Re: Lucky Mojo (Formerly "What happened to...")

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:54:39 GMT, catherine yronwode
<cat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>David wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:12:41 GMT, catherine yronwode
>> <cat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >This is Dave's theory, and it does seem to ring true -- for the
>> >last time an algo shift hit my sites hard was ... hmm... about 3
>> >yearsago. Now the most "bounce" i see is up one, down one in the
>> >top 5 -- on hundreds of what Dave calls "easy serps."
>>
>> Not only my theory, others have said similar, though most
>> tend not to add any evidence to support their views.
>>
>> You might find this
>> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/google-sandbox-effect.html
>> an interesting read if you have any recent sites, I'm 95%
>> sure of the above now.
>
>I read the page -- and i think it describes what i have seen in my
>own situation as well.
>

I'm glad you agree.

>The only idea i have contrary to yours is that you -- and others as
>well -- refer to this as google's preference for AGE. I think that
>is a simplistic view.

It wasn't meant to be read that way. Is it the "Google Moves the Goal
Posts, Again" section?

Does read a little like I think it's an age factor per se, think I
need to reword it as it was meant to just discuss the concept not be
read that I think it's the age of a domain (the tests later on suggest
it isn't the age of the domain but the links).

>You also referred to a TRUST FACTOR -- and i
>like that term better. Later in the article you referred to STABLE
>SITES and LINK STABILITY -- and these are the terms i use myself.

I think those help in the general understanding as well.

>Look at it from google's designer's point of view -- there is no way
>to rank for the TRUST FACTOR, for STABLE SITES, or for LINK
>STABILITY unless and until you watch the site in action for a year.
>This is not "ageist" or 'pro-age" -- it is simply google's practical
>response to the problem of how to deal with "instant" affiliate
>sites and other untrustworthy and unstable commercial sites.

Yes, but the fact is almost any site can be given stable links for a
year, so almost any site can reach a point where it can get a lot of
traffic.

However, for most ""instant" affiliate sites and other untrustworthy
and unstable commercial sites" as you put it they don't gain long term
high quality links and so won't rank well.

Even when they pay for text links they won't see a ROI for at least 6
months and that's too long for most of these types of sites. Then
there are reciprocal links that tend to come from low quality link
pages making the links practically worthless.

If this was what Google wanted they seem to have succeeded, it's
difficult to get a new domain to rank well and it takes time and
links. Long term though a quality site will rank well since it will
gain stable links etc...

Looking at it from another perspective of what does a webmaster have
to do to rank well. Seems the main factor is gaining and maintaining
long term links that add up to a reasonable PR. This will then say to
Google this site is trustworthy since a bunch of other webmasters have
added these high quality links for a long period of time.

Makes sense and it's what I've been seeing.

Obviously you also need some content to rank, without the content it's
like having a great cart (the links) without a strong horse (content)
to pull it. Maybe not the best analogy I've used, but I think it makes
the point.

>Google has positioned itself not merely as a server of information,
>but also as a server of COMMERCIAL POINTERS TO RETAIL SITES -- and,
>as such, it would be opening itself to legitimate criticism if it
>ranked new and untested commercial sites as highly as stable ones.

Good point.

>Back when domain registry cost a lot more than it does now, the idea
>of scam artists using throwaway domains was moot -- but now, in the
>era of really cheap domain registry, google has had to counteract
>the thousands of new sites with an algo that help sort the
>fly-by-night sites from the stable sites.

Yep.

>The sandbox effect, which galls so many web designers, is not about
>google liking or disliking certain sites or types of sites -- it is
>actually an element of google's continued wooing of retail web
>shoppers, because unless sites are ranked for long-term stability,
>the consumer may be led into purchases with fraudulent fly-by-night
>concerns located at throwaway domains, and that would make google --
>the guide who led the consumer to the fraudulent site -- to look
>bad.

Another good point.

>> >Note that i am not a Dave groupie or anything -- it's just that
>> > his (and Guy Macon's) theories describe my experiences more
>> >accuratelythan others' theories do.
>>
>> Awww, I've always wanted a groupie :-)
>
>Would you settle for a chela?

I had to look up what a chela is :-))

http://www.answers.com/chela&r=67

If you meant "A pincerlike claw of a crustacean or arachnid, such as a
lobster, crab, or scorpion." I think I'll pass thanks :-))

Or are you "a Hindu disciple of a swami"?

I can live with the latter :-)

>Cordially,
>
>cat yronwode
>
>Lucky W Amulet Archive
>http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How long did it take you to reach a PR of 3?
    ... It depends on the amount of relevant work that you do for your website ... and also it depends on the Google updation of pagerank like if you have ... rank 3 mainly this depend on that for page rank you need 1 google ... process how you optimize your website and quality links and quality ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: toolbar page rank observations
    ... Page Rank is not important. ... The new site jumps up to #247 at google for the two-word key term. ... Today i will be slogging my way through the rest of the alphabet -- ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Structuring informational content for commercial site
    ... >>>At giving a better rank to pages which have high valuable content. ... and I have sites/pages that rank well in Yahoo ... rolled out their new search engine - I ranked higher on them than I ... Google just took me a little while ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Structuring informational content for commercial site
    ... >>At giving a better rank to pages which have high valuable content. ... and I have sites/pages that rank well in Yahoo ... Besides this was not the only thing I do not like about Google. ... say...You think of what site owners say and I think about what users say... ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Google Page Rank mystery
    ... >The other address has a Google page rank of four. ... Perhaps the same site but, through links pointing its way, two ... address the problem - not the search engines that are following links ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
Loading