Could one page be highly positioned (11/4730) for non-contained word?

[Natko]

Could anyone tell me if some page be listed and highly positioned an ranked too, for a word that page doesn't contain?
thanks

[mcavic]

where did you find those 30+ URLs

link:www.your-domain.com

It's one factor that made Google's algo superior to others

PR is what makes Google's algo superior. As for anchor text, I agree that the term should need to be on the page itself (or in the url) also. But it's not a complaint of mine.

[dasboot]

If the search phrase or keyword is not on the page that rates top in the SERPS, then it's crazy for that page to be anywhere in the results

Pure and absolute commonsense: logical and irrefutable.

But that is not the nature of Google post-Florida. snipped

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 3:44 am (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
[edit reason] Deleted inapproriate language [/edit]

[PatrickDeese]

But that is not the nature of Google post-Florida. Google is the world's finest f*cked up search engine.

Reading your comments, it seems that you think that pages couldn't rank on anchor text alone pre-florida.

Try Googling for articles on "google bombing", and you will find references back as far as 2001.

This is not a new phenomenon. Sorry "Florida" treated you badly, dasboot, but that doesn't mean Google is messed up, it just means that the promotion techniques you used stopped working.

Learn and adapt.

[Natko]

link:my-domain there is only one site as I mentioned, with alt text only. Anyway I'd like to get more commonsense of opimizing among CONTEINED CONTENT of my body text and backwardlinks.
BTW, it seems we have two parallel discussions here

[mcavic]

All you can do is email the people linking to you, and tell them not to link using those words.

Yes, I see that it's just alt text on your banner. But that's still a link.

[dirkz]

> the really interesting thing with the site at #1 in the standard search was that it did not contain the term on the page but it did contain words which described the word better than the word itself.

> PR is what makes Google's algo superior. As for anchor text, I agree that the term should need to be on the page itself (or in the url) also. But it's not a complaint of mine.

The first quote is a situation where the searcher gets exactly what he wants, though the second point is not in rule.