Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Trying To Drive Down Traffic


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 cdnathrf

cdnathrf

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:17 PM

Hello, 

 

How effective are new websites in pushing down old posts you don't want seen?

 

In the early 2000s, I was in a chat forum for Lyme, or whatever it was.  'Though I hate to excuse ignorance, many if not most were using real/real-sounding names back then.  Truthfully, we weren't only long-term unemployed, we were wondering how long we'd be around.

 

Thankfully, I've come a long way, but I have a very unique surname.  I've been re-employed successfully since, except now, I'm trying to start my own business, and recently went to a networking seminar.  My LinkedIn and Twitter accounts rank 1 and 2 - barely - while a couple of Yahoo posts about "disease," which used to be #10 or wherever, are now a solid #3 or #4.  I doubt I'll get them taken down.  The YahooGroup says its moderated but hasn't been active since 2006; and my e-mail back then was with an ISP which no longer exists.

 

So, all I can do is put new web material and blogs with my real ID - say, about my photography hobby - to knock the "disease" stuff down.  My questions are

 

a)  Does linking separate sites of your own together strengthen their rank or has it become just the opposite?

 

B)  Is tagging photos with your name considered a no-no?

 

c)  Because they'd link to LinkedIn and Twitter, would the new web sites still be associated somehow by the 'bots with "virus," because that's what people associated your name with previously?

 

Sorry about sounding paranoid.  To the Forum master, go 'Bs!

 

- Chris in Virginia



#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 May 2013 - 04:21 PM

How effective are new websites in pushing down old posts you don't want seen?

 

They aren't.

 

a)  Does linking separate sites of your own together strengthen their rank or has it become just the opposite?

 

If it makes sense to link them ---- link them

 

 

  Is tagging photos with your name considered a no-no?

 

Only if you don't want people to know who is in the photo or who was the photographer.was.



#3 cdnathrf

cdnathrf

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 May 2013 - 05:49 PM

OK, so if new web sites (that you update and give reason for people to come to and recommend) aren't the answer to displacing a couple of bad posts, what is?



#4 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:29 AM

There isn't one.

 

URLs gather NATURAL 'authority' the longer they are around and search engine MAY decide to show them in response to a user request whether you want them to or not, and you cannot undo ten years accretion of 'value' with a 'newcomer'.

 

Maybe when you have been properly promoting your new URLs (all of them not just the domain name) for a few years rhings will change.



#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 08:30 AM

I agree with Chris. Google likes to show diversity in the results. It's likely the one you don't want will show regardless.  



#6 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,648 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:36 AM

 

Does linking separate sites of your own together strengthen their rank or has it become just the opposite?

 

 

 

It can strengthen the rank of some of those interlinked sites. On the other hand, it identifies all of those interlinked sites as being in the same "cluster" of the web graph. This can mean that some of them aren't shown in the search results, and other sites are shown instead, the search engine's logic being:

  • diversity in the search results
  • if you're that interested in the topic/keyword, you'll find the clustered sites that aren't shown, by clicking through to the sites that are shown

One thing you can try is to promote a different, more friendly, page on the site that's ranking well against your wishes. So for example, find a page on the YahooGroup site that better represents you, and promote that page so that it wins over the current page that you don't like. I've had some success for clients with this approach, but don't expect instant results: it takes time and patience.



#7 cdnathrf

cdnathrf

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:20 AM

I don't know that in a YahooGroup specifically about a disease, that there's any favorable page.  I have belonged to other YahooGroups - birds for example.  If I "promote" those posts, does that help because they're also Yahoo?  

 

I'm admittedly confused about how to promote them anyway, since I did nothing purposely to promote the bad posts.  It would probably help to know how and why two Yahoo posts, good or bad,  which were relatively obscure for 12 years suddenly jumped to top.  It wasn't because people are using that Yahoo Group; it's been dead for 7 years.  Nor were these posts relatively informative, like essays on how to get well or something, that sick people would keep hitting while looking for solutions.  At first I thought people I'd recently met at a network event were finding the Yahoo posts in the course of looking me up; but I checked when Google last cashed these pages, which was in April; the event was in May.  I don't know if there's a relation.

Moreover, it seemed that by just revisiting the bad Yahoo posts myself, that I made them outrank my LinkedIn and Twitter within the hour.  So here's what I did in desperation this weekend: I went to two libraries, hopped on a dozen different PCs, and hit every single non-Yahoo link about myself - about 20 in various unrelated discussion groups, petition groups, and so forth.  I haven't seen a darn thing change yet.  This is why I'm still confused over whether actual hits/visits matter or not.



#8 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 29 May 2013 - 08:51 AM

It would probably help to know how and why two Yahoo posts, good or bad,  which were relatively obscure for 12 years suddenly jumped to top.

For you, maybe,  but you are probably suffering from "rank checker results" syndrome.



#9 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 29 May 2013 - 09:43 AM

Exactly. Just because those are in the results you see, that doesn't mean they're coming up that high in the results that other people see. Everybody's results are personalized to an extent, even if they're not logged in when searching.

 

--Torka :propeller:



#10 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:18 AM

 

So here's what I did in desperation this weekend: I went to two libraries, hopped on a dozen different PCs, and hit every single non-Yahoo link about myself - about 20 in various unrelated discussion groups, petition groups, and so forth.  I haven't seen a darn thing change yet.  This is why I'm still confused over whether actual hits/visits matter or not.
 

 

 

It's doubtful that any of that would make a difference.



#11 cdnathrf

cdnathrf

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:31 PM

Exactly. Just because those are in the results you see, that doesn't mean they're coming up that high in the results that other people see. Everybody's results are personalized to an extent, even if they're not logged in when searching.

 

--Torka :propeller:

 

This is the most encouraging reply; for that, you are the Vintage Babe for the day, even if that picture's well outdated as they usually are.  Which isn't to say the rest of you haven't helped.  In context of the this article, I can also understand why the syndrome only makes your problems worse for oneself.   You've also helped explain why the concerned Yahoo posts remain obscure 

on Bing and even Yahoo itself.  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot I can do in the near term, certainly nothing bulletproof, but that alone helps since all the activities "reputation management" firms recommend/do are definitely time-consuming and detract from a primary business focus.  Thanks much!



#12 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:23 AM

Actually, the photo was taken only about 18 months ago, so it's not all that outdated. ;) And I'm glad I was able to help.

 

--Torka :propeller:



#13 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,648 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:25 AM

Vintage Babe of the decade, our Torka ...


  • Jill likes this

#14 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:52 AM

:blush: Flattery will get you everywhere, you know. :glad:

 

--Torka :oldfogey:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.