Forum Moderators: open
To be exact, to whom does google give 1st priority..?
a. Content
b. Links
But, the more competition for your keyword phrase the more the links become important. Very low competitiveness and you can be ranked well with few links and more highly competitive the keyword the more you need to get bumped up with your links.
But if you don't have good content the users will leave the site, and if you don't have good links, you will probably not get as many users.
So it's a mixture.
Brett covers quite many things that google uses to determine a sites ranking Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone [webmasterworld.com]
And remember, that a search engine tries to think as a user, because in that way they will present the best results for the user.
So always optimise for the user, not the seach engine.
Also a good thread for general things search engine uses to rank their results i would suggest:
Brett's quick rank (good) [webmasterworld.com]
Well not content as a whole itself, but snippets from the content, they can't rank the content itself, that's the users part.
But they use the content (text, alt tags etc) to rank a page.
when i viewed googles cache it stated that one of the words appeared in links pointing to that page.
yes, to group the SERPs, but content is not in the ranking-algo :)
Yes, they do. Are you meaning to say that the keywords within the text content, Title tags, Alt tags, etc., is not used within the algo?
>>>>but content is not in the ranking-algo
Yes, they do. Are you meaning to say that the keywords within the text content, Title tags, Alt tags, etc., is not used within the algo?
Yes, they are used, but abstract. Google didn't say with the algo, that is good content and that is bad content, they only say, that is relevant content (but in abstraction from the content).
Yet, content has also been devalued A LITTLE BIT.
What I think is going on is something a bit complex: A bit of theming plus content, the ultimate goal being relevance.
Aw shoot... This is almost silly hypothesizing what Google wants to be fed.
Yes, they are used, but abstract. Google didn't say with the algo, that is good content and that is bad content, they only say, that is relevant content (but in abstraction from the content).
Everyone talks about *the* algo, but we know that pagerank and relevance are two different things, so it's likely that there are two separate algorithms whose results are combined.
The pagerank algorithm uses links to determine how "important" your page is, on the grounds that the more links there are to a given page, the more important that page is (and the more links there are to the linking pages, the more important they are, etc). We all know this.
Then there would be an algorithm for relevance. Let's say you have a PR8 page. Okay, so your page is important, but what's it relevant to? If you have a PR8 page about widgets it's not going to rank at all for a search on doodads. To find out what your page is about, Googlebot has to examine -- on the page -- the H tags, positioning of keywords, the anchor text, alt tags, and (probably very importantly) the anchor text and content in the pages that link to yours (plus other factors).
Your final position for a given search is a combination of the results of the two algos -- how important your page is (as scored by your PR), and how relevant your page is (as determined by the relevance algorithm). Although the results are combined, the algos themselves are probably entirely separate.
The PR algo that Google uses is probably very close to the published version, and probably is rarely changed, and probably has nothing directly to do with the relevance algo, which probably involves some kind of scoring system and probably changes frequently.
"how important your page is (as scored by your PR), and how relevant your page is (as determined by the relevance algorithm"
I see I need to work on two fronts. I've been writing to related directories and sites that have a links page. One concern I have is many have a lower PR than my PR6 but then I'm in a niche topic and pretty much all sites are PR6 or lower. But I'm wondering if those lower than mine will help my PR at all.
On the page relevance I am not so sure how to go at it. Does that fact my internal links also go to pages on the same topic help? I guess what frustrates me is that sites with almost nothing on them are above me on the search page. It's like Google can't tell that I have all this great information on my site. I've got to find a way to show that on my homepage.
Anne
[edited by: heini at 5:34 pm (utc) on Nov. 16, 2002]
[edit reason] sory annej, no sitereviews, no specifics. Thanks! [/edit]
All about styling here [webmasterworld.com].
I think you are right!
On the page relevance I am not so sure how to go at it. Does that fact my internal links also go to pages on the same topic help?
Some people think it does, and it seems to make sense that it would. Brett's Successful site in 12 months with Google alone [webmasterworld.com] suggests doing that very thing (point G).
When I first read that it didn't make any sense to me, since I was blinkered into thinking that pagerank was king, but I think it might be worth trying. But do the sites above me link to other relevant sites? I just did a quick check, and of the 12 sites above mine, four have outgoing links on the home page, including webrings and links to sites giving awards (would links to subdomains count as external links?). Two of those sites are in second and third place, so obviously it's possible to rank highly and link to other sites.
I guess what frustrates me is that sites with almost nothing on them are above me on the search page. It's like Google can't tell that I have all this great information on my site. I've got to find a way to show that on my homepage.
I share your frustration. My site has close to 300 pages of content, all relevant to my key word. None of the sites above me have as much content, and in fact two have a keyword density of zero on their index pages. I expect that those pages were changed after the last update, however, and that they'll drop below me next month.
Google's message of "put up lots of great content and we'll make sure you rank highly" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) just isn't enough. We have to do some legitimate SEO. It looks like outgoing links on the home page might well be a good part of that strategy.
Another aspect that is probably still very important is having your keyterms in anchor text pointing to your site. It's worth finding the sites that link to you and asking them if they'll change their anchor text.
Really, I wish content was as important with Google as they say it is (I hope Googleguy is reading this) I'd much rather devote more time to adding content than trying to get Google to notice my site.
Bodhipaksa
I just did a quick check, and of the 12 sites above mine, four have outgoing links on the home page, including webrings and links to sites giving awards
I took a longer look and found that no fewer that *8* of the 12 sites above mine have outside links on their index pages. That was a surprise to me. All top three sites have links.
If I ignore the two big boys at the top, who have PR7, and concentrate on the rest of the sites, which are all PR6, then it gets more interesting.
There are seven sites above mine that have fewer incoming links than my site does, and five of those seven sites have outgoing links on the index page. That seems significant, so I've added a few outgoing links to my own index page to see what effect that might have next month. It does seem likely that Google has a concept of a "good neighborhood" as well as a "bad neighborhood".
Consider the following vis a vis click thru rates:
(1) A PR6 site that has 1000 unique visits a day where 75% of the visitors click off the moment they enter the site.
(2) Another, a PR2 of the same theme, with 200 uniques and only 10% clicking off.
The PR6 site will get more visits because of the many other sites linking to it but it does not mean people like or find it more useful. In fact, the PR2 site is the one people seem to value the most.
One would have to believe that Google recognize and apply this theory as an important factor when it comes to ranking sites in any given keyword category. The bottom line being "do people visit and stay". I'm satisfied it's the reason why PR2 sites outrank PR6 sites.
.
outside of that which is a bit of a sidestep from the current topic, though valid.
For me, Themed content structure, backed by heavily ontopic linking, internally, and reciprocally.
But if you've got the resources, no.1 is incoming links > high pr, its the failure of Google.
One would have to believe that Google recognize and apply this theory as an important factor when it comes to ranking sites in any given keyword category. The bottom line being "do people visit and stay". I'm satisfied it's the reason why PR2 sites outrank PR6 sites.
Are you suggesting that Google somehow tracks how many visitors come to each site on the web? I think most people here would agree that's impossible.
My own take on why a PR2 site would outrank a PR6 site is that Google perceives the PR2 site as more relevant. Whether that would be a perception shared by real-life users is another story.
Are you suggesting that Google somehow tracks how many visitors come to each site on the web? I think most people here would agree that's impossible.
Is that what you gathered from my post? I thought I was advancing a theory regarding the basis of determining site importance and it's possible effect on site ranking.
My own take on why a PR2 site would outrank a PR6 site is that Google perceives the PR2 site as more relevant.
WOW! I wouldn't have guessed that! How profound. Amazing what one can learn from people of wisdom. The question, of course, is how Google determines that relevance. (You know, the criteria for that hypothesis.)
Anne
I have added 3 more outbound links (2 PR7's and one PR9). I am hoping to see if I can get a PR5 or better.
While there has been some conjecture as to whether outbound links can help your site in the SERPs, the only way to raise your page's PageRank is through inbound links. Outbound links will not raise your page's PR.
As for your goal of reaching PR5... more power to you! :)
Just work hard on getting more quality sites and directories linking to you on you'll be well on your way.
My links page is moderately large with carefully selected links to on topic regional and national sites. The site i'm referring to is a local community theater site.
My tact on the outbound was to help some of the PR for my inbound linked sites, some of which are PR0-2. I have to link to them as the local affiliation of talent crosses web boundaries :) My idea was to use the 'good neighborhood' concept that I'm hoping for synergy on. True, not a direct PR boost to my site but more of a collective effect. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that.
My idea was to use the 'good neighborhood' concept that I'm hoping for synergy on.
Ahhh... Gotcha. :)
An approach that very few people consciously take advantage of.
(fathom's offered some good posts in support of this)
Keep us posted on how it works out.
One of the quotes that Mr. Schmidt made was "We like linking, it is like a popularity contest."
I believe that links are what drive Google and have seen it in the results, especially in the last 2 updates. The shear number of links as a matter of fact. Yes, there are special cases where one or two sites pop in and out of the results with less links, but for the most part, links RULE. This is the reason for recent irrelevant results.
Justin
Anne
If the subject matter is competitive, then links (PageRank and link text) alone can get you to the top. It's a lot easier if the content is relevant as well.
Anne, it should take one or two updates for backlinks to count. See Brett's Google Update History [webmasterworld.com].
