Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
johncanary
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
# Posts: 6
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-11 01:47
Hi folks!
Interesting discussion. It's always fun to backward engineer the
algorithms, but we know they slightly change over time.
When I read the number '100' I suddenly remembered related data,
which was published by some Internet marketer, who is heavily
involved in statistical analysis of rankings of existing sites.
His data from 2007 (Jan-Dec) for Google showed a statistical
significant positive correlation between ranking high and having
more than 100 links on the page!
Well, that doesn't answer your question, if those >100 links get
indexed, but it's interesting to know that Google treated pages
with more than 100 links more favorable, ranking them better
throughout 2007. (Well, with a blog you easily get more then 100
links a page, if you want to, though most links will be
internal.)
James -- that's the dude -- did not distinguish between internal
and external links in that analysis as far as I know, but I bet
most of them were internal. And he didn't consider know how many
times several links point to the same URL (like Legal Terms in
the header, and again in the footer, ... stuff like that). James
had analyzed thousands of sites not limited to a particular
market. I think the only restriction was he focused on sites in
English language. The results are quite solid from the
statistical point of view.
One could infer, if Google likes pages with lots of links, and
thinks the page is more "valuable", Google might like the links
on those pages better, too.
Procedure
I agree with SportsGuy, you should conduct the test from a
trustworthy site, that is already indexed, and has quality
content on it. (I believe it just doesn't justify such an
experiment in a possible trash-site-directory context).
Google also pays attention on the timely fashion how a site
grows, how regularly that happens. That might be taken into
consideration also.
Assuming that we know a page ranks potentially better, when it
has more than 100 links on it (on-page factor). What would be
the SEO advice be for
(A) the 100 link rules gets verified and
(B) the 100 link rule is bogus.
I suggest:
(A) Don't bother getting a link on a page that already has 100
links on page and keep your own sites lean (less than 100 links)
to better distribute the PR juice across your site (and nofollow
certain types of pages anyway.)
(B) It doesn't matter anyway.
Yours
John
|
 |
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-11 07:51
Thanks for your input John. It's about time this one was kick started again.
I was hoping to spend a bit of time on this myself, but was snowed under in the office the last few days.
I will have more time after mid week and we can start specifying the experiment.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-11 07:54
I think, given that we have all read different theories, we should try to summarise / standardise what we think the 100 rule is before we start.
Anybody care to start?
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1788
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-12 08:57
Hampstead - You are the chosen one. You start the process of summarizing and delineating the rules and procedures. The rest of us will pitch in and we move ahead. 
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-12 13:48
OK - later in the week. I'm snowed under right now!
|
|
purplesoda
Joined: Jul 22, 2008
# Posts: 15
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-23 01:55
Sorry about this noob question: Can I just ask how are you able to know if the link was indexed or not?
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Aug-24 08:32
An analysis of raw log files will show if a search engine has spidered the site.
In the case of Google it is possible to see if a website has been indexed by prefixing the URL with cache: in the search bar.
e.g. type the following phrase into Google to see if the bbc site is in the index.
cache.www.bbc.co.uk
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Sep-02 10:25
Sorry for letting this slip, I've been really up-against-it with deadlines.
That combined with my inherent laziness has not left any time to think about this.
I'm nearly clear now, so we can reignite this v. soon.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Sep-02 10:26
BTW - That search above is cache:www.bbc.co.uk
Couldn't edit it as 2 day window has passed.
|
|
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
