Re: Questions about Google Ranking and Linking

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissädo4l19i5bii4tidi99j1bra73n9f8o2qt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

<snip>

I did say without ""

What you failed to realize is that basically no-one is targetting for that
keyword combination. Search it with:

"good search experience" (321),
intext:"good search experience" (319)
inanchor:"good search experience" (3)
intitle:"good search experience" (0)

and you might realize there is no competition for those keywords, no matter
if original search result without "" shows huge amount of pages and yours is
1st. So, almost any page with IBL anchor containing those keywords would get
quite high without "" because there is no competition.

"Wÿrm" <nomailstodragon (AT) north (DOT) invalid> wrote

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissädo4l19i5bii4tidi99j1bra73n9f8o2qt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I did say without ""

What you failed to realize is that basically no-one is targetting for that
keyword combination. Search it with:

"good search experience" (321),
intext:"good search experience" (319)
inanchor:"good search experience" (3)
intitle:"good search experience" (0)

and you might realize there is no competition for those keywords, no
matter if original search result without "" shows huge amount of pages and
yours is 1st. So, almost any page with IBL anchor containing those
keywords would get quite high without "" because there is no competition.

Basically, the reason why.:-)

Stacey

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:07:02 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:sck4l1dt42jcoo0ped3i5b41rdok57d001 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:38:59 +0200, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

snip


If you knew that the domain had a PR of 9 so the page itself can not be a
truly a PR0 why did you
mention it in regards to PR theories?

Why not ?
All theories have more than one side.

Sure of course what is your side?
I didn't say I was on a different side. I agree that links make up PR

- as well as many other things.

I haven't followed the whole thread. So I may be missing something.

Just because a homepage may be a PR9 doesn't mean that the rest of the
site has to follow suit.

Ahh, not follow suit of having a PR of 9 didn't say it had a 9. But I am
sorry the PR of 9 is helping that one page.

I didn't mean that if the homepage is PR9 that all the other pages
have to be PR9

But If the homepage of a site is say 9, you don't expect a link from
that page to be PR2.
You expect to see a steady decrease, the deeper it gets.

Plus, did you see the backlinks of that one page?

No, busy doing something else. It was just a thing I remember seeing
months back when a PR0 page was outranking a PR4+

I have them on my site where a PR2 page was outranking PR4 and PR5.

It isn't a real PR of 0 as you said you know but stated it was #1 with aPR of 0. If there are links going to that page then it will
have some PR even if it isn't from the index page.

Lets look at the page on the next update. As I said before, it was
some time ago that it was PR0 - And possibly before the last update.

Dont fret, its sunday.

Could be 100's of reasons why a webmaster may not want to spread PR
throughout the site, or not cache a particular page, or screwed up in
some way for a page not to be credited with PR.

The page gets credit for the domain the site in general not just the page
itself. You can start sites with domains like angelfire and are considered
to be with part of it even though the site is different. For instance look
at these.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...%22rag+rugs%22
DM Hookworks, Ruglady, Victorian Rose, Notasulga Nostalgia , etc. They are
all different sites but of the same domain. Yes, they don't pull a lot of PR
as the way the site is set up from the main domain but they can still
benefit in other ways. Like it isn't like a brand new name coming in and
trying to rank. They can also lose by it also because that domain has every
type of site involved with it. These typed sites can also get indexed
faster.

That actually proves PR theories as being still used. :-)

Theories will always exist. Thats what SEO is partly about.
Google will never tell you their algo, so all we have to work on are
theories, and things that work one week, and not the next (and visa
versa)


LOL!! Of course. Still not seeing any theory from your part though. :-) PR
is in fact still being used. I see no evidence otherwise.

I never said it wasn't.

If the site has good anchor links along with decent PR, and good on and off page
optimization there should no reason why the site shouldn't do well and can
beat a site with high PR that isn't doing good anchor links with it and on
page optimization.

exactly. I agree.

I would love to see some sort of evidence to where it
isn't being used. Let's face it..the internet is built on links...links make
PR.:-)

And PR makes prizes

Stacey

Paul

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:06:53 -0500, Paul <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us>
wrote:

Type :
mod_rewrite
into google and the #1 spot is PR0
below it are PR4 and PR5

plh
Paul

But is it really PR0 with over 500 backlinks-

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...rewrite%2Ehtml

Come on do the basic research at least!

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:33:22 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c34l1l1glsc2ihoe7cfumc5iuddccrm68 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:34:58 GMT, AF <bscinc3000 (AT) Yahoo_NoSpam (DOT) com
wrote:

I have some questions about linking and achieving higher ranking in
Google. FIrst, I am not concerned with Page Rank, but rather with
higher placement.

You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.


Mind, I had a client site rank top 5 from several million with a PR of
2, an experience which is hardly unusual.

Depends on the search terms really and how good your links are. Plus, on
page wise also counts. I beat a higher PR site and have been for a long
time. :-)

In fact, if you search for

good search experience

without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

I wonder why? :-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+experience%22

Stacey

He is such an idiot, I pity any of his clients (assuming he's had any,
which is doubtful with 40 visitors a day).

Bill, read this
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and then
compare the exact and loose searches-

Loose search for good search experience 202,000,000 pages
Exact search for "good search experience" 136 pages

You can also check "Good search" 728,000 pages and "search experience"
409,000 pages and you aren't in the top 10 for either of those.

So you are one of 136 pages in the index that use the exact phrase
"good search experience" do you not understand the concept of
competitiveness?

It's a easy SERP, PR not needed.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:38:59 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:7eh4l15b2nd7oa21bniiok5ppi4eo116uh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:44:09 +0200, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:gg94l1luajgqhoid4im0215leme2210urc (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:55:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:34:58 GMT, AF <bscinc3000 (AT) Yahoo_NoSpam (DOT) com
wrote:

I have some questions about linking and achieving higher ranking in
Google. FIrst, I am not concerned with Page Rank, but rather with
higher placement.

You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.

David

Mind, I had a client site rank top 5 from several million with a PR of
2, an experience which is hardly unusual.
In fact, if you search for

good search experience

without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

BB

Type :
mod_rewrite
into google and the #1 spot is PR0
below it are PR4 and PR5


The main domain is a PR 9, so you know that the page is probably to new to
register on the toolbar. So, the PR isn't really a 0.

Stacey

I am aware of that Stacey, but I think that page has been there for
some time. Hence I mentioned it. But yes, it could be new.

Also. I'd like to add. It just happened to be showing PR0
I could have shown many examples of pages with low PR outranking
higher PR pages.

May be next time I should have shown one with PR1 or higher, just to
stop people getting mislead by what is written and what people want to
read in it.



http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:49:12 +0300, "Wÿrm"
<nomailstodragon (AT) north (DOT) invalid> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissädo4l19i5bii4tidi99j1bra73n9f8o2qt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I did say without ""

What you failed to realize is that basically no-one is targetting for that
keyword combination.

I know that perfectly well.

Search it with:
"good search experience" (321),
intext:"good search experience" (319)
inanchor:"good search experience" (3)
intitle:"good search experience" (0)

and you might realize there is no competition for those keywords, no matter
if original search result without "" shows huge amount of pages and yours is
1st. So, almost any page with IBL anchor containing those keywords would get
quite high without "" because there is no competition.

I know!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:02:22 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Wÿrm" <nomailstodragon (AT) north (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
news:ditp9f$j6d$1 (AT) phys-news1 (DOT) kolumbus.fi...

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissädo4l19i5bii4tidi99j1bra73n9f8o2qt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I did say without ""

What you failed to realize is that basically no-one is targetting for that
keyword combination. Search it with:

"good search experience" (321),
intext:"good search experience" (319)
inanchor:"good search experience" (3)
intitle:"good search experience" (0)

and you might realize there is no competition for those keywords, no
matter if original search result without "" shows huge amount of pages and
yours is 1st. So, almost any page with IBL anchor containing those
keywords would get quite high without "" because there is no competition.


Basically, the reason why.:-)

Stacey

I still know!

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:49:42 GMT, David
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:33:22 +0200, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c34l1l1glsc2ihoe7cfumc5iuddccrm68 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:34:58 GMT, AF <bscinc3000 (AT) Yahoo_NoSpam (DOT) com
wrote:

I have some questions about linking and achieving higher ranking in
Google. FIrst, I am not concerned with Page Rank, but rather with
higher placement.

You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.


Mind, I had a client site rank top 5 from several million with a PR of
2, an experience which is hardly unusual.

Depends on the search terms really and how good your links are. Plus, on
page wise also counts. I beat a higher PR site and have been for a long
time. :-)

In fact, if you search for

good search experience

without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

I wonder why? :-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+experience%22

Stacey


He is such an idiot, I pity any of his clients (assuming he's had any,
which is doubtful with 40 visitors a day).

Bill, read this
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and then
compare the exact and loose searches-

Loose search for good search experience 202,000,000 pages
Exact search for "good search experience" 136 pages

You can also check "Good search" 728,000 pages and "search experience"
409,000 pages and you aren't in the top 10 for either of those.

So you are one of 136 pages in the index that use the exact phrase
"good search experience" do you not understand the concept of
competitiveness?

It's a easy SERP, PR not needed.

David

I still know! Times ten!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:55:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:


You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.
snip

without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

<snip>

Also. I'd like to add. It just happened to be showing PR0
I could have shown many examples of pages with low PR outranking
higher PR pages.

You could have. But what does that have to do with the above? Bill showed a
very bad example of a #1 SERP. Let's look at a little more complicated SERP.
*Handmade earrings* , I am #2 out of 1,970,000. There are actually 87,700
using the exact phrase. Still not exactly a hard SERP but hey that is how it
goes. The #1 page has a PR of 4, my page has a PR of 5. I used to be #1 but
moved all the stuff over to the sub domain. The #1 site also has PR6 index
page. So, if you look at the on page factors the #1 page should beat mine
even if the actual PR of the page was a 4.

*Simple Stuff*, I am #1 out of 83,900,000. Pages with exact phrase is
462,000. This SERP is one of my favorites:-). Anyway, the sites below mine
all have higher PRs for the index page etc. Their pages have a good
potential of being a higher PR than my 5. I don't think I will ever see my
PR6 again.:-( The reason I rank well and can beat everyone is my site is
optimized for that phrase. My domain name has it and I can not begin to tell
you how many links I have coming in that have that phrase...well Stacey's
Simple Stuff...but still simple stuff in the anchor. And of course Google
uses the title from the directory on this search.

May be next time I should have shown one with PR1 or higher, just to
stop people getting mislead by what is written and what people want to
read in it.

Still it doesn't matter with what is above and what Dave stated about PR. I
mean I am just trying to figure out why you posted it. To show PR doesn't
mean anything or what? I got the impression that you still think PR is still
useful.

Stacey