Forum Moderators: open
Will Google look at the site any different if it is on a .com or a .net address?
There has been some suggestion that Google gives preference to .org and .edu so is there any preference for .com over .net of vice versa do you think?
Google has no special preference for any TLD.
... because they can't accept that college sophomores produce better webpage than ill-informed morons.
Large part of the reason of popularity of college sophomores' pages seems to be the PR they inherit from the university through link.
Added:
I think it is worth adding that there is a potential risk having serps evaluated by a top 1% IQ group. I hope that Google aren't daft, and use a large and disparate team of people to evaluate serps (WW members? :) But a latent bias towards intellectual sites would be understandable.
What has been notable throughout this entire Florida; Austin; Brandy 64; Brandy?; Brandy 216; where the hell went Brandy?; update, is that hard science sites don't move in the serps.
Hmm. Perhaps hard science sites don't do the sort of aggressive artificial-link-generation and hyper-keyword-stuffing that characterizes viagra sales sites.
Please stickymail me the URL of a .mil site that is heavily SEOed this would likely happen?
Please stickymail me the URL of a .mil site that is heavily SEOed this would likely happen?
Your point being?
Certainly, if RXFDM (dextromethorph*n) is searched for in Google only 772 pages are available.
IMHO, if you maintain a site on such a minority subject, it's hard to see how you are qualified to comment on search relevance in general. Some of us are working with 500,000+ potential competing pages.
p.s. and check out the US Army's new online game - very, very nicely positioned :) O.K. - it's on a .com, but...
But by their nature, and the sheer number of employees providing input, .ac .mil .gov .edu sites are mega-sites. The biggest problem is probably controlling the size of their content - not building it.
In an index with a bias towards semantics (which I think we've got now) these sites cover their bases almost by default. In other words - they don't need 'optimising'
There is a large number of small science / maths sites (not mega sites - 50 or so pages) that didn't budge an inch since November 2003.
But a large number of small commerce sites moved by hundreds of places.
That's the observation.
I suppose it's possible that there's a correlation between garish backgrounds and incestuously-linked doorway pages on the one hand, and small e-promotional-for-e-tailing sites -- while a different set of correlations prevails with .edu sites, and Google is just weighing links, just like their spokespeople and websites say.
The difference between physics professors and e-advertisers is that the former link to each other, and the latter link only to their own mirrors. And the whole point of page rank is not to see who thinks most highly of himself, but who is most highly thought of by others. And thus physics professors have more stature than viagra peddlers: which I have a hard time thinking is a serious fault in the algorithm.
