23 replies to this topic

[UnderRated]

Hi Guys.
First of all, I've learned so much from this site and I really appreciate it!
I have a problem that many of you have been having with bunk ole google.
I'm ranked #1 in Yahoo and #1 in MSN with the phrase "rap beats"
Mysteriously, I'm not even ranked in Google at all! What gives?
I've been getting 400-500 people daily and if google would just put me in there system I would be so happy. :tooth:

I know this is becoming a common thing, but does anybody have any idea when this madness will end? If ever?

Thanks for any and all replies.
Josh

[SearchRank]

They are different search engines. Yahoo uses meta description tag to form description; Google doesn't. Google's algo relies heavily on link popularity, probably more than Yahoo.

From a quick glance at your site, you need to increase the amount of quality and relevant links to your site. Google is only showing PR or 3 and 2 backlinks. Need to bump that up. Doesn't look like you need much as the top page on Google for that search term has 12 backlinks but the home page of that particular site has a PR of 6 and 2,290 backlinks.

[Jill]

Hi Josh, sorry, but I had to change the title of your thread to something less derogatory to a certain group of individuals.

And yes, Google can be mighty frustrating to many a Webmaster and SEO these days.

Jill

[stoner3221]

List your site in all the major general directories and the many music related directories. This will help bring your PR up and get you a better listing in Google. You will find an abundance of music related directories and should be able to develop some high quality links from them. Don’t be in a rush; Google will not bring your rank and position up in a hurry.

[Jill]

Stoner, I'm not sure you read the original post.

He HAD a good ranking and lost it.

Jill

[MIDA]

I'm in the same boat. I monitor a handful of sites for rankings, some my own, some clients, some competitors who do well for similar terms. All of the sites, including most competitors have fallen off the radar completely.

There is probably much talk about this but my guess is that with the new addition of, what? a billion pages?, that the updates will take longer and longer.

All of my monitored sites were gradually climbing up in ranking (I like to think I made clean, relavant sites!) but then *poof* they all vanished.

Yes, PR and backlinks factor in but the top positioned sites had less! The only clue I can find is that all of the sites in the top positions for my targeted keywords (that I checked) are OLD, they have copyright information from 2001 - a fluke? Don't know.

So, I'm twiddling my thumbs until Google decides to completely update the database(s). If they are completely updated, what a bummer!

Good Luck

[ajeshnair]

Hi Josh!!

I have seen your queries regarding the "rap beats" site so many times in this forum!

Well solution to your problem is very simple. How relevant is your site to rank well for keyword "rap beats"??. Your site analysis shows you are targeting so many keywords apart from "rap beats" on single page. Putting all eggs in one basket?!!!

Moreover your incoming links are very poor. Around 2 links! Work on those areas and see some very good results. Google is not a toad, dont blame it.

- Ajesh

Edited by ajeshnair, 24 March 2004 - 12:07 AM.

[MakeMeTop]

>but the home page of that particular site has a PR of 6 and 2,290 backlinks.

And that, IMO, is an important key to the whole mystery

Check the homepage PR of all the bunkum pages that appear in the new, improved Google algo. Notice anything in common?

If looking at subdomains, check the core domain homepage PR!

My interpretation?

Use semantics to find the "core" phrase/topic. Identify what are the "authority" sites for that core topic by looking at the PR of the home pages of the sites returned. Take the top x thousand most relevant above a certain set PR level. Apply standard algo to them. Unfortunately, the top x thousand in perceived authority may have little or no mention of the targeted keyphrase but may only mention it in passing. Voila

Occassionally you may have sites that have got huge amounts of links and used standard SEO methods. They will appear untouched, whilst all their competitors fall out of sight!

All the various changes we've seen since November have been tweaking with the PR level needed to determine if sites are included in the sub-set of results.

Quite a neat idea really - if they could get it to work! Watching my sites I've been able to get a handle on where the cut-in/out point works with every tweak. So it works for me anyway - and it is nothing to do with on-page SEO!

As in all things, just a theory - but seems to do the job at my end!

[UnderRated]

Gee whiz, thanks for all the replies.
OK, I have a really dumb question.
What do you mean by PR? Is it Page Rank?
And, I have more than the 2 sites google says are web pages linked to my site.
I gotta have at least 20 links on my site and almost all of them link back to me. What is this all about?
This stuff is rather new to me.
Can somebody let me in on this secret?
Thanks again for your time,
Josh

[MakeMeTop]

PR = PageRank.

Backlinks shown by Google are the backlinks that Google sees that are above a certain PR level (usually PR4). It tends not to show backlinks with a lower PR. This does not mean that they are not counted, just they are not considered as "important" as ones that do.

[UnderRated]

So basically.
I need to go to the sites that are ranked very high, look at their backlinks and then try to get those sites to link to me.
Is that what this bunk new google wants?

[OldWelshGuy]

Thats where PR gets fun, as the value of a link is directly related to the number of outbound links on the page, them adding your link to the same page as your competitor, will give you a boost, and also lower the value of the link to your competitors site pro rata. The result 'could' be that you move up, and they move down, or extreme case, a third site above you, and below them passes you both.

This is in an extremely tight all things being equal situation and, while theoretically possible is highly unlikely, I just used it to explain PR a bit

[Nathan Malone]

Basically yes...

[stoner3221]

Stoner, I'm not sure you read the original post.

He HAD a good ranking and lost it. 

Jill

Hi Jill,
I had read the original post. I was thinking the lack of links could be the cause of the ranking problem. I’m not an SEO expert as yourself so please correct me if I’m wrong but it does seem to be an increasing problem with sites lacking quality links loosing position.

[Randy]

Interesting observations MMT.

Also interesting is that I've been noticing the exact same thing with the sites I watch. Factoring in the PR on a Site level rather than a Page level certainly explains why the lower PR interior pages of those mega sites show up higher in the SERPs too. I guess one could equate this concept to some sort of Authority meter.

I'm running some tests on various sites with this PR theory in mind currently. I'll let you know how those turn out in a few weeks.

The only problem with the vague concept --okay, not the only problem, but a major one-- is that if the idea of putting that much stock in links from high PR, Authority-type sites proves to be true, it will be laughably simple for someone to skew the results on a grand scale. I can think of a half dozen ways to do it without really trying.