Forum Moderators: open
1) Andrew Goodman dissects [traffick.com] a number one ranking on Google.
Search engines like Google don't care a whit whether a web site has hired a specialized consultant to goose pages' rankings. Well actually, as best as they can, search engines like Google try to assign lower scores to sites which have been obviously tweaked to improve rankings. What they do instead is to attempt to measure the types of relevance factors which naturally occur.
2) From News.Com
"Wharton feels the Google love" [news.com.com]
Radio advertisements airing in Los Angeles and San Francisco for the school's executive M.B.A. program are promoting the Google words "Wharton West" on the popular search engine to deliver Web surfers to the site immediately--even though the top-listed links are not paid for and could change at random.
Wow, that must have been tough. (sorry, can't help myself).
I bet the 576 searches that four-word phrase generates each month are critically important to the g...grumblings site
And as far as difficulty goes, it must have been quite a feat, because g...grumblings is number one, and <snip> Goodman is number six for the same term; a link to the article in which he <snip> mentions the term.
Well, on second thought, he was making the point that you don't have to do any actual SEO to get good rankings anymore.
Guess he's right...
[edited by: Marcia at 2:41 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2002]
[edit reason] please always be courteous, per TOS [/edit]
The weakness there is I doubt anyone is actually optimizing on "nfl bye weeks 2002".
I must say that was my first thought "who cares" then I came on this further down the searches on Google
Fantasy Football Draft Tips
... 4. Be careful about bye weeks Never draft a backup QB that has the same bye week as your starter, it defeats the purpose of drafting him. ...
Fantasy Football may well be a big business, so all over the world there are people who need to know the NFL bye weeks ;)
But only 2 pages in google using the actual phrase - "nfl bye weeks 2002"
However there will be a third soon enough! ;)
Would you care to discuss my larger point, or are you going to split hairs?
You're very right fantasy football is business. Check into Yahoo sometime. Browse their pages. See how much money and how much effort they've put into fantasy-football-related information. Then go to NFL.com, ESPN.com, CBS Sportsline, and any of the 1,000 or so niche fantasy sites and do the same.
If you want, plug in some different search phrases and see if my point still makes sense. And sarcasm is uncalled for.
Now, type "NFL bye weeks" without the quotes. Surely you can't tell me that no one searches on that phrase. I really don't care what Wordtracker says. This is a real, granular phrase that actually constitutes someone searching for information. If you put a lot of these kinds of queries together, you build a real, high quality, granular audience. Sure you can fire up Wordtracker and find that 30,000 people searched for "NFL" or some such general phrase, but all that says is that most people aren't very good at formulating search queries, or at bookmarking useful sites.
Again, there are 23,700 pages with the words "nfl bye weeks" on them in the Google index.
The top TEN search results are all small, niche, unheard-of sites, many of whom have not optimized anything, some of which are personal websites (eg. Geocities).
Are we learning anything yet?
[edited by: Marcia at 2:44 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2002]
[edit reason] minor edit [/edit]
The top TEN search results are all small, niche, unheard-of sites, many of whom have not optimized anything, some of which are personal websites (eg. Geocities).Are we learning anything yet?
all that says is that most people aren't very good at formulating search queries
It was very interesting reading about the effort put into optimization and Andrew's response.
I have to agree with Andrew to some extent that it's the quality of the query that makes the search effective. In addition, webmasters need to spend more time promoting their site rather than relying on Google or any search engine to bring it to the top 10.
Just like any business, "he who climbs the tree and hollars is apt to get the dollars." Any retail store would be crazy just to wait for business to walk in through the door, just as any website would suffer if all it relied on was search engine referrals. If it's a business, it needs to be promoted as a business. Search engine referrals are gravy.
If it's a business, it needs to be promoted as a business. Search engine referrals are gravy.
Agreed. Succint and to the point.
Very few businesses (percentage wise - with quite a few exceptions)will survive on SE traffic alone. This does not mean ignore the SE's, but the "eggs and basket" thing applies beyond the SEs. Like a business that ONLY advertises in the yellow pages - it MIGHT work, but I wouldn't bet on it in the long run. One algo shift here, another there, and voila! You're in the tank.
Andrew, I sincerely apologize if my sarcasm hurt your feelings.
I will have to take issue with your point that the fact that there are 22,000 pages resulting in Google for that term means that it's a good term. That is totally backwards. The number of pages is SUPPLY. The number of searches is DEMAND. Making the distinction is one of the most basic tenents of good SEO, and is the raison d' etre for Wordtracker and the OV KW tool - probably the most important and popular tools of the SEO trade. Check demand before you build. Sumatra Roy makes a good case for checking both, and gives the community a handy formula for finding a good middle ground.
Clearly, the example you used in your article was a poor one, which is why that site could rank, and NFL was nowhere to be found.
It was a bad argument, with a bad case example. I made a valid (if impolitic) rebuttle.
I was attempting humor, sorry it was taken personally.
Here's the straight man version:
Ranking for popular (aka useful, meaningful, competitive) terms simply does not happen by accident. If you wish to advance the argument that it does, please post a valid example that holds up to scrutiny.
Marcia, thanks for your judicious editing. Having reflected carefully on the matter, I would hate to be on record having called Andrew a, um, well... um, skilled personage, even in jest.
Andrew, I am serious about the apology, even if I am incorrigible in my feeble attempts at humor.
