Baffled by Google results

Hi folks,

Can anyone explain this, I have been trying to get a decent postion on
a two word search term, lets just call the words "one" and "two" and
its not a difficult search term, something like 50000.

I have tried various pages, all with good SEO practice (AFAIK)
including the inbound anchor text being "one two". I never managed to
get the page above postion 80 in Google, it also has PR4 and is
internally linked from PR4 and a PR5 five page and externally from a
PR4 page.

One of the sites on the first page has clearly never been optimised
for these words, it has:-

"one two" density = 1 (Title only)
"one" density = 7 - 1 in title rest in text only
"Two" density = 5 - 1 in title, 1 Bold, 1 Link, rest in text

The words are scattered, not near the top or anything yet this gets
first page. The site has PR2, very few inbound links, none of the IBLs
are anchored with "one" "two" or "one two".

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

"AS" <news1 (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote

Hi folks,

Can anyone explain this, I have been trying to get a decent postion on
a two word search term, lets just call the words "one" and "two" and
its not a difficult search term, something like 50000.

I have tried various pages, all with good SEO practice (AFAIK)
including the inbound anchor text being "one two". I never managed to
get the page above postion 80 in Google, it also has PR4 and is
internally linked from PR4 and a PR5 five page and externally from a
PR4 page.

One of the sites on the first page has clearly never been optimised
for these words, it has:-

"one two" density = 1 (Title only)
"one" density = 7 - 1 in title rest in text only
"Two" density = 5 - 1 in title, 1 Bold, 1 Link, rest in text

The words are scattered, not near the top or anything yet this gets
first page. The site has PR2, very few inbound links, none of the IBLs
are anchored with "one" "two" or "one two".

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

Can't make to much out of it, since there really isn't anything to go by.
You didn't give any URL's of the sites or keywords. Keyword placement and
density plays a part in relevancy. But, a big part is those one to two
keywords are in anchor text going to that one site probably.

--
Stacey

Stacey's Simple Stuff
Rag Rugs - Home Decor Accessories- Crocheted Crafts
http://www.staceyssimplestuff.com

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

It's difficult to make anything from it without knowing what the search
terms are. Is there a special reason for the cloak and dagger secrecy?
Generally speaking, if you raise hypothetical questions you'll get
hypothetical answers.

Regards

--
Andrew Gibson

JELLYPIE SOFTWARE
Digital Video Editing Software, FAQ's, Resources and Filming Tips.
http://www.jellypie.co.uk

"AS" <news1 (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote

Hi folks,

Can anyone explain this, I have been trying to get a decent postion on
a two word search term, lets just call the words "one" and "two" and
its not a difficult search term, something like 50000.

I have tried various pages, all with good SEO practice (AFAIK)
including the inbound anchor text being "one two". I never managed to
get the page above postion 80 in Google, it also has PR4 and is
internally linked from PR4 and a PR5 five page and externally from a
PR4 page.

One of the sites on the first page has clearly never been optimised
for these words, it has:-

"one two" density = 1 (Title only)
"one" density = 7 - 1 in title rest in text only
"Two" density = 5 - 1 in title, 1 Bold, 1 Link, rest in text

The words are scattered, not near the top or anything yet this gets
first page. The site has PR2, very few inbound links, none of the IBLs
are anchored with "one" "two" or "one two".

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

Let's say you are using "one two" to get #1, well sir, the first thing I
can say is that you are doing "X" incorrectly.

If I were you I would change the way you are doing "X" by doing more of "Y"
until you get to the top of Google results.

Adding about one hours worth of "Z" per week will help you big time starting
out and make your life much easier down the road.

HIH

P.S.
Details will help you get a "real" answer.
The people who know what they are talking about are way too busy to play
guessing games.

--

James Taylor

http://www.aicompany.com - Search Engine Optimization Services
http://www.seo-highrankings.com - Free SEO Tools!

"seo-highrankings.com" <info (AT) seo-hiNOTINTOghranSPAkings (DOT) MMINGcom> wrote in
message news:109l8qolqer7442 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com...

"AS" <news1 (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote in message
news:116d2e2a.0405061001.7b02dc0b (AT) posting (DOT) google.com...
Hi folks,

Can anyone explain this, I have been trying to get a decent postion on
a two word search term, lets just call the words "one" and "two" and
its not a difficult search term, something like 50000.

I have tried various pages, all with good SEO practice (AFAIK)
including the inbound anchor text being "one two". I never managed to
get the page above postion 80 in Google, it also has PR4 and is
internally linked from PR4 and a PR5 five page and externally from a
PR4 page.

One of the sites on the first page has clearly never been optimised
for these words, it has:-

"one two" density = 1 (Title only)
"one" density = 7 - 1 in title rest in text only
"Two" density = 5 - 1 in title, 1 Bold, 1 Link, rest in text

The words are scattered, not near the top or anything yet this gets
first page. The site has PR2, very few inbound links, none of the IBLs
are anchored with "one" "two" or "one two".

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

Let's say you are using "one two" to get #1, well sir, the first thing I
can say is that you are doing "X" incorrectly.

If I were you I would change the way you are doing "X" by doing more of
"Y"
until you get to the top of Google results.

Adding about one hours worth of "Z" per week will help you big time
starting
out and make your life much easier down the road.

HIH

At first I had thought it was the use of one and two.

Lets break it down.
The site in question has a good use of one. The title- one plus two- minus
three- one . This clearly equals one. And throughout the body text has, one
minus zero =1, one plus one = two, two minus one =1.

But then I thought will it could mixed with other words like three minus two
=1, and four minus three =1.

As you can see with my theory the site in question keeps coming up with the
1. So, it would only be natural that this site would be above the other
site. :-)


--
Stacey

Stacey's Simple Stuff
Rag Rugs - Home Decor Accessories- Crocheted Crafts
http://www.staceyssimplestuff.com

On 6 May 2004 11:01:52 -0700, news1 (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com (AS) wrote:

Hi folks,

Can anyone explain this, I have been trying to get a decent postion on
a two word search term, lets just call the words "one" and "two" and
its not a difficult search term, something like 50000.

I have tried various pages, all with good SEO practice (AFAIK)
including the inbound anchor text being "one two". I never managed to
get the page above postion 80 in Google, it also has PR4 and is
internally linked from PR4 and a PR5 five page and externally from a
PR4 page.

One of the sites on the first page has clearly never been optimised
for these words, it has:-

"one two" density = 1 (Title only)
"one" density = 7 - 1 in title rest in text only
"Two" density = 5 - 1 in title, 1 Bold, 1 Link, rest in text

The words are scattered, not near the top or anything yet this gets
first page. The site has PR2, very few inbound links, none of the IBLs
are anchored with "one" "two" or "one two".

So what do you make of that?

Thanks.

Google is a bucket of crap these days, that's what I make of it.

BB

that's right BB - no relevancy, a bunch of results are just link farms,
spamming sites or other search engines - what sense does it make to get
another search engine as a result in Google - I am already in a search
engine!!!! Bring me results and not that crap. I think spam sites are
Google's best friends these days and no one cares about it - at least no one
at Google, they are busy with adwords and Wall Street. I like Yahoo - even
there is a little spam problem also obvious....

tony

Google is a bucket of crap these days, that's what I make of it.

BB

Tony wrote:

that's right BB - no relevancy, a bunch of results are just link farms,
spamming sites or other search engines - what sense does it make to get
another search engine as a result in Google - I am already in a search
engine!!!! Bring me results and not that crap. I think spam sites are
Google's best friends these days and no one cares about it - at least no one
at Google, they are busy with adwords and Wall Street. I like Yahoo - even
there is a little spam problem also obvious....

Cached SE results posing as directories are a real problem for Google at the
moment. They would be less of a problem if PR had not been devalued and anchor
text was not so overvalued. But relying on PR too much opens up other
possibilities for Google to be gamed. So they may not be able to simply go back
to the way things were before.

I've noticed some things: some of these leech directories use normal links,
others cloak the link so it doesn't pass PR, and a few both cloak the link and
send visitors to the wrong site altogether. I agree that the results suck, but
if SE's can't do anything is there anything webmasters can do?

--
Alice Woolley
http://www.insidethebubble.co.uk/
Inside the Bubble - autism information

Page and Brin are brilliant mathematics - no question about that but they
could figure out the possibilities and options their PR offers to anybody -
good ones and bad ones but they didn't and now the mess is big. PR is fine
but just with a real little weight on it, if I can screw up results with a
simple two words Google bomb .... there is something wrong with the system -
period.
A search engine should help people, should make sense - right? Right now
Google makes no sense at all. Everything that did put Google above the
others in the past is gone - this is my opinion and they have to act pretty
quick because the others are quite awake and good - which actually is a very
good thing.
If they would just check their guideline and stick to it.
It can't be that difficult to check web sites for things they actually say
to avoid, but check the situation today:
Avoid hidden text or hidden links. - LOL, how many top results we see every
single day??
Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects. - LOL, same thing.
Don't send automated queries to Google. - no problem
Don't load pages with irrelevant words - not a big problem because it makes
no sense to do this
Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially
duplicate content. - LOL, what is the situation today? Worse than last week
Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie
cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original
content - LOL, same thing
Their spider can check so many things but not simple things such as hidden
text? Even made the stupid way with back ground color #FFFFFF and Text color
#FFFFFF? They cannot identify just stupid link farms - pages with just links
as content? They cannot identify redirects? All those things I can show you
hundreds of spamming sites who are on the top of sometimes very competitive
search terms over the last 6 - 12 months.
They cannot identify some domain spamming like that: hello.texas.xxx,
hello.newyork.xxx, hello.california.xxx, hello.dallas.xxx,
hello.losangeles.xxx, hello.germany.xxx, hello.france.xxx, hello.paris.xxx
and on and on and on - hundreds of them, just hijacking hundreds of SERP's
the other day - now I say that's a stupid system - period. To put all the
effort into PR?? They should have put some of the effort into simple things
to cut the spam quite a bit.

Webmaster can't do that much because there are always some of them happy -
always the first 10 results have happy webmaster, it doesn't matter how they
reached that spot, 10 are pissed, 10 others are happy and that's what Google
actually count on - piss 10 off but gain 10 happy ones and since their
search is free for everyone.. they are in the position not to care about it!
But they should care about people who try to find something, the average
user maybe will never find out what crap they get served, they just think
search engines and their results are just crap...
But everyone who uses Google for searching the web can do something - don't
use Google right now, put pressure on them, let their log files shrink until
they smell of fear, don't use their adwords which is already a playground
for fraud.....again, Yahoo is not that bad at all right now - no, I'm not a
Yahoo employee/fan/stock holder...I'm just a normal guy who was a big fan of
Google and got very disappointed about all those things Google lost because
of just simple and stupid tricks/webmaster/mistakes/commercializing -
brilliance, Google was just brilliant, brilliant fast, brilliant relevant -
a brilliant star on the clear sky.
tony

Cached SE results posing as directories are a real problem for Google at
the
moment. They would be less of a problem if PR had not been devalued and
anchor
text was not so overvalued. But relying on PR too much opens up other
possibilities for Google to be gamed. So they may not be able to simply go
back
to the way things were before.

I've noticed some things: some of these leech directories use normal
links,
others cloak the link so it doesn't pass PR, and a few both cloak the link
and
send visitors to the wrong site altogether. I agree that the results suck,
but
if SE's can't do anything is there anything webmasters can do?

--
Alice Woolley
http://www.insidethebubble.co.uk/
Inside the Bubble - autism information

Well no sooner had I started this thread Google started an update and
I am now in #2 accross the whole Google farm for my "one two" search.
I will be hard pushed to get to #1 as the top site is a manufacturer
with great back links, #2 is fantastic as far as I am concerned!

Once again the whole thing is down to patience, I am just too
impatient and keep expecting overnight results. What's even more
ironic is that the page it gave the #2 rank was not the one I had
really spent ages SEOing but a more spammy kind of page. Again this is
probably down to time, the SEOd page is very new.

Regards to all.