Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: mack
If they produce the same results as Google, then there is no point in using Bing.
I have not noticed the keyword domain pruning. I have several keyword domains that are unique content rich that are doing fine.
I haven't checked enough to come up with any observations, but considering the quality of Bing traffic, it's worth putting some time into it - especially with the Yahoo deal forthcoming.
Would have been nice to see something other than Wikipedia getting the favoured treament but that's life.
They need to separate themselves, not mimic the very entity their trying to take market share from. I just donít see how that strategy makes sense.
Seems more like a partial dataset load that is being corrected to me.
My #1 ranked site that has keyword in domain name dropped to #17. The new #1 also has keyword in domain name and moved up from #9.
But over the last 24 hours, my former #1 has been gradually moving up and is now back at #6. Will post again if it continues back to the former #1.
This happen also on Google.
At this point, I cannot find a similar option in Bing tools.
As if there are no wikipedia sites ranking tops in Google.
No, not as if. As compared to G and Y in the markets that I watch where I understand the quality competition. Bing is not providing the highest quality results. Wikipedia often earns its high rank in many spaces.
I do not appreciate being misquoted, mrguy.
Earlier, in another thread, you've said:
I now understand after all these years whey black hats do what they do.
I am beginning to understand your ability to understand.
Well, there are any number of rank tracking software available. If you just do a search on Google (or Bing:)) you'll find plenty. Most have free/trial versions, but if you're looking to buy, just go with the cheapest option - they all do basically the same thing.
For the middle and small US market geo-keyword/sites I watch, nothing. Still very poor as compared to G and Y. Topix, Wikipedia ranking tops, for example.
You are correct, I missed the part about SITES YOU WATCH. I took your quote to mean in general which is not the case. I can find MANY wikipedia listings in Google ranking #1 for many different things.
For the terms I'M WATCHING, Bing is providing far superior results to Googles. For instance, a specific term on Google shows a geocities site with NOTHING BUT LINKS and ADSENSE as the number one result over numerous other real authority sites. Bing shows only the authority sites, so for that query, Google fails miserably.
As far as the Blackhats quote, what don't you understand? If Google wants junk spam with adsense, I can certainly deliver that or I can deliver quality sites depending on what flavor of the month their algo is using. I've not done that in the past, but if the results I'M SEEING in Google are the new reality, then that's what I'll do.
My ability to understand is just fine, I just misread your quote.
Another thing is that what's generally good page construction for eye tracking, conversion and usability seems to coincide with what makes for good old fashioned basic on-page SEO.
>>search for this on amazon.com
Or take a good free look at Google Books; even the table of contents makes a good read. :P
In comparing, it looks like Google is giving far too much weight to a few ranking factors right now, while with Bing it isn't all that obvious what's carrying a lot of weight, since the results (that I've seen so far) look like a good mix.
My website is a UK based site that is hosted & run in the UK and was previously ranking very well for the index for its main search term
When I now search for the index page on bing via MSN.co.uk itís not coming up but internal pages are still ranking well, also traffic is coming in from Bing Mexico where the index is showing and has the old ranking that I used to have on .co.uk
any ideas what I need to do to fix this - ta