23 replies to this topic

[Clintorius]

Since when does having a high quality website mean that it will rank well?  There's no "therefore" after high quality.

I my book visibility is included in the 'quality' of a site. In the Google world quality-sites are linked to by others sites. So quality leads to good ranking.

Sites that updates frequently and is of good quality ranks well. Sites thanks updates frequently but is of bad quality ranks badly. Why would Google then enhance this last category - noone find them worth linking to?

(I know good sites that ranks poorly. But in the mindset of Gogle PR this does not matter)

[greggb]

I my book visibility is included in the 'quality' of a site.  In the Google world quality-sites are linked to by others sites. So quality leads to good ranking. 

Sites that updates frequently and is of good quality ranks well. Sites thanks updates frequently but is of bad quality ranks badly. Why would Google then enhance this last category - noone find them worth linking to?

(I know good sites that ranks poorly. But in the mindset of Gogle PR this does not matter)

Check out the #4 result in this search query:
http://www.google.co...en&q=antler art

This is a highly visible site. Is it a good site?

And I could show you 1000 good sites that are nowhere to be found in SERPs. There's no direct relationship between quality and ranking.

I’ve said this before (at this forum even… a few times, probably). The day’s coming when SEs will be looking beyond content, into things like visual appeal, usability, etc.

[greggb]

Frequently updated also means that someone is working on it. This describes a high percentage of websites, period. A site that someone is working on is more likely to be optimizing content, building links, etc. than a site that hasn't been touched in months, no? Assuming cause and effect just doesn't make sense.

We don't have to assume. Statistics show that frequently updated websites tend to have more to offer to visitors than websites that just sit forever. Guess who has access to all kinds of information like this?

[Clintorius]

Check out the #4 result in this search query:
....
This is a highly visible site.  Is it a good site?

And I could show you 1000 good sites that are nowhere to be found in SERPs.  There's no direct relationship between quality and ranking.

I don't know. I am not into this antler stuff - but it is very funny. If this was a competitive area this site would not get that high rankings. A quality site with lot more information and articles on the subject (and thus more keywords to provide good ranking) would then win i the SERPS.

OK, we do not agree on the terms that make up a quality site. But let us say that some people with crappy sites starts to update their sites - adding more crap. Why should the engines see this as improved quality and add a bonus to the rank as you suggest?

[rankinghigh]

It seems that others are thinking and discussing the same thing on this very board:


www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12023

and here:
www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/27509.htm
and here Under other useful tips:
www.seorank.com/seo-copywriting-article.htm

Edited by chrishirst, 01 February 2005 - 06:29 AM.

[WeCanDoThat]

It makes sense that Google indexes sites that are more frequently updated more frequently than not.

That’s what I would do if I were Google. Indexing sites that never change is a waste of processing power. Why bother? Sites that are frequently updated are more likely to have up to date (relevant) information than those that haven’t changed since 20000.
Google can probably tell if things change and visit those pages much more often than sites that seldom change to save processing power and to keep the results fresh.
If I were Google I would visit sites that are updated daily… daily. & visit sites that are updated quarterly… quarterly. Why not? You would think it would speed things up quite a bit. Win – Win situation for everyone.

[qwerty]

Welcome, WCDT

I'm sure they alter their crawling schedule based on how often they find new content on a page, but the big question (at least in my mind) is whether getting crawled more often helps your rankings. Someone on another forum told me that they had found that to be true, but they didn't give me any evidence. It was just something they said they'd noticed over time.

[WeCanDoThat]

Absolutely.

It helps me anyway.

The more often the page is indexed by Google the more often I can see if the changes I made are helping. Win – Win for everyone.

Aimless changes won’t help. You’ll just be spinning your wheels.

[qwerty]

Sure, that makes perfect sense. I just hate to see people recommending running a script that will throw a different sentence onto the page every time it loads, claiming it improves rankings.

What I like to do on a site I have that contains a directory is announce new additions to the directory as they come up. That way, almost every day the site's home page has a new link (or a few of them) pointing to pages in the directory. So the home page gets spidered every day, and that gives the spider a reason to schedule a visit to those deep pages it would otherwise only visit very rarely.