Somebody please 'splain this to me

THIS gets on the first page of results?

[MNBill]

Hi -

On a search for <snip> tonight on Google, the #10 result is titled "dummy page," at the domain <snip>. (I'd plug in URLs for you but newbies are not allowed to do that). Absolutely nothing at the site except the words "dummy page". Nothing cute in the code.

Also, I think I checked for inbound links the first time I saw it about 2 weeks ago, & nothing there either.

How? Why? Especially since there are many, many results following it that have actual content. Please 'splain it to me.

MNBill

PS: BTW, it has moved UP a couple notches in the rankings since I first noticed it!

[edited by: Woz at 8:22 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
[edit reason] no specifics please [/edit]

[Susanne]

If you search Google like this you will find the answer:
"<snip>"
It is still #10 today when I do the search, it hasn't moved up.

[edited by: Woz at 8:22 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
[edit reason] no specifics please [/edit]

[indigojo]

I'd say its an expired domain, go to FAST <snip> and you'll see lots of incoming links to a restaurant site of that name.

[edited by: Woz at 8:23 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
[edit reason] no specifics please [/edit]

[percentages]

MNBill,

Try looking at the backlinks in another search engine, like alltheweb.com. Although Google doesn't show these backlinks, ATW does. This is the primary reason why this site ranks fairly well for the search phrase you tried.

Using Google alone to investigate this "oddity" won't help you, Google only shows a limited number of backlinks (most say PR 4+ only, but my toolbar show PR 5 for several at ATW?....another issue!). Inktomi and ATW show a completely different picture for backlinks to those displayed by Google.

To answer your question in one sentence. "It is not the content that puts this site in the top 10, it is the backlinks and anchor text."

BTW: Great find of a site that makes a complete mockery of Google's ranking Algo!

[percentages]

P.S. Welcome to WebmasterWorld :)

[allanp73]

Actually, this is an important observation. I thought Google prevented sites from being ranked well for terms found in anchor text that were not found in the actual site's text.
This was to prevent Google bombing.
If I remember correctly if you typed "I am idiot" you would get a site on George Bush.

If what I just said is true then this dummy page site shouldn't appear because it lacks th text being searched for.

[percentages]

allanp73,

As of this point in time I see no evidence that Google is preventing positive bombing using a filter in the algo (I see some evidence it is attempting to stop bombing by over linkage....too many links incurs a penalty).

I have a site that gives the apache "forbidden" message ranking in the top 10 due to backlinks and anchor text only!

I haven't even started to develop this site yet, but Google grabbed it and indexed it purely because of backlinks (self inflicted of course:).

Too much weight is on the "off page" criteria IMHO, not enough on the "on page" criteria. Inktomi has a much better balance and is providing much better results generally.

I now use Google for technical searches (always solves my PHP, ASP, MySQL and Perl problems), but for general searches Ink has it beaten by a huge margin.

[MNBill]

Wow, thanks! And thanks, %ages, for the backlinks info (& the welcome). I was wondering why I'd get zero results on other link searches that I knew had at least some backlinks.

As far as I'm concerned, Google has made my job WAY easier. I used to meticulously craft page after page, which would consistently get top 10 rankings. Then, when Google shifted their emphasis to inbound links (about which I howled mightily), they didn't do so well.

But now that I "get it," I spend far less time building pages. Getting links is a LOT easier than making the Swiss-watch pages I used to build. And now with this example (re: "gourmet express"), I can count on having much more free time! (Whether clients will like it is another story.)

Well then, links=everything; content=... whatever. I think Google should take another look out the back door & see if there's a baby out there where they threw the bathwater.

(What am I SAYING?) Ummm ... never mind, boys!

Frozen MNBill

[Powdork]

That is a very very bad neighbourhood. Go check backlinks on all the web and others. On all the web, the first site listed as a backlink has disguised links to the site whose description will probably be removed from your original post. When you click on the link you'll get a warning (maybe) that the site's security certificate is bad.
The site has been this way since 9/26/2001 according webdev.archive.org. Before that it actually was what it said it was. All of the links come from western trail organizations and are on pages with many links to .orgs and .edus. Some of the links are from high ranking pages . They may have recently lost their ability to pass on pr since they mostly have way more than a hundred links per page. Strangely many of the links are with anchor text of a relatively unknown trail. It does not show up in searches for this anchor text. All in all. I really can't see how the site is there. To me, it looks like an abandoned, penalised domain that has mysteriously made its way back into the serps.

<edited>looks like I took to long to post/>

[Powdork]

I'm not seeing what you guys are. On all the web I went through the first 70 out of 157 results and didn't find <snip> anywhere. Only western trail stuff like pony express, and hastings cutoff.

[edited by: Woz at 8:50 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]

[Powdork]

Oops, I was looking at AV's backlinks. Didn't see the one about <snip>. Looking at it, its almost like Google doesn't count the links from the western orgs but does count the one related to the original site.

[edited by: Woz at 8:50 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]

[cornwall]

Been like that for a while!

<Opps sorry Woz, you did your edits while I was doing this>

[edited by: Woz at 9:29 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
[edit reason] just helping cornwall remove a link ;) [/edit]