took the number 1 position. The number 13 domain moved to number 6. The heavily optimized sites moved down 1 position each with the former 1 site, actually having number 1 and 2 positions in the SERPS, had its 2nd page move down to the number 11 position.
My conclusions:
1. Older domains got a significant boost in rankings for no other reason than age.
2. Heavily optimized sites took a hit most likely due to over-optimization including reciprocal links being devalued and high keyword density, to name just a few possibilities.
It kills me that this one-page site with crappy information ranks above mine, which has hundreds of pages and hundreds of times as many backlinks (naturally developed).
I keep wondering if I'm doing something wrong, but I can't think what it could be.
[Added later] While my site was set up in 2000 the other has been in existence since 1997, although it only started ranking for the key term in question a few months ago. I can only think that Google now thinks that the age of a site is of paramount importance -- more important than quality.
[edited by: Haecceity at 1:49 am (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]
Yes, absolutely.
2. Do incoming links even factor into the SERPS anymore?
Only little. Links have been abused way too much with all the spammers and text links purchased for $30.
3. Does Google penalize for having a few 302 and 404 pages?
No.
4. Do you score points with Google by using one- and two-tier subdirectories with keywords in the folder titles?
No, but it helps Google and searchers in interpreting what to find.
5. Does Gogle penalize for having too many image ALT tags with the same keywords in them?
Excess of anything is bad. The ALT tag is not for displaying what should be in the text. All you need is a few word explanation of what the image is about.
6. Has Google tossed out all of the above factors and gone to a random pick to determine the top-ranking sites?
No.
1. Does fresh content on a regular basis increase your chances for a higher ranking?Yes, absolutely.
I have to say I haven't seen much evidence of that in my field. With the exception of a Wikipedia article, which is in a constant state of flux, the highest ranking sites mostly haven't changed in years. I add new material pretty regularly but I'm at the bottom of the first page. If I was to generalize from that experience the lesson would be to set up a site and then don't touch it.
The days of links are long gone!
I am sure if you run Yahoo "linkdomain:" on that same website it will come with about 40K-50K backlinks.
Do it - and let us know :)
2. Do incoming links even factor into the SERPS anymore?Only little. Links have been abused way too much with all the spammers and text links purchased for $30.
Unfortunately this is very far from the truth. Links still are the absolute way to achieve high ranks. High quality links on target from great sources are gold.
Unfortunately this is very far from the truth. Links still are the absolute way to achieve high ranks. High quality links on target from great sources are gold.
Exactly, try ranking for any competitive keyword without good incoming links. Google can only rank based on onsite or offsite factors, and offsite's are still a bit harder to manipulate.
This is perplexing.
Trusted links from the right sites can make a big difference with Google rankings.
Bingo! Exactly.
Do some searches in the sesrch engine of your choice and look up the term "Trust Rank", also check up WebmasterWorld for that term and you will find a lot on the subject.
Long story short, If you can pick up an extra few authority links along with the usual then your site will be more trusted and therefore rank better.
Ramblings of an old fool? Probably not.
Absolutely.
2. Do incoming links even factor into the SERPS anymore?
Absolutely. They tell Google all about your site. Trusted links from authority domains are extremely important. With Google, it's all about trust. If all your incoming links are reciprocal, Gooogle knows. A lot of sites that generate their inbound links by reciprocal linking have been feeling the pain. Links from crap sites do very little good for you at all and can even hurt you. If all your incoming links are to your home page with no links pointing to your internal pages, that can hurt. If all your inbound links have the anchor text...again it can hurt you. The bottom line with inbound links is that if your inbound link profile doesn't appear "natural", than Google is going to assume your trying to manipulate the rankings. Smart SEO's know how to make their link profile look natural whilte getting links from trusted authority sites.
3. Does Google penalize for having a few 302 and 404 pages?
No.
4. Do you score points with Google by using one- and two-tier subdirectories with keywords in the folder titles?
A little.
5. Does Gogle penalize for having too many image ALT tags with the same keywords in them?
They can. I've seen many overoptimized sites be penalized. At the same time, I've seen people get away with it as well. Not worth the risk really.
6. Has Google tossed out all of the above factors and gone to a random pick to determine the top-ranking sites?
Yes. They are now going for random results. Matt Cutts spoke about it at a recent convention. He said Google is tired of SEO's trying to manipulate the search engines so they are now pretty much relying on random results. He compared it to a lottery system. Every site now gets a chance to rank well. He also said they are working on a time machine and they are close to completion. If I were you I'd buy as much GOOG stock as possible. Can you imagine how many people are going to want to buy Google time machines? Man, those guys are brilliant.
In your post, you said that inbound links from bad places can really harm you, or inbound links with similar text can as well.
I've never been able to get over one little issue: does Google really penalize you much, if at all, for things that a site cannot control?
Case in point: Let's say I finally made it to top 3 in SERPS, and my competitors are foaming furious...and decide to take action. Maybe they decide to go and hire one of a million cheap link farm building sites out there, and get your site posted on about 1 zillion link farms, porn sites, warez sites, useless directories, and so on.
What happens when something like this occurs? Do you contact Google and say you didn't do it, that you're innocent?
If Google does punish a site for this (it would have to be very mild) then wouldn't this just be the greatest tool in the world to off your competitors?
Help me to understand what it is I"m missing in this picture.
Definitely, inbound links can harm you.
I don't think this is true. Regardless of what people say but then again we are all allowed to have an opinion.
I will say that the websites that you link to from your website can affect your ranking, maybe not harm your ranking as such however Google IMO looks at who your linking to and thinks, if this website is linking to "blah" then it must have some relation to "blah" so lets rank it slightly better for the term "blah" and also if "blah" is not mentioned on your website then it could be used against you Google might say well it has nothing to do with "blah" and its pointing to that website so lets no rank this website for this term because it has nothing to do with it and lets look at the other website, "blah".
Anyone agree?
Definitely, inbound links can harm you. Yes, your competitors could potentially do that (buy tons of cheap links and point them at your site with all the same anchor text). It's been done before. Do a search for "google bowling" or "googlebowling". It sucks, but it's true. Certain powerful sites are immune (Disney, Adobe, etc) but most sites are not.
I wonder how many "holes" like this that Google has in their algorithms. You would think that continuing to pile issues like this on top of one another will only lead to one thing - poorer search results in the end.
I would think that G would be smarter than to let something like that happen.
[edited by: tedster at 7:06 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]
[edit reason] add quote box [/edit]
Yes. They are now going for random results.
Dont see it in many of the sectors I watch.
It might be offtopic, but can anyone decipher matt cutts comment on his blog post: Infrastructure status, January 2007 [mattcutts.com]
Kirby Said,January 10, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
To follow up on SEW’s post, I heard your interview with Mike Grehan. You mentioned you understand more about what its like to be a webmaster now that you are a blogger. You also mentioned how many SEOs are getting creative in obtaining links. However, they represent a small segment of the web.
Try being just mom and pop who dont know how to play the Digg game, dont blog endlessly and dont go to SES or PubCon. They wont attract many editorially given links without a little help.
Matt Cutts Said,
January 10, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
<snip>
Kirby, there are steps that we take to try to help those Mom/Pop sites as well.
[edited by: m1t0s1s at 7:50 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]
I have limited time to spend on this site and find link building boring and excessively time consuming so, apart form submitting it to DMOZ where it is listed, never sought a single link for it. But I enjoy researching/writing and so the site now has over 600 pages of original and well researched/well written content.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that this site has bypassed many much older sites (including the official tourism body site) for many key words/phrases.
What strikes me is that:
1. Except for about 3 or 4 links from vaguely relevant sites which I created at the begining to let Google find the site, ALL of the incoming links are naturally acquired.
2. Most of them are deep links, very few to the home page
3. Most of them are from the body of an article or listed at the end of a relevant article, very few are on links pages
4. The majority are one-way links.
5. A lot of them are on personal rather than commercial websites - blogs posts, groups planning trips to this destination, personal sections of .edu sites etc
6. I link out a LOT.
I seek no direct advertising for this site (again, too time consuming), just use Adsense, a hotel affiliate and links to relevant books at Amazon with articles. I just spend all the time I have to spend on it writing articles, and that, for this site at least, seems to be what Google wants. The site is a very good earner.
[edited by: abbeyvet at 7:46 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]
Definitely, inbound links can harm you. Yes, your competitors could potentially do that (buy tons of cheap links and point them at your site with all the same anchor text). It's been done before.
I don't believe this is true at all. Google has more intelligence than that. They would not setup a policy that would allow a website's competitors or enemies to be able to destroy the site's Google ranking.
On the other hand, it's a proven fact that exchanging reciprocal links with sites that have been banned or penalized by Google can harm your Google rankings. This policy is supported by the Google Webmaster Guidelines.
We run a free hosting business, very basic one page sites similar to Geocities. Lately spammers have had a high rate of success ranking high in Google by:
A. setting up a page on our service
B. link spamming comments and forums with a single keyword and the link pointing to the page on our service.
C. inserting a javascript redirect on the page to dump it into some pharma/porn site.
I am a little surprised to see that such an unsophisticated, brute force approach is working so well, and that their algo does nothing to shoot down something that should be easily detectable.
can anyone decipher matt cutts comment... Kirby, there are steps that we take to try to help those Mom/Pop sites as well.
Just a guess here. I sometimes build brochure sites for friends who have a small one-man business, and I often see what appears to be a PR bonus of some kind. One site, for example, has a PR4 home page and even one
PR4 internal -- with 12 inbound links total across all urls, none from authorities, directories, or high PR pages at all.
For most of my clients, I would expect to need links at least a level of magnitude greater than that to hit PR4.
What is this nonsense about the days of links are gone. bah.
That is either massively underinformed information or an attempt at misinformation.
