Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Google changes its dance choreography?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 August 2002 - 11:01 PM

In the good old days just over a month ago, Google could be relied upon to crawl all the pages it knows about and then do it's dance on a monthly basis. People who wanted to could get a preview of how their rankings would shape up from www2.google.com and www3.google.com.

For anybody who doesn't know what a "Google dance" is, it's a monthly recalculation of the pagerank of all the pages in Google's index. It occurs somewhere around the 20th to 26th of each month and usually takes about a week. You can read about it by clicking the link at the bottom of this post and then clicking on the "Google's Pagerank" link.

When a dance is not in progress, the search results at www.google, www2.google and www3.google are identical. During a dance they are not always identical and they change quite frequently, although the proper results at www.google only change minimally and only for short periods. During the dance, the results shown at www2 and www3 are pretty near what they will be at www when the dance is over so they are good places to get a preview. At the end of the dance, the result become identical.

The July dance was peculair in that it started quite late and lasted only a day. I thought they might have made changes to the way they do things but I didn't know. The mid-way through August they seemed to do a mini-dance. I noticed it because I'd made a few small alterations to one of my pages to try and get into the top 10 - it was bubbling under at the time. The page was showing
Then the real dance began and, during it, the page was nowhere to be found at www2 or www3 - at least not in the top 100, and I thought it was screwed. But it ended up at
So this has been a very long-winded way of getting round to saying that I did not notice the usuall 'dancing' at www2 and www3 during the latest dance. I reckon they are completely changing the way they do their dance, and maybe the frequency and totalness of dances, and we may not be able to watch again. But there ya go.

Phil.

#2 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 31 August 2002 - 04:52 PM

For anybody who doesn't know what a "Google dance" is, it's a monthly recalculation of the pagerank of all the pages in Google's index.

Hi Phil,

I thought that the Google dance was not necessarily a recalculation of PageRank, but more of the time when they added some new pages they had crawled, and reindexed pages they already had? Since PageRank is only one small part of their algorithm (in my opinion), I feel that the dance is more of a recalculation of their algorithm to all the pages they have found.

I think it's important to make the distinction between Google's whole algorithm and Google's PageRank because so many think that PageRank is Google's algorithm, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

BTW, nice job with these forums. They look great!

Jill

#3 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2002 - 05:51 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, nice job with these forums. They look great!


Thank you Jill. Very nice to see you here - and that you brought that lovely pic with you. Now, don't any of you guys start getting the wrong idea....she's smiling at ME - not any of you!

I think it's important to make the distinction between Google's whole algorithm and Google's PageRank because so many think that PageRank is Google's algorithm, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


Good point. PageRank is Google's way of measuring how important a web page is with respect to all other web pages in their index. On its own it doesn't determine where a page will rank in the search results (serps). It can't be used for that. E.g. a PR8 page about 'hotels' can't be listed at all in 'birdseed' serps.

In determining a page's position in relevant results, Google uses PageRank together with other factors. Among these are the page's topic, the theme of the site or section of the site where the page resides, Title, the link text of links into the page and even the text around the link text of links into the page, plus the linking pages' topics. In determining where to position a page in the serps, Google takes pretty much an overall view of the page and its environment. The importance of the page is also taken into account - that's PageRank.

Because PageRank is just one determining factor, albeit an important one, it's very common to see pages outranking pages with more PR, even when the pages are about the same topic as the search term.

A good example is this webworkshop.net site. Right now Google hasn't crawled or indexed these forums so all Google knows about the site is that it has 5 pages, 4 of which are about PageRank and the other, the index page, mentions PageRank several times. If you search on "pagerank", you'll find it at
So PageRank is important but there are other important factors that Google uses to determine a page's position in the rankings.

I thought that the Google dance was not necessarily a recalculation of PageRank, but more of the time when they added some new pages they had crawled, and reindexed pages they already had? Since PageRank is only one small part of their algorithm (in my opinion), I feel that the dance is more of a recalculation of their algorithm to all the pages they have found.


My understanding is different, Jill. Google has to recalculate PageRank every time because links come and go and new pages appear. Every link change affects a lot of pages on the web - all the along the chain of links. E.g. A links B, B links to C, C links to D, etc. If one page removes the link to another, then all the pages down all the the lines of links are affected - it's vast. To keep their PR values reasonably accurate, they have to recalculate and take new pages and link changes onto account.

Incidentally, they can never calculate accurate values. They perform the whole calculations about 40 times. After that, any more calculations will still alter the values but not sufficiently to make doing it worthwhile.

Phil.

#4 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13362 posts

Posted 01 September 2002 - 01:00 AM

Where does Yahoo! fit into this scenerio?

The other day I was checking on a client site who, when they first contacted me, couldn't be found in Google but the site performed beautifully for its search words in Yahoo!'s Google-fed web pages.

A few days later I checked Google again and surprise, surprise, their site was there, nicely indexed and ranking perfectly.

I know that Yahoo! Google and Google Google aren't always running neck and neck but how much difference is there, and does the dance involve Yahoo!?

Kim

#5 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 01 September 2002 - 03:07 PM

There's big changes afoot at Yahoo where Google is concerned. They seem to be integrating the two services within the results.

Currently, Yahoogle is showing Yahoo Directory description where applicable. And some have even noticed that Yahoo Web Sites and Yahoo Web Pages have sometimes been the same. (I haven't seen it, but saw some screen shots.)

I think they're testing things out right now to determine the best way for them to live in harmony. It also appears that Google may be feeding their results directly to Yahoo for the Yahoogle results.

I think it's very clear, if nothing else, that the Google contract has been extended long-term, which really comes as no surprise to me.

Jill

#6 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 September 2002 - 04:40 PM

That's interesting. The last I read about it was that Inktomi could find itself back at Yahoo! when Google's contract runs out - but then I don't read very much. It's good to know that information, Jill.

I wonder if Inktomi will ever recover. A couple of years ago Inktomi was more-or-less all you needed to target in the UK. They covered a lot of the major search engines, including Yahoo! Web Pages, plus all the major TV advertising portals. Now they have MSN, which is still very important, and that's all.

Phil.

#7 bragadocchio

bragadocchio

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15634 posts

Posted 02 September 2002 - 01:51 AM

I've been checking the www2 and www3s on google for weblogs for a while now. I wasn't aware that people didn't realize that the dance had changed at least more than a year ago.

From that Brandt article PageRank: Google's Original Sin

Google's main update cycle is about 28 days, which is a bit too slow for news-hungry surfers. In August, 2001 they also began a second "mini-crawl" for news sites, which are now checked every day. Results from each crawl are mingled together, giving the searcher an impression of freshness.


Note that this is when Brandt noticed the change. It's possible that they started before that date. News pages, and pages that have content updated on a regular basis gain the benefit of having google index their pages almost daily. If I miss a few days on one of the blogs, it sometimes goes back to the monthly index. But, updating on a consistent basis causes re-indexing to happen daily. Does the pagerank change during that time? I'm not certain, but I'll keep my eyes on it.

#8 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2002 - 02:02 AM

Ah, but I only started watching it a few months ago and my observations of last month indicated recent changes.

Phil

#9 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 02 September 2002 - 04:12 AM

I wonder if Inktomi will ever recover.

They really need at least one other really big partner deal. Doesn't appear that it will be Google, unfortunately for them. Can't imagine Google/Yahoo would be going to all the trouble they have been over this past few weeks if that contract extension wasn't a done deal.

Even at MSN, Ink results can be buried underneath mounds of very old and irrelevant "editor's picks," plus also under LookSmart results. I hear a lot of rumblings from people that don't plan to renew their Ink ppi accounts due to this.

Will be interesting to see what happens with them over time.

On an interesting side note...during the dot.com stock boom, when Inktomi was right on the verge of becoming profitable, I purchased some stock in them at about 105. It went up to about 205 in about a week or two, but dummy me didn't sell. Now it's at what, like 2? :twisted:

J

#10 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 02 September 2002 - 11:02 AM

[quote=Phil]
[quote]
I think it's important to make the distinction between Google's whole algorithm and Google's PageRank because so many think that PageRank is Google's algorithm, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
[/quote]

Good point. PageRank is Google's way of measuring how important a web page is with respect to all other web pages in their index. On its own it doesn't determine where a page will rank in the search results (serps). It can't be used for that. E.g. a PR8 page about 'hotels' can't be listed at all in 'birdseed' serps.
[/quote]

Hi Phil,

Since we love a good discussion about PageRank, we'd like to chime in here with a few observations of our own.

For starters, we couldn't agree with you more about PageRank being Google's way of measuring how important a Webpage is with respect to all other Webpages in their index.

[quote]
In determining a page's position in relevant results, Google uses PageRank together with other factors.
[/quote]

While we do not disagree with your statement, we would reword it like this ...

In determining a page's position in relevant results, Google uses Anchor Tag Text, an "Off The Page" ranking consideration together with all of the "On The Page" ranking consideration and then lastly they include the "PageRank" consideration, and in that order.

Then as far as how much weight is attributed to each part or section of the total algorithm is anyone's opinion. Our opinion is that ...


------
Part 1 = 60% ("Off The Page" ranking consideration)

Part 2 = 30% ("On The Page" ranking consideration)

Part 3 = 10% ("PageRank" ranking consideration)
------


Therefore, while PageRank is important, it is the least important of the three parts or sections of the whole algorithm.

That can easily be evidenced when you view search results from a page with low PageRank outranking a page with high PageRank.

Since SEO is NOT an exact science, it can be best explained by likening it to the card game Bridge, in that certain SEO techniques will TRUMP other SEO techniques and that is why you will notice one page outranking another with a focus on one technique and yet this same scenario will not be the case when comparing two other pages.

There are just too many factors to consider in attempting to determine the "exact" algorithms of any of the search engines, so it would be foolish to think that any SEO has "the formula" safely tucked away in their SEO Playbook.

[quote]
In determining where to position a page in the serps, Google takes pretty much an overall view of the page and its environment.  
[/quote]

While this is true, in light of what we just said about certain SEO techniques trumping other SEO techniques, we will add for the benefit of those who are new to SEO that, as far as Google is concerned, they are ALL about LINKS.

Being linked TO properly and linking TO properly.

We have seen pages that rank high and even at
[quote]
Because PageRank is just one determining factor, albeit an important one, it's very common to see pages outranking pages with more PR, even when the pages are about the same topic as the search term.
[/quote]

We agree with this statement, but we will just reiterate that PageRank is the least important part of the three we've outlined above.

[quote]
A good example is this webworkshop.net site. Right now Google hasn't crawled or indexed these forums so all Google knows about the site is that it has 5 pages, 4 of which are about PageRank and the other, the index page, mentions PageRank several times. If you search on "pagerank", you'll find it at [/quote]

Phil, in this example, we have to disagree with your statement ...

[quote]
The reason that a page from this site beats some other PageRank pages with higher PR is that the entire site is about PageRank - it is extremely themed.
[/quote]

The reason that a page from this site beats some other PageRank pages with higher PR is that the Anchor Tag Text of the Backward Links don't have as much ranking consideration.

[quote]
Plus the inbound link text is also about PageRank.  
[/quote]

Again, we beg to differ with you, Phil, as PageRank has nothing to do with or about inbound link text.

PageRank is merely a NUMBER determined by the amount of "points" given to it by the links that point to it.

[quote]
It may drop down the rankings when Google indexes these forums and the theme is diluted.
[/quote]

If your page "drops" down the rankings it won't be because the theme is diluted, but simply because other pages have increased in the rankings.

Adding more pages to your Website will also add PageRank.

[quote]
So PageRank is important but there are other important factors that Google uses to determine a page's position in the rankings.  
[/quote]

Totally agreed.


Phil, here is the "current" list of the Top 10 pages for PageRank on Google and our research on why we disagreed with some of your statements.



The page at
The page at
The page at
They say ...

[quote]
For those who are not familiar with Google's Page Rank, which is commonly known as PR, is Google's calculation or score of a web page based on external and internal linking of a site, as well as on-page criteria of the web page being linked to as well as the web page being linked from.
[/quote]

That statement is only half right, so that makes it all wrong, right? <WINK>

Anyway, the statement is correct except for this part ...

[quote]
as well as on-page criteria of the web page being linked to as well as the web page being linked from.
[/quote]

The page at
Because it has more ranking consideration for Part 1 (more keywords in the Anchor Tag Text consideration) ... Even though it has more Backward Links, in fact 70% more.

------
Keyword Density for the
Total Words: 20
Occurrences : 67
Count Word Density

15 pagerank 22.39%
5 cont 7.46%
5 ranking 7.46%
3 bringing 4.48%
3 calculation 4.48%
3 idealized 4.48%
3 order 4.48%
3 proxy 4.48%
3 stanford 4.48%
3 usage 4.48%
------


In summary, it is our opinion that "themes" is not a factor in the ranking consideration of Google's algorithm and if it is, it is so little in consideration that it is not worth the trouble to write about, again, in our humble opinion of course.

What does carry a LOT of ranking consideration is Anchor Tag Text.

Again, ranking well in Google is ALL about LINKS and the keywords in the Anchor Tag Text.

In conclusion Phil, we hope that you realize that we are ONLY discussing PageRank with you, and nothing more, as this is nothing personal in any way shape or form. As we said earlier, we LOVE a good PageRank discussion and we hope to learn as much as we can the more we discuss it.

Your Friends,

Sharon & Roy

#11 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2002 - 02:46 PM

What an excellent and valuable post, Sharon & Roy. I don't take it personally at all. I appreciate it greatly. I don't think of myself as an expert in Google's algos and your post merits some study over and above simple reading. It's good stuff - thanks!

It's nice to see me at
I'd assumed it was the site theme that made the page do so well against higher PR pages, but that was because I was surprised by it and didn't understand why. The site theme was all that I could think of. I didn't examine all the other pages in detail as you have - I just leapt to an overall conclusion.

It's interesting to note that you attribute such a high value to inbound link text. I know it's possible to get
I can't reply to your post in detail. I need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb - not to criticise it, but to learn from it. I think many of us can gain some knowledge from it.

Many thanks for taking the time to write it. It's greatly appreciated.

Phil.

#12 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 02 September 2002 - 03:25 PM

Welcome to the cre8asite forum, S&R! Nice to see you here.

I agree with everything you wrote in your post!

My experience is that anything that people attribute to "themes" can always be shown to have another reason why it's working. I personally place no value in themes at all, and have never given them a thought when optimizing any site.

That said, optimizing the themes way does work very well, but I believe it's not for the reasons those using them think it is (if that makes sense!).

Jill

#13 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2002 - 09:06 PM

Hi again S&R.

Just a couple of small points from your excellent post:-

....as far as Google is concerned, they are ALL about LINKS


This refered to my statement that Google takes an overall view of a page when positioning it in the serps. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here because it isn't ALL about links. Inbound links are a very important factor, perhaps even the most important factor, but they are only one factor, as the rest of your post agrees. I just thought I'd clear that up.

Again, we beg to differ with you, Phil, as PageRank has nothing to do with or about inbound link text


This is just the coincidence that we are talking about "pagerank" as a search term and actual PageRank. It caused you to misunderstand what I meant. The inbound links to my page are about PageRank - their text is about the word "PageRank" which is the search term we are discussing. The link text itself doesn't affect the actual PageRank.

I'm not convinced that themes aren't taken into account though. By 'themes' I mean topics - what the site and its pages are about. Jill mentioned that results that could be attributed to a theme could also be attributed to other things. I don't disagree with either of you but I'm not convinced.

The reason I am not convinced is because 'themes' have been talked about for years now. I think AV was the first to bring it up by saying that they were looking to go that way. Over at WMW they believe that themes matter, to the extent that they've come up with a paper about a 'pyramid' site structure which take both themes and PR into account.

I have no personal experience of themes, except that I attributed my page's good showing showing to the site's strong theme. As I said before, I jumped to that conclusion but I didn't analyse the rest of the serps to the extent that you have. Even so, whilst I can't disagree with you about themes, I am not convinced that they don't matter. I can't ignore what a lot of other people are saying. I am sure of one thing though - designing themes into a site can't hurt. It may not help, but it can't hurt.

Phil.

#14 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 12:58 AM

I am sure of one thing though - designing themes into a site can't hurt. It may not help, but it can't hurt.


Absolutely agree with you there!

I have every respect for Brett and the others at WMW, and I truly believe they know what they're doing when it comes to getting high rankings in the search engines.

What I also have come to realize through spending a lot of time reading about how others optimize (besides myself), is that there is more than one way to skin an SEO cat!

My feeling is that if you find an SEO method that works for you (especially if it appears to work for the long-term), then by gosh, you might as well stick with it! But just because someone else uses a totally different method (or even a slightly different one), the proof is in the pudding. If it works, it works.

I still believe that many people often mistake the cause and effect in many SEO techniques. But then again, it doesn't really matter. If it works, it works, keep it up!

I do want to say that one reason why I've never felt comfortable posting much at WMW is because I just don't feel in tune with most of their methods. It always feels to me that they are making something that's really easy sound/seem really complicated! Years ago when I first found that forum, I was so totally confused. I thought I must be missing the boat or behind the times. I wondered how I could have been working all those years without knowing anything that they were talking about.

But then I got my WPG reports in, and all my high rankings were there and intact, and that never changed. So I decided there was no reason for me to worry about what those others were doing. I had found a perfectly good method that worked, and worked well! Not to mention that in my opinion, it's easy as pie. It's all about common sense. If you need to complicate something in order to feel like you did something really hard, then go for it! Me, I'd rather just take the lazy way out and do things with plain old common sense. It's simple, easy and effective!

Jill

#15 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2002 - 01:27 AM

...then by gosh, you might as well stick with it!


Practising yer English-English, Jill, or do you really say that in America? ;) By gum, tha's a fine lass!

Since I joined Kim's forum I've heard quite a lot of stuff that I never came across before, including things in the discussion I had with you. For instance, I never knew of SEO oriented copywriting (my phrase). I've certainly learned some stuff even though I'd still argue with the same reasonings that you've seen me make before. But I can't disagree at all with your statement that there is more than one way to skin an SEO cat.

I prefer the other methods because it's a game that appeals to me - my brain works that way - it's not my fault, guv - I enjoy it. Apart from anything else, I can't do good copywriting. I used to write monthly columns in some UK glossy computer mags so I am a good writer, but there are different styles of writing. I'm good at teccy/teaching writing and I even wrote a newspaper column for a while (and that's different), but I could never write a novel because I'm not a descriptive writer, and I can't do good copywriting either. So I have no choice but to use the so-called traditional seo methods. I'm happy though.

#16 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 10:53 AM

What an excellent and valuable post, Sharon & Roy. I don't take it personally at all. I appreciate it greatly. I don't think of myself as an expert in Google's algos and your post merits some study over and above simple reading. It's good stuff - thanks!


Hi Phil,

THANKS for your very kind words, and we're glad to know that we can speak openly here and not be misunderstood in our intentions.

This is truly the exception to the rule for us, so thanks Phil.

And a BIG thank you to you, Kim, for this forum.

Although we haven't "virtually" met, yet, we do feel we "know" you, as we have read some of your posts in the various forums throughout the Net.

I'd assumed it was the site theme that made the page do so well against higher PR pages, but that was because I was surprised by it and didn't understand why. The site theme was all that I could think of. I didn't examine all the other pages in detail as you have - I just leapt to an overall conclusion.


We are still "confused" by what you mean when you say, "site theme" or "themes" ... So we'll take this opportunity to find out.

Phil, do you mean to say that you think that when you query Google that it looks at ALL the pages of the Website and then determines a special set of keywords that would be the top 10 or so most used and then come up with an overall theme for all the pages in the site?

So for example, if we use your "themes technique" to explain to a client what their current "theme" is and how they would have to "alter" their site to be optimized for "themes," what would you tell us to say?

So that we can fully understand you, we'll use the sears.com site as the example.

So from what we currently understand from your posts is that you take all the pages in the site and find the "theme," and that would be how Google would, do what with that info?

For example, a quick look at the sears.com site would show that the "theme" of the site would involve the following categories or keywords ...

Appliances - Automotive - Computers & Office - Electronics - Fitness & Recreation - Housewares - Jewelry & Watches - Kids - Lawn & Garden - Tools

So what would the "theme" be for sears.com?

Another quick look shows that the DMOZ editor says that this is the theme ...

Sears, Roebuck and Co. - Shop online for appliances, Craftsman tools and parts, lawn and garden, apparel and home improvement services.  

Source: http://www.dmoz.org/...ping/Retailers/

---

Sears, Roebuck and Co. - http://www.sears.com  
Shop online for appliances, Craftsman tools and parts, lawn and garden, apparel and home improvement services.

Source: http://directory.goo...ping/Retailers/



The Yahoo editor says that this is the theme ...

Sears, Roebuck and Co.  - multi-line retailer providing merchandise and services in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.  
http://www.sears.com/  
More sites about:  Retailers > Sears, Roebuck and Co.  

Source: http://search.yahoo..../search?p=sears



Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that THE top most single keyword "theme" for sears.com is ...

Retailer

Now, our questions are ...

1.) How will Google use THAT "theme" to rank the sears.com site? In other words, will Google give sears.com (The Home Page) a boost in ranking consideration when folks search for ... retailer ... or will they give ANOTHER page the boost in ranking consideration ... or will they give ALL the sears.com pages a boost in ranking consideration?

2.) Does a site ONLY have ONE "theme?"

3.) If It has more than ONE "theme," how many total does it have? Is this total the SAME for ANY Website or does it differ?

A quick search for ... retailer ... shows that sears.com is not in the top 10 results. A longer look shows that it is not even in the top 1000.

So, the next question is, what would you advise us to tell our "client" sears.com to do to optimize their site for "themes" and what changes would be needed right away, and would those changes eventually get sears.com in the top 10 and then eventually to

It's interesting to note that you attribute such a high value to inbound link text. I know it's possible to get


It's ALSO possible to get

I can't reply to your post in detail. I need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb - not to criticise it, but to learn from it. I think many of us can gain some knowledge from it.


<Blush, Blush> Thank you, Phil, you are too kind.

Many thanks for taking the time to write it. It's greatly appreciated.


Phil, it is always our pleasure to take time to research and to engage in thought provoking discussions to share insights that may not have been thought about before.

#17 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 11:18 AM

Welcome to the cre8asite forum, S&R! Nice to see you here.


Hi Jill,

Thanks for the welcome!

We are happy to be here and to be able to participate in a forum and to openly share our thoughts.

As you know, not all the forums have been as welcoming as we would have thought. Oh well, we haven't lost any sleep over it, so we figure that our time is best used to focus on just those that do welcome us.

I agree with everything you wrote in your post!


Thanks, and as you know, our passion is PageRank, so we attempt to dispel the myths and misconceptions about it every chance we get.

There is sooo much confusion about this VERY SIMPLE concept.

Isn't it just like folks to take something so simple and to dismiss that simplicity and to attempt to make it more complicated than it is or than it needs to be?

My experience is that anything that people attribute to "themes" can always be shown to have another reason why it's working. I personally place no value in themes at all, and have never given them a thought when optimizing any site.


Well, we certainly see your point, and now that we are attempting to learn more about "themes" and what it IS and what it ISN'T, maybe you can help shed some light for us too.

What have you understood it to be and how does it get figured into the algorithm? We know you don't come at SEO from the math part of the algorithm, but just your own way of understanding "themes" is good enough to help us put the whole concept together.

That said, optimizing the themes way does work very well, but I believe it's not for the reasons those using them think it is (if that makes sense!).  


Yep, it certainly does!

#18 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 12:16 PM

S&R, my problem with optimizing for "themes" in the strict sense is that it seems your supposed to keep your entire site focused around one particular "theme."

I've seen theme people talk about being very careful not to add extraneous words that will dilute your theme, and not to have additional pages that are not "on-theme."

I just don't buy it. Your Sears example was a good one. Now I believe that those heavily into theming would tell Sears to purchase different domains for each of their different types of products. But imo, it's just not necessary to do so.

You can have different directories (or even just different pages) of a site that are about totally different topics (or themes) and they can all co-exist and do perfectly well in the search engine results.

For instance, I have some directories off of my own domain that were used for some clients' sites back in the old days when I did some design/hosting work. One particular site (sub-directory off of webwhiz.net and/or highrankings.com) ranks extremely high for all their search phrases and has for years. (It's about screen porches.)

I also have another subdirectory about pheromones that does well for it's phrases. I don't believe any search engine is confused about my site because of these other subdirectories.

My feeling is that the search engines treat each page on it's own merits.

But I have no facts and figures to back me up. Just my common sense and my years of experience, and looking at the results at various times!

Jill

#19 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2002 - 02:13 PM

Hi S&R,

You asked me lots of questions that I simply don't have the answers to. I've never looked at any sites that I've dealt with in terms of themes. I've read about them from several years ago when AV first came up with the idea, but I've never given it any consideration in site design, other than to decide that the site's theme must be the reason for the success of that particular PageRank page.

My understanding of themes is not well defined so I can only tell you what I've understood it to be. My understanding is that a theme is basically an overall topic. What a page or a site is about is its theme.

Let's leave other factors out of it for the moment and rank two pages based on only their themes. Page 1 is about hotels and nothing else. Page 2 has content dealing with hotels, used cars and space flight (I'm being extreme here). Without any facts to back me up, I would say that the hotels page would outrank the hotels/used cars/space flight page for the term "hotels". Remember, we are ranking them solely according to their themes. But that's just single pages.

Across at WMW they are under the impression that Google incorporates themes into its algorithm, and I respect their knowledge enough to accept that they have good reason to believe it. So, whether correct or incorrect, I believe it too. And this is what I understand...

The theme of a multi-page site about hotels is 'hotels'. It can include information about hire cars, local attractions, cuisine and whatever else relates to hotels, but it's overall theme is hotels. Assuming that the theme part of Google's algo really does exist, the site will do better for "hotels" than a site that is about a range of varied topics - without taking other factors into account.

That represents my understanding of themes. I don't know that they are given any consideration by the engines. I assume they are because of what I read and not because of my findings.

Jill's sub-directories are a good example of what WMW suggest - the pyramid. The idea is to group pages according to their topics into sub-directories so that the directories are themed. In addition, they suggest linking each group's pages in ways that favour PR. I've no idea if their pyramid works or not.

If I were creating a site these days I would incorporate themes into it, but I wouldn't go to the extremes that Jill mentioned of only using themed words or purchasing domain names to highly theme everything - unless it became very apparent that it is essential.

As has been said, there a different ways of achieving high rankings. You pointed out reasons why the pagerank page did well against higher PR pages. But the site's theme cannot be ruled out as also being one of the factors.

Summary: I don't insist that themes count for anything. I believe they do because of what I read, but I don't know for sure. I don't believe that only themed sites can succeed - that would be ridiculous, but I do believe that theming sites is helpful.

Phil.

#20 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 04:32 PM

[quote=Phil]
Hi again S&R.

Just a couple of small points from your excellent post:-

[quote]....as far as Google is concerned, they are ALL about LINKS[/quote]

This refered to my statement that Google takes an overall view of a page when positioning it in the serps. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here because it isn't ALL about links. Inbound links are a very important factor, perhaps even the most important factor, but they are only one factor, as the rest of your post agrees. I just thought I'd clear that up.
[/quote]

Yes, Phil, we do attempt to be as clear as possible with our posts and the comments we make, and when we aren't, do as you are, and ask us for clarification, as we are always happy to go into more detail.

They (Google) are ALL about LINKS, is a comment that we make (and infer) quite often and it is a sweeping and general statement.

If a client asks us ...

How do I optimize my page to get a top ranking at Google?

We reply by asking, what the keyword term is and then saying to acquire as many Backward Links (inbound links) from RELATED pages and sites as you can and make sure that your specific keyword term is in the Anchor Tag Text of all or as many Backward Links as possible.

That is the simplest and most honest answer we have for them.

You, see Phil, we go on to mention that even if the page they want to rank high is BLANK, this specific SEO Technique will work, each and every time, no IFs, ANDs or BUTs ... It even works for "Frameset" pages, "Flash" pages, "All Graphic" pages, short pages, long pages, medium in-between size pages, and even foreign (non-English) language pages.

[quote]
[quote]
Again, we beg to differ with you, Phil, as PageRank has nothing to do with or about inbound link text
[/quote]

This is just the coincidence that we are talking about "pagerank" as a search term and actual PageRank. It caused you to misunderstand what I meant.
[/quote]

Oh, okay, sorry about that!

[quote]
The inbound links to my page are about PageRank - their text is about the word "PageRank" which is the search term we are discussing.
[/quote]

Got it!

[quote]
The link text itself doesn't affect the actual PageRank.
[/quote]

Totally agreed.

[quote]
I'm not convinced that themes aren't taken into account though.
[/quote]

That is what we need more information about, since we don't have a clue, so how are "themes" formulated into the algorithm?

[quote]
By 'themes' I mean topics - what the site and its pages are about.
[/quote]

So, with what you mean here, please explain for us what the topic is for the sears.com site and its pages?

[quote]
Jill mentioned that results that could be attributed to a theme could also be attributed to other things. I don't disagree with either of you but I'm not convinced.
[/quote]

We certainly understand your "position" about "themes" but as of yet, we don't know why?

So the better you can convince us of how Google incorporates it, determines it and what ranking consideration it has the better we can see if it is true or not.

It is not that we don't believe you about "themes," it is just that we need more input so that we can research it and test it.

By just the little research we did on what we think "themes" to be, we have already seen that they do NOT play a part in ranking consideration at all ... And if they do, it is so small a consideration that it is not worth writing about.

Just an FYI ... Google grades pages INDIVIDUALLY.

Here is what Craig Silverstein, Chief Technology Officer of Google, says ...

[quote]
Web Site Size

Craig revealed that Web pages are graded individually; therefore there is neither consequence nor value for being part of a larger Web site. This is an important piece of information to those optimizing large corporate sites or four-page sites - technically, all are equal.

Source: Google Interview by Fredrick Marckini with Craig Silverstein, Chief Technology Officer of Google
[/quote]

[quote]
The reason I am not convinced is because 'themes' have been talked about for years now.  
[/quote]

Sorry, Phil, but we have to say that just because an SEO Technique has been talked about for years, does not make it so, nor does it make it right, like for example ... "Invisible Text" has also been talked about for years, but that doesn't make it right.

Just commenting on each of your comments as we go along. Just adding food for thought to the table is all.

[quote]
I think AV was the first to bring it up by saying that they were looking to go that way.
[/quote]

Okay, well, let's see about AltaVista, then.

Since we have some "fresh" research at hand, let's see if your page outranks the page at
Well, it ranks at [url=http://www.altavista.com/sites/search/web?q=PageRank]
webworkshop.net

webworkshop.net/pagerank_calculator.html

Your ... webworkshop.net/pagerank_calculator.html ... page is ranked at
Now, what this research should show in order to prove that "themes" is a part of the algorithm and not only a part of it, but a BIG enough part of it to even warrant optimizing for it and even presenting it to clients as a viable part of SEO, is that at least one of your pages should be ranked higher than the other page/site since that site is NOT "theme" optimized for the keyword "PageRank" at all and your pages/site IS.

But that is NOT the case.

Therefore, the only conclusion we can come up with is that ... "If" AltaVista does use "themes" as ranking consideration, it is VERY LITTLE consideration and not enough to concern yourself with or even to write about.

After all, when it comes to being optimized for "themes," your site blows the other site right out of the water. That is VERY EVIDENT, which no one can dispute, but yet the other page/site ranks at
A worse ranking at AltaVista that is "supposed" to have a "themes" based algorithm than at Google, which we are sure does not have a "themes" based algorithm, or again, if they do, the ranking consideration is so small it's not worth the effort of talking about it as a viable SEO Technique.

Okay, now let's look at the "link popularity" factor for your pages ...

Below, you notice that of your two pages listed in AltaVista, your Home Page has 1 Backward Link and the other 0.

Yet the Interior Page with 0 Backward Links outranks the Home Page with 1.

This is because the Interior Page's "On The Page" ranking consideration outweighs the Home Page's "On The Page" ... AND ... "Off The Page" ranking consideration.

The "trump" factor we spoke of earlier is seen in action here.

While we are not absolutely sure about this, we will go out on a limb and say that if the link to your Home Page would contain just "PageRank" in the Anchor Tag Text that there is a real good chance that it would then outrank your other page. If not, then maybe an addition 2 to 5 links would.

Again, here we are pointing out the IMPORTANCE of LINKS for attaining high rankings. Below you will see that the page at
It has 335 Backward Links in AllTheWeb, so what do you think the chances are of it ranking in the Top 10 for the term ... "PageRank" ... there?

If you said, pretty good, then you are right, in fact, it is currently ranked at [url=http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=utf-8&l=any&q=PageRank]
Hummm? Your optimized "themes" page is outranked by a non-optimized "themes" page on all 3 of the search engines we have checked so far.

We think that "themes" is a non-issue as far as SEO is concerned, but you may want a second opinion. <WINK>

------
www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~baba/wais/pagerank.html

AllTheWeb: 335
AltaVista: 226
AOL: 68
Google: 68
HotBot: 0
MSN: 0
------


------
webworkshop.net/pagerank_calculator.php3

AllTheWeb: 4
AltaVista: 0
AOL: 0
Google: 0
HotBot: 0
MSN: 0
------


------
webworkshop.net

AllTheWeb: 26
AltaVista: 1
AOL: 6
Google: 6
HotBot: 15
MSN: 20
------


------
webworkshop.net/pagerank.html

AllTheWeb: 5
AltaVista: 0
AOL: 20
Google: 20
HotBot: 0
MSN: 0
------


[quote]
Over at WMW they believe that themes matter, to the extent that they've come up with a paper about a 'pyramid' site structure which take both themes and PR into account.
[/quote]

While PageRank is without a doubt an SEO factor, it can only apply to Google, so for the other engines, PageRank is a non-issue.

Just because they believe that themes matter over at WMW, does not mean that it matters enough to warrant writing about.

Sorry, Phil, but unless we can "see" some "evidence" that would prove themes as a viable technique that provides a sufficient amount of ranking consideration for Google or any search engine, we will have to continue to say that it isn't, and that we have seen enough "proof" to the contrary.

Again, the highest "suited" trump in the SEO game right now, is BACKWARD LINKS that contain your keywords in the Anchor Tag Text, especially for Google, but all the major search engines also give a major amount of ranking consideration to this very POWERFUL SEO Technique.

If you think about it, it makes PERFECT sense for the search engines to give LOTS of weight to this technique, since it is THE most difficult technique to SPAM.

So, while it is not SPAM proof, it is the most difficult to "cheat" at.

That is why we say ...

As far as Google is concerned, they are ALL about LINKS

And not to the exclusion of all other SEO techniques, but to the point that it will OUT TRUMP them ALL when you acquire a sufficient amount of them.

And to a somewhat lesser degree, we'd say the same about the other search engines.

[quote]
I have no personal experience of themes, except that I attributed my page's good showing to the site's strong theme. As I said before, I jumped to that conclusion but I didn't analyse the rest of the serps to the extent that you have. Even so, whilst I can't disagree with you about themes, I am not convinced that they don't matter. I can't ignore what a lot of other people are saying.  
[/quote]

But ask yourself ...

1.) WHY are they all saying that?

... And ...

2.) Where is the evidence/proof?

We are not trying to convince you that "themes" in and of themselves are not worth writing about, nor have we found or seen proof in favor of them for ranking consideration, but we are discussing with you what our research shows about "themes" and what it shows about Backward Links.

Without a doubt, Backward Links are the
Just where "themes" fit in, is yet to be seen and proven to us before we will add it to our list of SEO Techniques.

[quote]
I am sure of one thing though - designing themes into a site can't hurt. It may not help, but it can't hurt.
[/quote]

Yes, we absolutely agree.

It's not like we are talking about "themes" being any kind of unethical technique or SPAM tactic, because, if you stop and think about it, writing all of your Webpages on ONE Topic is a good thing, but NOT that adding unrelated topics to your Home Page is a bad thing.

When you get right down to it, for us, "themes" is currently a NON-ISSUE and we never discuss it with clients unless the ask about it.

BTW, Phil, have you ever seen any posts over at WMW where someone has done some research to show evidence for "themes" having any ranking consideration, as we are now very curious to research the research. <WINK>

#21 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 05:13 PM

I've gotta say something here just so you can all see my lovely picture!

Sharon & Roy: like Phil, I really enjoy your posts, as I said over at the MPT forum. I often save them for future reference and again like Phil, will have to study some of the recent ones here more carefully.

You repeated something like the following several times and it's obviously the core of your SEO philosophy:

Again, the highest "suited" trump in the SEO game right now, is BACKWARD LINKS that contain your keywords in the Anchor Tag Text, especially for Google, but all the major search engines also give a major amount of ranking consideration to this very POWERFUL SEO Technique.


One thing I don't think you mentioned is the importance of the sites from which you get your backward links. Your failure to mention this seems to imply that a link from one site is as good as from another. Is this a correct observation? If so, please elaborate a bit, as so many others emphasize the importance of links from sites with high page rank or many incoming links themselves.

Thanks again for your help.

#22 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 03 September 2002 - 09:07 PM

Quite a long article from search engine watch covers some of the points being discussed here about Google such as the impression that a lot of people have about PageRank being the be all and end all of Googles Algorithm. Also fits in quite nicely with the post somewhere about being 'anti-Google'

Google: Can The Marcia Brady Of Search Stay Sweet?

What else is there? The context of links is extremely important. The words used in or near the links that point at a page help define that page for Google and play a critical role in helping determine what the page will rank well for. Traditional on-the-page factors also remain important. Does a page use the terms that were searched for? Do the words appear "high" in the document? Are the terms in the document's title tag? These are all taken into account.

"We do have over 100 factors, and that is something that people gloss over," Cutts said. "We get queries all the time where people say I have a PR5 and someone has a PR3 and their site is above me."


It would certainly seem to back up what Sharon & Roy have said about the context of the links to a site and the idea that PageRank has less of an effect then many realise.

From my own point of view about this themes debate, it has generally been the case, I believe, that niche sites tend to do very well because of the focussed 'theme'.

Now the technical reasoning behind this maybe a knock on effect of this 'theming' rather than the actual 'theme' itself.

For example take a fansite about a band. The sites address, title tags, content and images are all probably going to relate to that band (if done properly with alt attributes and everything anyway!) and therefore should please the parts of SE's algorithms that look at those aspects.

When you look at the Sears example it would be a lot harder to optimise for a specific word or set of words in the same way because of the range of products on offer. In order for them to do well they must have to take a slightly different approach.

I would also imagine themes help though as with Phil I have no results or evidence to back it up. This enhancement sites may get from being well themed may not be directly linked to that theming but be brought about by it, if that makes any sense :?

#23 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 01:26 AM

Sharon & Roy: like Phil, I really enjoy your posts, as I said over at the MPT forum.  


Hello Ricka,

Thank you! Your compliments are very much appreciated.

Okay, we have to ask ... Where is the MPT forum and how do we get there?

If a client asks us ...  

How do I optimize my page to get a top ranking at Google?  

We reply by asking, what the keyword term is and then saying to acquire as many Backward Links (inbound links) from RELATED pages and sites as you can and make sure that your specific keyword term is in the Anchor Tag Text of all or as many Backward Links as possible.  


Did you NOTICE the word we emphasized? The one in all CAPS ... The word ... "RELATED?"

Those "ARE" the IMPORTANT pages from which we recommend that you acquire your Backward Links.

Your failure to mention this seems to imply that a link from one site is as good as from another. Is this a correct observation?  


In a word ... NO.

In many words ... The RELATED pages will tend to be the important ones based on PageRank and Content not to mention a Top Ranking for your keywords, in which case a link from such a page is often times worth MUCH more than your own listing for that particular keyword phrase, because the site will be found and clicked on many times before yours if you haven't yet made it into the Top 10 or the Top 3.

If so, please elaborate a bit, as so many others emphasize the importance of links from sites with high page rank or many incoming links themselves.


We'll quickly address the second part of your question and then elaborate.

When so many others emphasize the importance of links from sites with high PageRank or many incoming links themselves, it is usually in reference to this question ...

How do I increase my PageRank?

Many Newbies to SEO will read a few articles and visit a few SEO Forums and will subscribe to a few SEO Newsletters.

Unless they have a mentor or a few mentors that they can trust and go to for answers, they will undoubtedly follow the road most traveled, which unfortunately will be the road of misinformation, misunderstanding and myths.

Without a doubt, we believe that the most misunderstood SEO concept is about PageRank.

Therefore, we recommend that unless you are doing SEO research or you don't have any idea what a "bad neighborhood" is, to turn off your Google Toolbar and go about acquiring your Backward Links without its influence. This way you will still acquire links from pages that are PageRank2 today but grow up to be PageRank6 in a few months.

This is how we recommend you start your Link Building Campaign.

1.) Write down your 100 most important Keyword Phrases in ranking order according to the amount of daily searches. ... Which should be 3-word phrases. (4-word phrases are also beneficial IF they have a SUFFICIENT amount of daily queries)

2.) One by one type in these Keyword Phrases in Google.

3.) Contact the
4.) Do the same as
5.) Do the same as
6.) Once you have gone as far across in locating RELATED sites that meet your standards, continue downward.

7.) Then just add water, and repeat on a daily bases. <LOL> If not daily, then weekly, but continue your Link Building Campaign until you reach
8.) Go back to

Thanks again for your help.


Ricka, as always, it is our pleasure!

Your Friends,

Sharon & Roy

#24 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 02:13 AM

Wow! Your generosity with your time and knowledge is off the charts!

Where is the MPT forum and how do we get there?


The MarketPositionTalk forum at http://www.marketpos...ex.cfm?cfapp=11. The Land of Mathern.

One quetion on your 8-step plan for getting top rankings, which I thought was brilliant (sorry to lay it on so thick but I really appreciated it): do you try to get these links back into a particular page optimized for the key word phrase you're trying to boost, or do you point them all back to your home page?

#25 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 02:17 AM

Dear Sharon & Roy,

Sorry for the multiple posts, but another question just occured to me. Don't you find with the 8-step method you outlined that most of the top positions for your key words are occupied by competitors who won't want to link back to you? How do you deal with that?

#26 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 02:53 AM

Therefore, we recommend that unless you are doing SEO research or you don't have any idea what a "bad neighborhood" is, to turn off your Google Toolbar and go about acquiring your Backward Links without its influence. This way you will still acquire links from pages that are PageRank2 today but grow up to be PageRank6 in a few months.

S&R, I am sooooo happy to hear you say that! I think you've changed your stance on that issue from about 6 months ago, no?

I think that is something very, very important for anyone doing a link building campaign. Forget about the PageRank of the sites and simply find ones you think are great and a good fit for yours.

Jill

#27 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 03:38 AM

Another topic I'd like to throw into the mix is that of hubs and authorities. Hubs are pages containing numerous outbound links on a particular topic (Yahoo is an example) and authorities are pages to which many other sites link. Considered strictly from the angle of PageRank, it's my understanding that the value of a link from another site to yours is diminished if there are many links on the page linking to you and that every outbound link on a page diminishes that page's PageRank somewhat. Yet hub pages can rank very well in Google, supporting Sharon & Roy's contention that PageRank is a relatively minor factor in determining the prominence of a page in the search results. I'm not trying to teach you all something here because obviously I don't completely know what I'm talking about. But with a little more help I may finally get a grip on this topic. So go at it, esteemed colleagues!

#28 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 03:00 PM

One question on your 8-step plan for getting top rankings, which I thought was brilliant (sorry to lay it on so thick but I really appreciated it): do you try to get these links back into a particular page optimized for the key word phrase you're trying to boost, or do you point them all back to your home page?


Wow, Rick, it sure feels wonderful to be appreciated and thank you very much for your words of encouragement.

Please forgive us for any wrong assumptions we ever make, but it appears from your questions that you're unclear about how PageRank works and fits into your overall Link Building Campaign. So we'll approach your questions from this perspective.

Just so that we can provide the best OVERALL and somewhat specific and personalized advice, not only for yourself, but for any Newbie who will read this post, we'll assume that you know very little about why it is advantageous for any Website owner to engage in a Link Building Campaign which FOCUSES on the best overall ROI (Return On Investment) and for the least amount of time and money, whether you do this process yourself or whether you outsource it.

So, let's start at the beginning.


Everyday, more and more Website owners arrive at the conclusion that their $2000 investment for their eCommerce Website, and their $500 investment for their initial marketing expenses which simply consisted of using the services of a press release submission service (You know, the "We'll blast your press release to 5000 media editors for $99.00" ones.) and a search engine submission service (Not an SEO service, but the "We'll submit your site to 5000 search engines for $49.00 per month" ones.) and paid for a few banners and newsletter ads did them very little good if any in driving traffic to their site that lead to any sales (or any to speak of).

It is now the end of the second or third month and they still haven't found their Websites listed in the major search engines. But they were told that it usually only takes 4 to 6 weeks for the search engines to list their sites by these submission companies.

Their frustration leads them to search for ... why is my site not listed in the search engines? ... or ... search engine help ... which in turn leads them to various pages offering advice on how to get listed in the search engines. These pages are usually for SEO services, SEO newsletters, SEO Forums or SEO books and publications, so they learn a new word and concept, SEO (Search Engine Optimization).

They quickly learn that they NEED to optimize their Webpages for specific keywords so that the search engines will give them a high ranking.

Now, so far so good for the Website owner, but here is where they usually follow the advice that takes them down the wrong path.

They soon find that this SEO thing is very confusing. They also learn that it is difficult to learn EVERYTHING about it in a few days, so they quickly understand the need to hire a professional.

While this can be a good thing for the Website owner, it can also be a bad thing.

It's a good thing when they find the right SEO practitioner or SEO firm. It's a bad thing when they don't.

As a matter of fact, there are too many so-called SEO practitioners or SEO firms who are unethical and quite eager to separate the Website owner from their money, by making guarantees that they cannot possibly fulfill or else they use deception.

Let's face it, there are many unsuspecting, uneducated in SEO and therefore gullible people who can be easily persuaded to hand over their money at the promise of getting listed
Now, this scenario is actually quite normal for the SEO industry. Most people (about 80%-90% in our opinion) seek SEO services as an AFTERTHOUGHT. After their Website has been designed and after losing money on marketing for a few months.

Now, at this point we could branch off to all of the various things the Website owner could do next, depending on their problem, but for this situation, we'll simply assume that the Website owner wants to pay an SEO to get their Website listed
Now, at this point, we give advice to the Website owner that involves taking the road least traveled over the road most traveled.

[b]The Road Most Traveled = Step
[b]The Road Least Traveled = Step
Now, we'll stop right here and end this particular post, but we'll pick right back up again in our next post and answer your questions ...

Do you try to get these links back into a particular page optimized for the key word phrase you're trying to boost, or do you point them all back to your home page?


The short answer is ... YES.

The longer answer will be explained in our next post.

#29 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 03:01 PM

Attaining high rankings is ALL about links, especially for Google.

Most SEOs do not provide a Link Building Service for their clients and if they do it is either the LAST step of their SEO process and/or they outsource this service.

We say that Link Building should be the FIRST step and then depending on the Website owner's needs, it could be the ONLY step they need in order to obtain a high ranking.


So, we said all of the above to give you some insight on why we will answer your questions the way we will.

Do you try to get these links back into a particular page optimized for the key word phrase you're trying to boost, or do you point them all back to your home page?


Whether you have a 20 page Website or a 20,000 page Website, your Link Building Strategy will be the same.

Since we know that we can achieve a
1.) If you know that you can achieve a
2.) If you know that you can achieve a
3.) If you know that you can achieve a
Okay, we are sure that you have figured out what it takes to achieve a
- Links

- A Link Building Strategy

That's IT. Pretty simple, don't you think?

Yes, actually TOO simple, and therein lies the confusion and the myths and the misconceptions about SEO.

Most folks would rather believe that there are some secrets to SEO that ONLY a select few professionals have privy to.

That somehow these folks have inside information from the search engines themselves due to the fact that their brother, sister or cousin Bob works for them and knows how the algorithms work.

Well, we certainly can't deny that there is a cloud of mystery associated with the SEO industry, and with it comes mass confusion and misinformation. Therefore, many will be out to deceive and to provide unethical ways to take advantage of all the unsuspecting souls who happen to cross their paths.

That is one of the main reasons why we post the type of content that we do and that is also why our content is often challenged and/or attacked and labeled as "unfactual" and why our posting privileges have been removed from a couple of the more popular SEO Forums.

Do you try to get these links back into a particular page optimized for the key word phrase you're trying to boost, or do you point them all back to your home page?


The optimum is to get links back to ALL of your pages. Well, not the pages you don't want indexed, like your privacy statements page and your terms of services page, etc., etc., etc.

Our Link Building Strategy begins with acquiring a sufficient amount of links to your Home Page to at least enter the Top 10 for your chosen keywords. We suggest you begin with getting your Home Page in the Top 10 for at least 10 keywords, but of course, the more the merrier. Just remember that you don't have to have all 10 or all 1000 keywords actually on your Home Page to rank high for them.

We recommend that you optimize your Home Page for at least ONE 3-Word Phrase and no more than THREE 3-Word Phrases if your page is quite large in size (over 80k). Not that we recommend you design a large page mind you, just in case that you do insist on one.

We recommend that your Home Page be 250 to 600 words or about 9k in size. Of course we have other recommendations for "On The Page" SEO Techniques, but this post is about "Off The Page" SEO Techniques, namely Backward Links with your keywords in the Anchor Tag Text.


Feel free to ask any questions that may arise in light of this post, as we will simply end right here but we'll leave you with two quick tips before we do.


SEO TIP: When determining which keywords to place in the Anchor Tag Text of your Backward Links keep in mind that Google will give ranking consideration to any queries that include words not found in the Anchor Tag Text of your Backward Links but found on your page.

For example ... If this is what your Backward Link looks like ...

<a href=http://www.domain.com/>search engine services</a>

... And your Home Page contains the keyword ... optimization ... then a query for ...

search engine optimization services

... WILL find your page.

If your Home Page does not contain the keyword ... optimization ... then a query for ...

search engine optimization services

... WILL NOT find your page.

Keyword research is VERY important, so be intense and thorough about it and you'll be as optimized as possible.


SEO TIP: When determining how to create your Backward Links URL, we always recommend you use this one ...

<a href=http://www.domain.com/>keywords</a>

... And not this one ...

<a href=http://domain.com/>keywords</a>

... Or this one ...

<a href=http://www.domain.com/index.html>keywords</a>

Use the same URL for all of your internal linking (links on your own domain) as well.

#30 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:02 PM

Use the same URL for all of your internal linking (links on your own domain) as well.


Are you saying here that you use absolute linking rather than relative for your internal links?

I'm amazed that you got kicked off forums for posting this kind of stuff! It's such helpful advice and so well written. I'm sure you'll always be welcome here.

#31 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:11 PM

I have some answers to these questions:

[quote]1.) If you know that you can achieve a
2.) If you know that you can achieve a
3.) If you know that you can achieve a
But will have to give them to you all later. Gotta put out a newsletter today...

My short answers would be:

1.) I still would change it.
2.) There are many good reasons to hire someone to rewrite the copy.
3.) Because a Web site is more than simply it's rankings.

Stay tuned...

Jill

#32 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:18 PM

Therefore, we recommend that unless you are doing SEO research or you don't have any idea what a "bad neighborhood" is, to turn off your Google Toolbar and go about acquiring your Backward Links without its influence. This way you will still acquire links from pages that are PageRank2 today but grow up to be PageRank6 in a few months.

S&R, I am sooooo happy to hear you say that! I think you've changed your stance on that issue from about 6 months ago, no?


Hi Jill,

Actually, no we haven't.

Our stance on the issue that you remember about had to do with acquiring links in GENERAL and not in a SPECIFIC way such as you just read where we speak about ONLY selecting pages from the RELATED pages, which we know are ALL good pages regardless of their PageRank value, as opposed to selecting pages from just ANY pages, so in selecting from just ANY pages, our advice would be to FOCUS on acquiring links from HIGH PageRank pages over those with LOW PageRank pages.

The reasons are numerous, but the main reason is because of time.

For example, if you simply get links from ANY page and we get links from ONLY PageRank6 pages and higher, let's say, and if we both only have 1 hour per day to devote to this SEO Technique and we are going for the SAME keyword phrase, let's say ... search engine optimization ... and let's also say that we both currently have zero Backward Links to our brand new Websites, we know that at the end of one month, our page will outrank yours, and after 6 months we will still out rank yours, and after a year will out rank your page by enough of a margin, that we can now begin working on our second keyword phrase and not have to worry for at least a few months about your page ranking ahead of ours.

Repeat this process a few times over in your in mind and soon you begin to understand why we recommend the Link Building Strategy that we do.

SEO is a PROCESS and never a project. Therefore we say you should approach it as a process and not as a project. Look at SEO long-term and not just short-term.

Whether SEOs realize it or not, they are in a race, and the more ground that you can put between you and your competition the harder and LONGER they will have to work to catch up, and many will give up before they can ever catch up.

Our philosophy is simple ... "Look further than your nose is long."

I think that is something very, very important for anyone doing a link building campaign. Forget about the PageRank of the sites and simply find ones you think are great and a good fit for yours.


Jill, GENERALLY and RANDOMLY speaking, we disagree with your strategy, but SPECIFICALLY speaking, we agree with your strategy.

#33 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13362 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:24 PM

As you know, not all the forums have been as welcoming as we would have thought.


Wow. What a thread. And true to Sharon & Roy style, very educational. It never ceases to amaze me how much detail you put into your posts. Your time, research and efforts on behalf of anyone wanting to learn or improve existing skills is very welcome here.

I do understand not being welcome by Forums. I, and other moderators here, have experienced similar things. Oftentimes some Forum rules are quite strict and anything that even remotely sounds like self-promotion to get new business is viewed negatively.

I have a different viewpoint.

My site has always been a teaching site. During my days as a struggling, nearly homeless single mom who was laid off from work I needed a place to go to make myself feel useful. By continuing to study, teach myself new skills, and share what I knew freely via my site, I eventually found work in my field that paid better because I kept working so hard to improve my abilities.

The downer, if you could call it that, was that all the time I spent building up my site, or helping people by volunteering at clubs, newsgroups, and forums, wasn't earning me a dime. I still went days without eating so the kids would eat, but I had a computer and I was helping people.

Why? Networking. I never had any money to promote Cre8pc, but instead I earned the respect of SEO people because of my posts. That networking eventually helped me with freelance jobs, land a really cushy dot.com job (until THAT dot.com crashed) but I rebounded within 3 hours of being laid off by being hired by someone I'd met while networking and freelancing.

The point to all this (I usually get around to it <g>) is that I have tremendous respect and tolerance for anyone who feels driven to knowledge share on Forums. It takes so much time to write tutorial-type posts and many people do it. It may bring them a new client, but SO WHAT?

They earned it. They deserve it.

Of course, the moderators and I can always tell the difference between obvious spam and a genuine post. There's always people who take advantage of a good thing. We can handle that.

But Sharon and Roy are indeed welcome here. May you continue to educate us all, and we will do the same in return. Links to a moderator site, or a page a forum member has that will help someone tackle a problem or answer a question is fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just no porn links, please. Phil already knows it all. LOL :wink:

Kim

#34 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:40 PM

I have some answers to these questions:
My short answers would be:

1.) I still would change it.
2.) There are many good reasons to hire someone to rewrite the copy.
3.) Because a Web site is more than simply it's rankings.

Stay tuned...


Hi Jill,

While we certainly understand where you are coming FROM and where you are GOING in answering these questions, we believe that you are misunderstanding what we are saying here in this scenario.

We said ...

Everyday, more and more Website owners arrive at the conclusion that their $2000 investment for their eCommerce Website, ...


That statement meant that the pages are professionally written copy ($2000 as opposed to $395) to produce sales (eCommerce).

Our scenario is that the pages ARE ALREADY well written copy, but the search terms are so very competitive that they do not rank well WITHOUT the aid of Backward Links with their keywords in the Anchor Tag Text.

The copy is written to produce sales and the Website owner is very pleased with it, and they don't want to change the copy, they just want to rank high for that page without making any "On The Page" changes.

See what we mean, now?

#35 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:47 PM

See what we mean, now?

LOL...yes...but you don't think you can shut me up that easily now do you? (You know me better than that!)

I'll be back....

J

#36 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 05:03 PM

Use the same URL for all of your internal linking (links on your own domain) as well.


Are you saying here that you use absolute linking rather than relative for your internal links?


Hi Rick,

We are saying that you can use either absolute or relative URLs.

Just use this one ...

<a href=http://www.domain.com/>keywords</a>

... Or this one ...

<a href=/>keywords</a>

... And not this one ...

<a href=http://domain.com/>keywords</a>

... And not this one ...

<a href=http://www.domain.com/index.html>keywords</a>

... And not this one ...

<a href=/index.html>keywords</a>


Sorry about not including examples for the relative URLs, as we see now that it could be misinterpreted as to what we actually meant to say.

Thanks for asking, since we know how easy it is for others to miss our intended meanings.

Sometimes folks tell us that we write too much and then when we don't, folks misinterpret our exact meanings and implications.

It is so hard to be brief and yet explicit. <SIGH>


I'm amazed that you got kicked off forums for posting this kind of stuff! It's such helpful advice and so well written. I'm sure you'll always be welcome here.


Well, thank you for your appreciation of our posts, and it's good to know that we're welcome here!!!

#37 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 05:20 PM

... And not this one ...  

<a href=http://domain.com/>keywords</a>  

... And not this one ...  

<a href=http://www.domain.com/index.html>keywords</a>  

... And not this one ...  

<a href=/index.html>keywords</a>


May I ask why? I like to know the reasons behind things.[/code]

#38 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 06:08 PM

As you know, not all the forums have been as welcoming as we would have thought.

Wow. What a thread. And true to Sharon & Roy style, very educational. It never ceases to amaze me how much detail you put into your posts. Your time, research and efforts on behalf of anyone wanting to learn or improve existing skills is very welcome here.


Hi Kim,

Very nice to finally meet with you, virtually speaking, of course, and to dialog with you.

I do understand not being welcome by Forums. I, and other moderators here, have experienced similar things.  


Well, guess the old saying, "SEOs of a feather flock together" must be true, since it looks like we are all slowly but surely finding each other, which of course is a very good thing, indeed.

I have a different viewpoint.


Kim, we applaud your viewpoint and know that in the long run, it is the BEST viewpoint to have.

By continuing to study, teach myself new skills, and share what I knew freely via my site, I eventually found work in my field that paid better because I kept working so hard to improve my abilities.


Kim, that is such an excellent point and what an awesome testimony for everyone who will read this, especially, for the Newbies and the Lurkers.

We find that by our continued research and frequent sharing of those findings that we are actually RETAINING more of the knowledge than if we never shared our findings with anyone. It is definitely a two-way street and we are well aware of the fact that by giving and sharing of ourselves will eventually come back in one form or another. Plus it is so very enriching to our lives to meet so many new friends by doing what we do.

Why? Networking.  


Ahhh, we LOVE that word. That word and all it implies should be music to everyone's ears when they hear it or read it. Networking is for EVERYONE, whether business related or on a personal level. Networking is something we all do, whether we realize it or not. Some are just more in tune about it than others and they even LOOK for the benefits as well as the opportunities to be of benefit, every chance they get.

Of course, the moderators and I can always tell the difference between obvious spam and a genuine post. There's always people who take advantage of a good thing. We can handle that.

But Sharon and Roy are indeed welcome here. May you continue to educate us all, and we will do the same in return.  Links to a moderator site, or a page a forum member has that will help someone tackle a problem or answer a question is fine as far as I'm concerned.


Thanks Kim!

We certainly do feel welcome here.

You know, it's communities just like the one that you are laying the foundation for here with such a GIVING and CARING attitude that will end up going the distance and becoming one of the truly outstanding "watering holes" of the Internet. We commend you for your efforts and for your perseverance in all your struggles. You certainly have the right attitude, and we can tell that you are the type of woman that never gives up and never gives in.

We enjoy this community immensely, and thank you all for your open arms and open hearts,

Your Friends,

Sharon & Roy

#39 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 06:40 PM

I'd like to second that emotion. I've been participating in the groups.yahoo.com version of this forum for a while and I've found the tone to be consistently kinder, gentler, and more loving than that of any other forum or chat group I've participated. Downright mushy at times. :D

We find that by our continued research and frequent sharing of those findings that we are actually RETAINING more of the knowledge than if we never shared our findings with anyone. It is definitely a two-way street and we are well aware of the fact that by giving and sharing of ourselves will eventually come back in one form or another.


As you'll note from my profile, I'm into meditation, and I taught it for 25 years. During my teacher training, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi emphasized repeatedly that teaching is the best way to learn. You don't really own something until you share it. That may help explain why you guys are so knowledgeable! That may also be the meaning behind the saying, "It's more blessed to give than to receive."

#40 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 September 2002 - 06:44 PM

See what we mean, now?

LOL...yes...but you don't think you can shut me up that easily now do you? (You know me better than that!)

I'll be back....


Jill, honestly, heaven forbid it would be that easy ... <LOL> <WINK> <WINK>

And, yes of course, we know you better than that.

We always look forward to your posts and oft times we even look backwards at your posts to see if we missed anything. J/K witja



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users