2 websites compared

Hi all,
I am new to the list and this is my first post for any of the gurus
around here.
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

The seach term I am using is 'disseny web lleida' in google.es (Spain).

The non-optimised site is studiblau.com (PR2), it is a one page site
with no meta tags, no keywords in the title tag, no copy text and with
only one back link spotted by google.

The comparison is versus wentinia.com (PR2). This site has the search
terms in the title tag, meta tags and copy. The site has 46 pages and 2
back links.

Yahoo.es ranks higher sentinia.com as I would expect looking at both
sites, but why is this happening in Google which makes sentinia.com
(the optimised site) rank 2 postions below.
Anything to do with the live time of each site?

Many thanks in advance for the knowledgeable people on this list.

On 27 Nov 2006 04:04:38 -0800, "Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi all,
I am new to the list and this is my first post for any of the gurus
around here.
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

The seach term I am using is 'disseny web lleida' in google.es (Spain).

The non-optimised site is studiblau.com (PR2), it is a one page site
with no meta tags, no keywords in the title tag, no copy text and with
only one back link spotted by google.

You mean there's only one link Google tells you about. There could be
dozens. Try Yahoo to get a more accurate picture.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

Thanks Bill for your answer, but sentinia.com has over 140 back links
in Yahoo and estudiblau.com only 36. So looking at these figures the
original question is still unresolved.
Any clue why the 'less' optimised website ranks higher in Google?
Maybe the few back links have higher PR? or longer live time of the
domain name on the internet?
Any help is more than welcome, a mistery so far for me...


Big Bill ha escrito:

On 27 Nov 2006 04:04:38 -0800, "Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi all,
I am new to the list and this is my first post for any of the gurus
around here.
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

The seach term I am using is 'disseny web lleida' in google.es (Spain).

The non-optimised site is studiblau.com (PR2), it is a one page site
with no meta tags, no keywords in the title tag, no copy text and with
only one back link spotted by google.

You mean there's only one link Google tells you about. There could be
dozens. Try Yahoo to get a more accurate picture.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On 27 Nov 2006 07:02:30 -0800, "Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Thanks Bill for your answer, but sentinia.com has over 140 back links
in Yahoo and estudiblau.com only 36. So looking at these figures the
original question is still unresolved.

No it isn't. Theirs might be better quaity, it's not just about
numbers.
And don't top post.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

"Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote...

I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

It all depends on the search term and what you mean by optimised.

You can do waht you like in the way of optimisation, but still be beaten by
a well-designed page with unique content. Age can matter, because the links
a site 'earns' over the years are likely to be deserved recommendations, and
the quality of links matters as much - or more - than the sheer number.

Search engines don't rank sites in an absolute way; every search is a search
among what SEs dem to be 'the most relevant' - not the best, biggest or most
optimised.

Plus, of course, over optimization is worse than no optimisation at all.

To summarize, Google looks for the 'best match', and neither knows nor cares
how it finds that. And the best way to optimize s to build the best site for
visitors - anything else can turn round and bite you.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

Andrew Heenan ha escrito:

"Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote...
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

It all depends on the search term and what you mean by optimised.

You can do waht you like in the way of optimisation, but still be beaten by
a well-designed page with unique content. Age can matter, because the links
a site 'earns' over the years are likely to be deserved recommendations, and
the quality of links matters as much - or more - than the sheer number.

Search engines don't rank sites in an absolute way; every search is a search
among what SEs dem to be 'the most relevant' - not the best, biggest or most
optimised.

Plus, of course, over optimization is worse than no optimisation at all.

To summarize, Google looks for the 'best match', and neither knows nor cares
how it finds that. And the best way to optimize s to build the best site for
visitors - anything else can turn round and bite you.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

Thanks a lot Andrew for you response, and I agree that the best way to
optimise a site is to build the best site for visitors. That's why I
also think that sentinia.com is better site and has better content than
estudiblau.com because while this last one is only a one page with a
list of designed websites and clients. Sentinia.com tells things and
gives input to customers.
I know a little about SEO and I am just puzzled about this case for
which I can't find a reasonable answer.

Although in another language, you can have a quick look and judge for
yourself.
The search term is 'disseny web lleida' (web design Lleida).

Many thanks, I really appreciate your input.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:43:44 GMT, "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net>
wrote:

"Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote...
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

It all depends on the search term and what you mean by optimised.

You can do waht you like in the way of optimisation, but still be beaten by
a well-designed page with unique content. Age can matter, because the links
a site 'earns' over the years are likely to be deserved recommendations, and
the quality of links matters as much - or more - than the sheer number.

Search engines don't rank sites in an absolute way; every search is a search
among what SEs dem to be 'the most relevant' - not the best, biggest or most
optimised.

Plus, of course, over optimization is worse than no optimisation at all.

To summarize, Google looks for the 'best match', and neither knows nor cares
how it finds that.

?

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On 27 Nov 2006 09:32:08 -0800, "Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Andrew Heenan ha escrito:

"Jordi" <ferrercancho (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote...
I would like to understand why a non optimised site is ranking higher
than a optimised one.

It all depends on the search term and what you mean by optimised.

You can do waht you like in the way of optimisation, but still be beaten by
a well-designed page with unique content. Age can matter, because the links
a site 'earns' over the years are likely to be deserved recommendations, and
the quality of links matters as much - or more - than the sheer number.

Search engines don't rank sites in an absolute way; every search is a search
among what SEs dem to be 'the most relevant' - not the best, biggest or most
optimised.

Plus, of course, over optimization is worse than no optimisation at all.

To summarize, Google looks for the 'best match', and neither knows nor cares
how it finds that. And the best way to optimize s to build the best site for
visitors - anything else can turn round and bite you.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

Thanks a lot Andrew for you response, and I agree that the best way to
optimise a site is to build the best site for visitors. That's why I
also think that sentinia.com is better site and has better content than
estudiblau.com because while this last one is only a one page with a
list of designed websites and clients. Sentinia.com tells things and
gives input to customers.
I know a little about SEO and I am just puzzled about this case for
which I can't find a reasonable answer.

Tempting to suggest here that Andrew can't either.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm