On May 29, 12:03 am, wirelesspedia wrote:

As pointed out to me... if you have a ton of links... how are the bots
meant to identify the important pages?

Additionally, are we talking about 'internal links' that deal with the
same site... or 'external links'# that go off to other sites?

Second - look at the page as a visitor - does it really present those
links in a visitor-friendly way, or would it not be better to classify
them by category and have a sub-page for each group.

Mobile jobs, for instance.

That home page should probably have no more than about ten links on
it, each specific to one aspect.

The oft-quoted "limit" of around one hundred was plucked out of the
air by a Googlebod as an upper limit.  You shouldn't really go
anywhere near it, except perhaps in a structured sitemap.

Until someone pointed out about the 'focus' and 'importance', I was
all for nice fancy css dropdowns etc... but now I'm wondering if it's
a good idea (unless you apply no follow to all second tier stuff etc.
and make it dynamically shift?)

Same goes with the sitemap.... maybe G doesn't want to see 583 pages
listed as links?
I know techncially it's not exactly 'user friendly' in volume... the
idea is a good one, but lets face it, a page with that many links has
got to be a pain to try to use... even if correctly broken into
sections with target links.

As far as "the site starts off with a designed-in permanent 301
redirect.
I'd fix _that_ first. " I do not know if there is anything we can do
now about that, the site was "programmed that way by the
programmers"...

Great comments and info, guys, thank you very much for your help. This
forum is the best place to get very good technical help and advice.

On May 29, 2:55 am, Autocrat wrote:

On May 30, 10:21 am, wirelesspedia wrote:

The PR is based alot on InBound Links, and the sources/relevancy of
those links.
Could simply be that one or two high PR sites that linked to your site
had their PR lowered, stopped linking, applied rel="nofollow" or
anything else along those lines.

Also remember that hte little green bar is basically a waste of tie.
It only gets updateda few times each year, is often out of date, and
isn't what Google use when making calculations (they apparently have
an internal version that is much more current etc.).

Autocrat is right.  The reason PageRank is so useful is because it is
based on links from other pages and sites.  Most PageRank changes are
not the result of actions of the webmaster; rather, they're typically
caused by changes to the quality and number of incoming links that the
webmaster has little control over.  This is why many folks in the
group (myself included) have encouraged other webmasters not to worry
about the little green pixels.

Another thing to consider is that the pagerank meter in the Google
Toolbar is not a live representation of the number that is used
internally.  Our numbers are much more finely graduated than the 0-10
scale shown on the toolbar, and the toolbar data is only updated
periodically (usually a few weeks to a few months between updates).

As for links out from a page, Phil Payne raises a good point--you
should design your page from the point of view of a visitor.  Our job
in Search Quality (that's my team!) here at Google is to return the
best, most relevant, pages to our users.  Rather than asking how many
links is best for search engines, think about how many is a good
number for your visitors.  If you design a site that's good for
visitors, we'll be the ones looking for ways to make your site rank
better--and that's one less thing for you to worry about.  :-)

If you have other questions, keep asking--we all love a good long
thread.
-Bergy

On May 30, 7:32 am, Autocrat wrote:

Supplemental Ratio for 3gwirelessjobs.com: 90.09%

    * Google has a total of 4220 pages indexed from 3gwirelessjobs.com
    * 418 are in the main index
    * 3802 are in the supplemental index

And for everyone else in this discussion: Please do not start telling
that the supplemental index does not exist. It exists, but it is just
no more labeled in search results.

On May 29, 6:03 am, wirelesspedia wrote:

On Jun 2, 7:34 pm, Webnauts wrote:

On Jun 3, 12:58 am, Yogi Gupta wrote:

And as far as recommendations go - don't listen to what anyone here
says.  Go to their home pages and count how many links _they_ use.

Mine is http://www.isham-research.co.uk/