Common misconception about PR

I have said this before and I have yet to be proved wrong on this...

but you do not need links to your site to get listed on Google. This
defeats the whole idea of a search engine aka to go out and find content
and good relevant content to display to the user of that search engine.

You invite google to search your site and trawl the pages for relevant
content.

The google stores the content where it can on their servers for later
retrevial.

Now their results of the keywords are scored on the relevancy of those
terms akin to the site NOT ON ITS RANKING

Ranking is a different thing! This is still a trial for google, akin to
the alexa tool bar.

The tool bar also reports back to google on the success of their results
and how far the visitor has gone into the site.

If you want to get listed in google then follow the basic principles of
good solid content created in a broswer and bot friendly way, then go to
google to invite them to your site. Check your logs and ammend to
content and keep it fresh and updated as often as possible.

Then once you have the site as close to perfect as possile then go and
get links from complementary sites. This is good practise anyway for
site owners, but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of
time and end up doing your site more harm then good.
--
--
Alex Gogan - meta (AT) fbi (DOT) ie
"The pen is mightier than the sword" - Earle Edward George
Bulwer-Lytton
(1803-1873)

Alex Gogan wrote:

Then once you have the site as close to perfect as possile then go and
get links from complementary sites. This is good practise anyway for
site owners, but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of
time and end up doing your site more harm then good.

Makes more sense to link to the site immediately from another domain
you control; ideally a domain with high PageRank. You've got the wrong
idea.
--
http://www.dextromethorphan.ws/
For information about the psychedelic drug DXM, including dangers.

rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski wrote:

Alex Gogan wrote:

Then once you have the site as close to perfect as possile then go and
get links from complementary sites. This is good practise anyway for
site owners, but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of
time and end up doing your site more harm then good.

Makes more sense to link to the site immediately from another domain
you control; ideally a domain with high PageRank. You've got the wrong
idea.

Well the vast majority of people who come into this list only control

one site and would not be able to do this. Yes the desired result would
to have many sites linking to you but sometimes this is very hard, bar
setting up another site and trying to lift this up (then we get into the
circle all over again).

As long as site owners put most of the initial effort into their
content, structure etc they WILL get listed. Then overtime if they chase
to get links mores the better, but this is limited before google looks
upon too many links (swapped) as a mini link farm and then the whole PR
thing will just get dumped as we know it.
--
--
Alex Gogan - meta (AT) fbi (DOT) ie
"The pen is mightier than the sword" - Earle Edward George
Bulwer-Lytton
(1803-1873)

Alex Gogan wrote:

rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski wrote:

Makes more sense to link to the site immediately from another
domain you control; ideally a domain with high PageRank. You've got
the wrong idea.

Well the vast majority of people who come into this list only control
one site and would not be able to do this. Yes the desired result
would to have many sites linking to you but sometimes this is very
hard, bar setting up another site and trying to lift this up (then we
get into the circle all over again).

How many people don't have relatives, friends, etc. with personal
sites that they could beg for a link?
--
http://www.dextromethorphan.ws/
For information about the psychedelic drug DXM, including dangers.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:10:39 +0100, Alex Gogan <meta (AT) fbi (DOT) ie> wrote:

I have said this before and I have yet to be proved wrong on this...

but you do not need links to your site to get listed on Google.

Hi,

Depends what you mean by links. If your "site" consists of just one
page and it has no links Google will almost certainly drop it (like it
should as it's not important).

If you have a 'normal' site consisting of dozens of pages that are
linked together (cross linked) then maybe it will be enough links for
Google to consider the pages on the site important. Question then is
how many links (internal or incoming, which I believe are treated in
an identical way) does it take for Google to spider and maintain a
page in it's database long term? I don't know and don't need to know
since it's easy to get links (worst case build a load of new pages).

We've all seen the posts "I made this site, great results for a few
days now nothing for weeks from google". When I've looked at these
sites they tend to be relatively small (less than 20 pages) or for
coding reasons not all the pages are spiderable. This suggests without
a minimum number of links (from any page internal/incomming) Google
will not list a site long term. BTW one link from a PR6 page say could
be the same as 1000 links from brand new pages, so it's not as simple
as counting the absolute number of links as one link from the right
page is enough to be listed in google long term (DMOZ is a good
example of this).

So I would agree with you that a site consisting of multiple pages
doesn't necessarily need incoming links (I assume you were ignoring
internal linking) to get into Google. But to do really well on
competitive search terms they help a hell of a lot.

This
defeats the whole idea of a search engine aka to go out and find content
and good relevant content to display to the user of that search engine.

You invite google to search your site and trawl the pages for relevant
content.

The google stores the content where it can on their servers for later
retrevial.

Now their results of the keywords are scored on the relevancy of those
terms akin to the site NOT ON ITS RANKING

The above is fine except what's stopping someone finding great content
on the top SERPs results and just copying it to their pages? Which
page should Google then consider the best??

I think you'll agree there needs to be a way to prevent or at least
minimise people doing this successfully, and that way currently is PR
and anchor text/ALT text of incoming links (and probably some other
factors).

This is why a page can stay the same, but move up and down in the
SERPs as the number/quality of links changes over time.

Take this page I put up 9 weeks ago.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...imization.html

When it first got added to Googles database (3 to 4 weeks later) it
had a handful of mostly new pages linked to it i.e. a few forum posts
(none showing as backlinks), so wasn't considered important (had PR0
ranked ~310 for Search Engine Optimization, this ranking would be
based on the content alone).

It's now got some better quality links (i.e. from our Lingerie site
which is PR7, though not the linking page PR5 (this link page was also
new started PR1)) some with the phrase in the anchor/alt text of the
links. Yesterday it jumped to 90 odd for this phrase. When Google
starts moving again I expect it to move closer to the top 10 since
I've added a couple more pages to the mini site with the anchor text
Search Engine Optimization and other links will kick in by then (will
also look for new links). Also plan to add more pages as I get the
time, would really like to see a page of mine number 1 for Search
Engine Optimization :-))

Ranking is a different thing! This is still a trial for google, akin to
the alexa tool bar.

The tool bar also reports back to google on the success of their results
and how far the visitor has gone into the site.

If you want to get listed in google then follow the basic principles of
good solid content created in a broswer and bot friendly way, then go to
google to invite them to your site. Check your logs and ammend to
content and keep it fresh and updated as often as possible.

I agree with you so far.

Then once you have the site as close to perfect as possile then go and
get links from complementary sites. This is good practise anyway for
site owners, but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of
time and end up doing your site more harm then good.
--

Getting links can not harm your site (unless it's from a banned site
and your reciprocate). You may argue links won't help a badly designed
site (for SEO purposes), but even if you have the worst designed site
in the world that Google can't spider, if you have links soon after
you sort the problems with the site out Google will be there.

Could you qualify this bit a little further as I don't see it-

::but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of time and end up doing your site more harm then good.

David
_
Free Search Engine Optimization, SEO and
Search Engine Placement Tips (updated 31/08/2003)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...-optimization/

In addition to manually submitting the page to Google, I think you can
sometimes get a page into Google simply by accessing the page while you have
the toolbar active. You can also give is a plus vote to encourage the
process. If this doesn't work, putting links to the new page from anywhere
will help significanlty.

Content is then key then to getting displayed in the search results. Even a
PR=0 page will show up fine if the content is sufficientiy unique.

I've put my guess as to how page rank works at:
http://www.satsig.net/pagerank.htm
I've created something called "page points" which may underly the PR display
figures and it is helpful to me at least in trying to make sense of what is
going on with links and PR.

Best regards, Eric.

"SEO" <ooar123SP (AT) AMntlworld (DOT) com> wrote

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:10:39 +0100, Alex Gogan <meta (AT) fbi (DOT) ie> wrote:

I have said this before and I have yet to be proved wrong on this...

but you do not need links to your site to get listed on Google.

Hi,

Depends what you mean by links. If your "site" consists of just one
page and it has no links Google will almost certainly drop it (like it
should as it's not important).

If you have a 'normal' site consisting of dozens of pages that are
linked together (cross linked) then maybe it will be enough links for
Google to consider the pages on the site important. Question then is
how many links (internal or incoming, which I believe are treated in
an identical way) does it take for Google to spider and maintain a
page in it's database long term? I don't know and don't need to know
since it's easy to get links (worst case build a load of new pages).

We've all seen the posts "I made this site, great results for a few
days now nothing for weeks from google". When I've looked at these
sites they tend to be relatively small (less than 20 pages) or for
coding reasons not all the pages are spiderable. This suggests without
a minimum number of links (from any page internal/incomming) Google
will not list a site long term. BTW one link from a PR6 page say could
be the same as 1000 links from brand new pages, so it's not as simple
as counting the absolute number of links as one link from the right
page is enough to be listed in google long term (DMOZ is a good
example of this).

So I would agree with you that a site consisting of multiple pages
doesn't necessarily need incoming links (I assume you were ignoring
internal linking) to get into Google. But to do really well on
competitive search terms they help a hell of a lot.

This
defeats the whole idea of a search engine aka to go out and find content
and good relevant content to display to the user of that search engine.

You invite google to search your site and trawl the pages for relevant
content.

The google stores the content where it can on their servers for later
retrevial.

Now their results of the keywords are scored on the relevancy of those
terms akin to the site NOT ON ITS RANKING


The above is fine except what's stopping someone finding great content
on the top SERPs results and just copying it to their pages? Which
page should Google then consider the best??

I think you'll agree there needs to be a way to prevent or at least
minimise people doing this successfully, and that way currently is PR
and anchor text/ALT text of incoming links (and probably some other
factors).

This is why a page can stay the same, but move up and down in the
SERPs as the number/quality of links changes over time.

Take this page I put up 9 weeks ago.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...n/search-engin

e-optimization.html

When it first got added to Googles database (3 to 4 weeks later) it
had a handful of mostly new pages linked to it i.e. a few forum posts
(none showing as backlinks), so wasn't considered important (had PR0
ranked ~310 for Search Engine Optimization, this ranking would be
based on the content alone).

It's now got some better quality links (i.e. from our Lingerie site
which is PR7, though not the linking page PR5 (this link page was also
new started PR1)) some with the phrase in the anchor/alt text of the
links. Yesterday it jumped to 90 odd for this phrase. When Google
starts moving again I expect it to move closer to the top 10 since
I've added a couple more pages to the mini site with the anchor text
Search Engine Optimization and other links will kick in by then (will
also look for new links). Also plan to add more pages as I get the
time, would really like to see a page of mine number 1 for Search
Engine Optimization :-))

Ranking is a different thing! This is still a trial for google, akin to
the alexa tool bar.

The tool bar also reports back to google on the success of their results
and how far the visitor has gone into the site.

If you want to get listed in google then follow the basic principles of
good solid content created in a broswer and bot friendly way, then go to
google to invite them to your site. Check your logs and ammend to
content and keep it fresh and updated as often as possible.

I agree with you so far.

Then once you have the site as close to perfect as possile then go and
get links from complementary sites. This is good practise anyway for
site owners, but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of
time and end up doing your site more harm then good.
--

Getting links can not harm your site (unless it's from a banned site
and your reciprocate). You may argue links won't help a badly designed
site (for SEO purposes), but even if you have the worst designed site
in the world that Google can't spider, if you have links soon after
you sort the problems with the site out Google will be there.

Could you qualify this bit a little further as I don't see it-

::but getting links for links sake can often be a waste of time and end up
doing your site more harm then good.

David
_
Free Search Engine Optimization, SEO and
Search Engine Placement Tips (updated 31/08/2003)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...-optimization/

Ok dose of paranoia here, my PR has being 7 for quites some time, then
yesterday it dropped to 5. Now to be honest I do not really care (honest

:¬} ) but the interesting thing is I have received more traffic good
and solid stuff from a whole host of sites, from download.com (PR 7)

Cnet.com (PR8) etc. Now I have received in the last 2 days over 19% of
the value traffic of August. Our external links have dramatically
increased (most of our clients also link to us - got over 800)

I have being outspoken about google, but I am really truely sorry that I
caused Google some upset, and I offer a biccie (choc chip) in the hopes
that my PR will be granted a stay of execution.

Please.....

_,._
__.o` o`"-.
.-O o `"-.o O )_,._
( o O o )--.-"`O o"-.
'--------' ( o O o)
`----------`

:¬}
--

--
Alex Gogan - meta (AT) fbi (DOT) ie
"The pen is mightier than the sword" - Earle Edward George
Bulwer-Lytton
(1803-1873)

I know absolutely NO ONE who has a site!!
maybe Im pathetic..but most of my family and friends are pc and webtv
illiterate and lucky to even get to a site with a good URL..and then
they aredoing it at the libary.
I have sent out requests to more than a hundred sites to arrange a link
back to me if I put their link on my page..the sadfact is..a lot of
people build sites then forget about them..or arent interested in
linking to anyone..as I got back exactly two responses.
google adwords reeks by the way.

<BSkaar (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote

I know absolutely NO ONE who has a site!!
maybe Im pathetic..but most of my family and friends are pc and webtv
illiterate and lucky to even get to a site with a good URL..and then
they aredoing it at the libary.
I have sent out requests to more than a hundred sites to arrange a link
back to me if I put their link on my page..the sadfact is..a lot of
people build sites then forget about them..or arent interested in
linking to anyone..as I got back exactly two responses.
google adwords reeks by the way.

What is the url of uour site ?
Best regards, Eric

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT), BSkaar (AT) webtv (DOT) net wrote:

I know absolutely NO ONE who has a site!!
maybe Im pathetic..but most of my family and friends are pc and webtv
illiterate and lucky to even get to a site with a good URL..and then
they aredoing it at the libary.

Hi,

LOL, same here not a single person I know in real life with a web
site!

I have sent out requests to more than a hundred sites to arrange a link
back to me if I put their link on my page..the sadfact is..a lot of
people build sites then forget about them..or arent interested in
linking to anyone..as I got back exactly two responses.
google adwords reeks by the way.

There are other ways to get links including making new sites that help
each other out, if they are good someone will link to them. Then you
can post in forums and put your link in the sig, if you are after PR
make sure the forums are spidered by Google and they have reasonable
PR. You can find some forums with PR8 home pages, so deep forum pages
could be PR5. Spend a year at a forum like that posting one message a
day your sites PR (with a conservative estimate) would be at least PR5
and probably PR6+.

I've recently started looking for reciprocal links (have two so far,
both directories so the 'semi automated' type where you add a link to
them and they then add yours). I'm not really enjoying it, so much
hassle for so little return.

What's your sites url?

David
_
Free Search Engine Optimization, SEO and
Search Engine Placement Tips (updated 31/08/2003)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...-optimization/