Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
how to increse the google rating on my site (In: Google)
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 13:22
This is an independent study of Google search result listings using a keyword search phrase for a site that has gone through all the suggested processes to be listed highly for that keyword. The studies results will prove that Google has no reliable indexing for it's search results listing order. Although top results are of relevant content, the most relevant content is not always at the top.
Search Engine: www.Google.com
Keyword Search Phrase: Live Psychic Advice
Controlled Website: www.MysticInsight.com, aka. www.Chartshops.com
Compared Website: www.LiveAdvice247.com
It is assumed for the study that Google listings depend mostly upon these variables
1. Number of links back to the site from other sites.
2. Those other sites to have relevant content.
3. Those other sites to have a high PageRank.
4. Those links to use the keywords of the desired search phrase.
5. Keywords to appear in the page title and description of the result.
6. Keywords to appear several times within page content of the result.
7. Ample content of the site(pages indexed).
8. Image tags and table tags to have alt or title containing keywords.
9. Keywords found on page to be used in links to more relevant pages.
Other factors to consider for the study:
MysticInsight.com and Chartshops.com are the same one website with these two domains pointed to it. MysticInsight.com has been in the SEO process for over 6 months, Chartshops.com for 2 years, and LiveAdvice247.com no less than 2 years. LiveAdvice247.com is not related to the other two domains in any way, and is just used as a comparison in this study to prove how unreliable Google is.
Findings:
Using this search term on www.google.com: Live Psychic Advice
Chartshops.com - Listing #195
Page title: Live Psychic Advice Readings - Mystic Insight
39 quality(PR3+) link backs
90 pages indexed
PR of 4/10(Google's PR is believed down during this study)
30 similar pages
Number of times keywords appear on page - 34
MysticInsight.com - Listing #NA(not listed)
Page title: Live Psychic Advice Readings - Mystic Insight
24 quality(PR3+) link backs
76 pages indexed
PR of 0/10(Google's PR is believed down during this study)
30 similar pages
Number of times keywords appear on page - 34
LiveAdvice247.com - Listing #21
Page title: Live Advice, Psychic,Mediums Tarot Readings
11 quality link backs total
10 pages indexed
PR of 4/10(Google's PR is believed down during this study)
0 similar pages
Number of times keywords appear on page - 2
This study finds that in comparison, LiveAdvice247.com, could not possibly be listed higher than the two controlled domains and it would appear according to the listing criteria that LiveAdvice247.com should not be listed highly at all. A study of the two sites in there visual appearence, quality of content, and quantity of content as compared to the search term used, MysticInsight.com and Chartshops.com had a far more superior website with far more superior relative content. Therefore it is concluded that Google has failed to recognize a viable and important website with far more relative content to the search term and therefore should be reprimanded for it's lack of actual intelligence in returning search results related to a users search term. Where is Google's fair businesses practices and how much relevant content is it really missing out there?
|
 |
Rezac
Joined: Jan 25, 2004
# Posts: 817
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 16:41
Your study is limited to two or three domain names, one of which is a redirect.
Um, you have like no backlinks of any worth listed in google, not saying there are none, just very few listed in G. That means anyone with more links could easily beat you in the SERPS.
Google has failed to recognize a viable and important website with far more relative content to the search term and therefore should be reprimanded for it's lack of actual intelligence
And who do you think should reprimand google? The end-user is what's important and I doubt they're feeling cheated because your psychic connection site didn't pop up #1.
Where is Google's fair business practices?
Where are yours? You're trying to get rich quick in an over saturated market...what do you expect?
Google has ethically done nothing wrong and owes you and me...zero.
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 17:17
Correction, not redirected, the domain is pointed directly to the IP of the web site. Still a domain name by the same site should be treated as a pointer to the same content and listed in the same fashion, with the exception of backlinks. If siteA owns domainA and domainB but most sites link back using domainA then domainA will have a higher listing. If domainB is hardly linked back to then domainB will be lower or may not even be listed.
Also, forget about the sites used in the study. This is pertaining to any sites in the same situation. I certainly do not condone Psychic stuff or the business, I just code. The study is true and unwavering in it's findings and can't be disputed. Facts are facts, look at the study again without any biased opinions and concentrate on the numbers.
The higher listed site has less backlinks, less content, and less keywords. This is just plain less quality. While the very much lower listed site has far more of everything and is of higher quality, period. If I'm searching for information on the net and I am presented with far less quality content while missing out on something better, then there's a problem.
Reprimanded by the people means having more of us look into their practices with more discern. Speaking out and educating the public with postings such as these. Do you jump off the cliff with everyone else or do you stop and ask why everyone is jumping?
Google owes no one anymore than any other business does. It takes all kinds and the study does not say that Google is not a good Search Engine, it has simply found a flaw. Albeit a big flaw to this author.
|
|
cz
Joined: Oct 06, 2002
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 19:16
Chartshops.com - Listing #195
Number of times keywords appear on page - 34
MysticInsight.com - Listing #NA(not listed)
Number of times keywords appear on page - 34
how about duplicate content penalization, re-directing, keyword density is huge
LiveAdvice247.com - Listing #21
Number of times keywords appear on page - 2
one of my sites in a saturated niche is being dominated by low pr sites, upon inspection it's very easy to see that my 'old fashioned' highly optimized site is doing better for pages that i have:
1. de-optimized a bit by losing mindless repetitions of the keywords
2. written simple natural snippets for titles like: 'blue shiny widgets' instead of: 'widgets, blue widget, blue shiny widgets - model bsw widgets'
1. used to score heavy pre florida
2. example title tag #2 used to score heavy before florida update
so i have been de-optimizing sections, and when they're re-spidered & cached they are jumping into the top 20 - back from oblivion.
imho, your 1st example has too many undesirable things going on - as described - to score heavily
sorry, i have lost the use of one arm temporarily!
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 20:18
There is nothing wrong with the titles as I see highly listed sites with a more ridiculous length that looks more like a meta description than a title.
And high keyword density seems to have no adverse effect also as I see highly listed sites with keyword density in the hundreds. And there is no "mindless" repetition or tricky use of the keywords.
Do you need examples, I'm not lying?
There is no rhyme or reason behind Google listing. It's a spin of the wheel and roll of the dice. Your either lucky or SOL. You can spend countless hours studying theoretical SEO techniques and even more hours implementing them within your virtual business, or spend hundreds to pay someone else, just to realize that some armature with FrontPage put up a simple page in a day that tops yours for some unknown reason, LUCK. Or you can just create the site, forget about SEO anything, put it up and hope for the best, guess what - your #1, LUCK.
Conclusion: SEO and the business of SEO is a crock. Another money swindling Internet bagging scheme designed to throw around fancy explanations and screwing with your code and mind until some LUCK shows up and your done, payment please - thank you.
So what is the secret to traffic? Pay for advertisement. It takes money to make money. Maybe in 5 to 10 years you'll be lucky enough to get up to the first page of Google. Until then you have to claw your way around like the rest of the squealing pigs below.
Lesson: When starting a virtual business don't think in terms of search engines, that's the small potatoes. Instead, think about getting ad space in places with existing high traffic targeted to your market. You'll have to pay dearly, but that's business. Search engines help maybe 5% of the total online businesses to make money, do you think your that lucky?
|
|
cz
Joined: Oct 06, 2002
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-05 22:29
clint317,
I must agree with "some" of what you're saying. I never mentioned that my other site which is SEO'd to death...with all the keyword stuffed titles, pages, tags and alt tags, breadcrumbs, H1's..you name it BUT in a different niche, is scoring all 1&2 's for every possible search terms I can think of. So go figure huh? I do believe that we make our own luck, but I do agree that sometimes Google's methods seem like searches in some niches, are just plain unexplainable so that would be "luck" for the top dogs in that niche.
I believe in SEO, it's just that Google is always in such a state of flux that what's scoring well this month doesn't work as well (or not at all) next month. I believe excellent SEO people are rare, even though everyone coming down the pike tries using that phrase to describe themselves. There are some hucksters out there to be sure, but if I could spend 5K marketing $$ on a new site...all things being equal...I'd put the bulk into a "known" SEO job, and a small portion into paid traffic. Usually, for me, the ROI on a good investment (in this case, a top flght SEO job) far outweighs the paid clicks.
When you're sitting on top of the crease in Google for almost all of your keyword search terms/phrases, the money takes care of itself, pays your SEO bill and you keep raking in the $$.
Just an opinion. 
|
|
seo tester
Joined: Aug 23, 2004
# Posts: 42
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 06:34
clint317,
I'm always amused to hear people who suck at something claiming that it is a crock.
"Conclusion: SEO and the business of SEO is a crock."
No one here is trying to sell you anything. In fact, if you spent less time writing and more time reading, you'd see that many people here are quite happy to give you everything you need to do well in the SERPs for free.
I could tell you how to move your site from #195 to top 10. So could any one of a couple dozen other people here. In all of your wisdom, rather than ask for that type of assistance (for free), you opted to demonstrate how little you know about SEO and insult those who do it for a living in the process. Nice job.
|
|
PCInk
Joined: Sep 13, 2001
# Posts: 479
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 10:11
Google uses over 100 factors for ranking - you have chosen just 9 to look at. If each of those 9 were heavily weighted (say 4% each) and your site scored perfectly on those 9, then your site would be 36% relevant.
But your competitor could be having a good way on the other 91+ factors which (if perfect) would give them the remaining percentage weighting: 64% relevant.
Google does not look at what you look at: It looks at what it wants to look at.
You have not considered any of the following (for example):
1) H1..H6 tags
2) Use of bold/italics
3) Keywords near top of page
4) Over-use of keywords
5) Duplication removal from SERPS
6) Internal linking structure
7) PR toolbar, months out of date
8) Number of backlinks - Some SE's do not show all backlinks
9) Age of site
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 13:55
First of all, I do not suck at SEO. I have other sites that do very well with the same or lesser tactics for specific search phrases. In that sense I would be a good SEO person. I know about almost every single little detail of all the things people say make a difference with Google, I concentrate on what matters most and fits the site. I have read more articles on SEO than you can fit in a small library for over 5 years now, do tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Most of you out there are just grabbing at straws and haven't got the foggiest clue exactly how Google does their thing. Have you ever worked for the company so deep that you got to see the actual formula used? There's maybe a dozen people in the world who know for certain. Furthermore you are full of crock too. Look at the top 20 of any search term and you'll find that more than half do not use any SEO tactics at all. Mostly these top sites just have a lot of other good sites pointed back to it. Of all the small things you can do to get ranked, they don't all score a similar weighting individually. I do believe IMO that the highest weight is placed on the text of the links back to your site where the link text should contain the keywords you desire, and that those sites also be ranked high to begin with. That gives your site, what Google calls "importance".
To add to the study above from further analysis:
The controlled site (PR 0) with a low listing had 34 total sites with links pointing back. 14 had a PR of 0, 12 had a PR of 3, 5 had a PR of 4, and 3 with a PR of 5. At position #195, I think we can safely conclude that it doesn't matter what PR other sites have. Especially when another site listed at #21 has less than 5 sites pointed with any PR at all worth over 3. So what does PR tell us, who knows, maybe thats why they have it down right now and thinking of changing it. Don't you find it strange that this very page, which was dynamically created 2 days ago, has a PR of 3 already, and how.
And I don't need any free SEO advice or anybody to tell me how to rank. I've got over 5 years in the business, 10 years in programming, know 6 different code languages, certified in hardware and networking, have ran my own web/mail/ftp server, created at least 50 sites solo, and have pioneered a few first time innovations. I've been doing SEO for years with a good track record. However, the numbers do not lie and it speaks for itself. The reality of the science is that there is no science. Frankly I think they want it that way. I'm not going to argue about this any more, either you see what the study points out or you can close your eyes and continue blissfully unaware. I would like to see more of you conducting your own scientific fact finding SEO analysis and report them back to here. Until you've done your own study and have numbers to back up what you have to say, I can not rely on speculation and educated guesses.
Sorry, I don't mean to get an attitude. I just can't beleive my technically minded peers are relying more on emotion and guess work than seeing facts and figures. It doesn't take a 5 year detailed industry sponsered scientific experiment to figure this out. Unfortunatly, search engines change to often to be very indepth to start with.
[ Message was edited by: clint317 10/06/2004 06:34 am ]
|
|
buddhu
Joined: Mar 23, 2004
# Posts: 56
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 14:07
Sheesh, attitooood dude.
Y're not going to argue about it any more? Suits me. Yr study wasn't a comprehensive, scientific exercise from what you describe, and yr conclusions even less so.
Still, as you say, you don't want to argue any more...
|
|
doctormd23
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 98
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 15:01
There's a phrase that comes to mind here: (Over Analyzed till You're Paralyzed)
clint317 - I suggest you re-read what (seo tester) stated. Nobody seems to want to over-analyze your test and if I were you, I'd re-read what (seo tester) stated above. And one last suggestion, re-read what (seo tester) stated above.
Google has some issues/challenges/algo-hurddles...whatever you want to call them and I would suggest you tap into the wisdom of those in this forum, [and there are many! as (seo tester) stated above] rather than continuing to "transmit" it is better to switch to "receive". Hands off the keyboard and engage the mouse and start turning some JimWorld pageviews. I can assure you, it's worth every moment you could possible spend, when you're not busy conducting an experiment that is. (GRIN)
Doc
|
|
doveguy
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 39
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 18:13
I went and took a look at the site and source code. I see lots of stuff being done "right". Unfortunately, this is giving you the false impression that you can hold your own at SEO. Yes, the basics are there, but this "psychic" field is not like getting a page ranked under "Jonesville Blue Widges". You have REAL competition here. The stuff you normally do to rank well won't cut it here.
Right off the bat - for a guy that has read all of the SEO articles, you obviously missed the one on the benefits of CSS. The layout of this page with all the tables is overly complex. I'm not surprised at all that this thing won't rank under the competitive environment it's in. Go take a look at the code and imagine how small it would become if you took out all of the table cells, rows, etc. It would cut the code in half, leaving more real content. Dump all those tables and switch to CSS, your code to content ration will improve and so will your rankings.
|
|
Logan
Joined: Aug 14, 2002
# Posts: 3749
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 19:43
deep breath everyone
- let's stop making it personal or about someones specific site. any and every site can be ripped apart - even yours.
code to content ration will improve and so will your rankings.
i wouldn't take that literally
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 20:03
Ah finally! Just when I was about to give up on this forum, someone with some intelligence speaks up. Someone willing to walk before he does the talk, willing to look before leaping. Here's a leader of followers. Behold, doveguy.
Thank you doveguy. I was looking more for other peoples own studies and observations, but if you want to use mine, be my guest. I don't really need or want a site review out of this but I appreciate your time. I have juggled the idea of CSS layouts for a few years now and I am aware of the benefits of keeping content on the surface instead of nested deeply within tables, which is very few benefits. However, tables will always be available and read by browsers till the end of time. They are far faster to layout, create, edit, and understand, especially for complicated sites where function is more important than aesthetics of form. You have to practically turn flips to get a CSS layout to dynamically create a 6x9 grid of data from a database and format according to size and record count. I'm sure that execs at Google don't think a site is less important because it uses complicated table structures, when in fact the opposite may be more true. I have also seen the highest of listed sites have the most screwed up looking code that an amateur could possibly produce. I could see Google bots stopping after maybe a 5 or 6 layer deep table to avoid being trapped by infinite tables, but 3 or 4 deep is about normal for 89% of the Internet. Now why would they want to exclude 89% of the Internet?
I still hold true that SEO is mostly about myths and urban legends started by intelligent speculation, gesture, and theory. Show me where Google themselves specifically points out that sites with tables may not be ranked as high. Show me specifically where Google supports half of the hypothesized speculative theories floating around. At least can anyone pinpoint where it got started; an employee of Google giving away secrets or some Joe blowing his horn on his very own popular web site. What does tables have to do with content any how? Wow, that would be very unfair, I'm sure the US government and Whitehouse official web sites would be interested in this travesty. And so would Ebay, Amazon, the NFL, Weather.com, CBS, NBC, FOX, and almost any other big name out there. But hey, we can see where CSS has really help out ESPN with clean code, not. I like CSS, don't get me wrong, but it's not CSS that helps a site make a million more in revenue.
My words are not of false shadows like so many. Anything I speak can be nailed fastly to the wall. I say nay to those without a leg to stand on. You throw imaginary rocks and accuse me of dastardly acts yet scream for more when I pierce you with my sword of truth. You have much to learn young warrior.
That was a joke, don't take that literally. I was just feeling a little medieval. Next time I'll do some Jedi Knight wisdom for you. Or maybe some Matrix rhymes.
|
|
cz
Joined: Oct 06, 2002
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 21:33
clint317,
that was a very mean-spirited post. you have insulted everyone who has posted on your thread. i posted twice to try & help out with your complaints and possibly some considerations. i am not a seo expert, but i thought maybe i could add something, sorry it wasn't good enough for you. i think you owe everyone an apology. i hardly post unless i think it 'might' be of some small help. now you call me and other members a bunch of rotten things. not a good way to make friends for future help on any forum. you are also a follower and no different than what you have called us..case in point: 'i've been doing seo..so many years..so many websites...bla bla'. i have other talents, not seo, but you are assured of NOT getting a post back from me if i can help you, because you're too high-strung and prone to abusive dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with you.. good luck! see ya round!
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 21:58
Ah come on, don't be like that. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and apologize to all the hurt feelings here. I thought we could argument a solution or conclusion like normal business men in the board room. At least as normal as the executives I deal with. It feels like an argument to get your point across and come to a conclusion, but at the end of the day we grab a beer and congratulate each other on a great job. It has been my experience though that forum people, with a few exceptions, cry a lot. I don't hate you or resent you in any way. In fact, I respect a person more for standing up and shelling out what their taking. I haven't actually cursed you, kicked you, or insulted your family. It's just business, let me buy you a beer or milk or whatever you drink. Love and peace.
The force is strong with this one, see that I can. Your emotions will keep you lost on your journey. You must learn to let go and feel the force within you young one. Only then can you control your destiny. Feel the force. Feel the force.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 22:08
>> Conclusion: SEO and the business of SEO is a crock. Another money swindling Internet bagging scheme designed to throw around fancy explanations and screwing with your code and mind until some LUCK shows up and your done, payment please - thank you. <<
Of course there are a fair share of sheisters out there who know virtually nothing about coding, marketing, search engines, etc, but will make grand promises and disappear with your money; but there are also several dozen things that YOU can do to your own site that can, and will, materially affect your position in the SERPs. That sort of optimisation isn't a crock or a legend, it is demostratably real, and can give real results.
How else can you explain that tidying the code on a page, moving all the code bloat (CSS and JS) out to external files, writing a nice title and meta description, using headings, and all the other stuff discussed time and time again in this forum, can see a page rocket up the rankings a few days or so later, having been static for months?
SEO isn't a crock; but some people talk a whole crock about the subject. Don't confuse the two.
|
|
e10
Joined: Dec 10, 2002
# Posts: 409
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-06 23:43
And I say begone dasterdly knave. Thy casts foul aspersions upon a most kindly fellowship. Tis perhaps thine mendicaments that thy have partaken of too generously or in a mixed manner.
|
|
clint317
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
# Posts: 7
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-07 14:23
Tis I speakith pure in heart unto ye brave and generous brethren. Nay do I dare strike souls with evil tongue, for thou maketh a feast of wisdom before mine hunger I wish not lost and never be. Cast down I say your heavy brows and see hidden the cut unto thy very giant ye taketh comfort beside. Take heed and be it not meanded, for coldest of nights ye shall lament before thyself and not see the darkness of rest betroved unto men anointed by prosperity. Let no man decieve himself a fool lest he thinketh no reason of foul shall be kept from sight and thy beast always maketh him warm. Take up ye arms and cry out not in vien and ride swiftly to make good of doings. and blah blah blah, got to go...getting busy.
|
|
philh
Joined: Sep 14, 2001
# Posts: 3050
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-07 14:38
Words fail me...
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
