I have a small cricket spreadsheet site that has been listed on Google
for a while now. When I was trying to get my site indexed, I asked
some larger cricket sites to link to it, which they did.
Now, when you search for 'cricket spreadsheet' or something similar,
two larger cricket sites that have a link to my site show up on the
first results page (with the link to my site shown in the result
blurb), while my site is on page five or six.
Statcounter shows that I'm getting 95% of my traffic from these link
pages rather than from Google results, presumably because users search
Google
and navigate to my site via the link pages on the first results page.
As all the users are staying on the site for a while, I'm guessing
they were looking specifically for my site rather than trawling the
links pages.
Questions: If my site was getting all of these hits direct from
Google (rather than the link page middle man) my site would go higher
in the results, right? Does my site get any credit from Google or
just the link page? Can I do anything?
This is common. I have pages that are outranked by social bookmarking
links submitted by my visitors. That's why I took the social
bookmarking links off my pages, so that I would not contribute to my
own lower serps.
For some reason Google can not figure out that links pointing to pages
should be ranked lower then the target page. In my case, the social
bookmarked links have only one occurance of the search term, whereas
my page has four.
There is too much emphasis on links and pagerank, and not enough
credit for onpage text usage. Hopefully Google will work to fix our
problems soon.
> I have a small cricket spreadsheet site that has been listed on Google
> for a while now. When I was trying to get my site indexed, I asked
> some larger cricket sites to link to it, which they did.
> Now, when you search for 'cricket spreadsheet' or something similar,
> two larger cricket sites that have a link to my site show up on the
> first results page (with the link to my site shown in the result
> blurb), while my site is on page five or six.
> Statcounter shows that I'm getting 95% of my traffic from these link
> pages rather than from Google results, presumably because users search
> Google
> and navigate to my site via the link pages on the first results page.
> As all the users are staying on the site for a while, I'm guessing
> they were looking specifically for my site rather than trawling the
> links pages.
> Questions: If my site was getting all of these hits direct from
> Google (rather than the link page middle man) my site would go higher
> in the results, right? Does my site get any credit from Google or
> just the link page? Can I do anything?
> For some reason Google can not figure out that links pointing to pages
> should be ranked lower then the target page. In my case, the social
> bookmarked links have only one occurance of the search term, whereas
> my page has four.
What on earth makes you think repeating a word will increase your
ranking for it?
I don't have any links to other sites on my page to remove. There are
links on other site's pages that link to my site. No point in asking
for them to be removed or even less people will be able to find it. I
was just curious if there was an easy fix to get my ranking up since
my site is obviously the intended target when the other site's result
is clicked on. Maybe not. Not to worry.
I'm about to retract something I posted above - at least partially but
for good reasons. This is pretty much the text on the page:
"These spreadsheets are designed to calculate individual players'
statistics over the course of a season. They are designed for local
teams and players who may not have access to accurate, up-to-date
player statistics. The goal is maximum statistics for minimal input,
in a easy-to-read format.
The basic concept is that you enter player match figures only and the
spreadsheet calculates all relevant statistics, and displays them on
both the player's sheet and a team sheet with all players' statistics.
You could also delete all but one player sheet if you only wish to
track your own statistics.
Each player's sheet has two sections: the left side is for entry of
figures and the right side is for output of statistics. Click here to
see an example page."
If I leave out the title and heading, NOTHING on the page tells me
it's about cricket. It could be about hurling, baseball, basketball,
Association Football - anything.
Now - that's what _I_ notice as a human being. I actually read the
text and wondered - is this a generic multi-sport product or is it
really specific to cricket?
"Batsman", "bowler" and "fielder" would be good words to work in,
within context. Although it's good, Google's stemming is probably not
up to stemming "batsman" into "batting". Soo work "batting" in
somewhere, preferably preceding "batting average".
Your key question should always be: "Does this make the page more
comprehensible to a human?"
Good post Phil. It's a real trap when you are very close to a subject
to fail to see the wood for the trees, and miss out the blindingly
obvious - simply because it IS blindingly obvious to you.
I would also add a good meta description and a copyright footer to
give another instance of "cricket" on the page.
> I'm about to retract something I posted above - at least partially but
> for good reasons. This is pretty much the text on the page:
> "These spreadsheets are designed to calculate individual players'
> statistics over the course of a season. They are designed for local
> teams and players who may not have access to accurate, up-to-date
> player statistics. The goal is maximum statistics for minimal input,
> in a easy-to-read format.
> The basic concept is that you enter player match figures only and the
> spreadsheet calculates all relevant statistics, and displays them on
> both the player's sheet and a team sheet with all players' statistics.
> You could also delete all but one player sheet if you only wish to
> track your own statistics.
> Each player's sheet has two sections: the left side is for entry of
> figures and the right side is for output of statistics. Click here to
> see an example page."
> If I leave out the title and heading, NOTHING on the page tells me
> it's about cricket. It could be about hurling, baseball, basketball,
> Association Football - anything.
> Now - that's what _I_ notice as a human being. I actually read the
> text and wondered - is this a generic multi-sport product or is it
> really specific to cricket?
> "Batsman", "bowler" and "fielder" would be good words to work in,
> within context. Although it's good, Google's stemming is probably not
> up to stemming "batsman" into "batting". Soo work "batting" in
> somewhere, preferably preceding "batting average".
> Your key question should always be: "Does this make the page more
> comprehensible to a human?"
Just because Digg or another social bookmarking site has one occurance
of a keyphrase in a submitted bookmark does not mean it should outrank
the site it is linking to for that exact same keyphrase where it
appears multiple times. It's a matter of relevancy, and in some cases
Google misses the target big time.
> > For some reason Google can not figure out that links pointing to pages
> > should be ranked lower then the target page. In my case, the social
> > bookmarked links have only one occurance of the search term, whereas
> > my page has four.
> What on earth makes you think repeating a word will increase your
> ranking for it?
> Just because Digg or another social bookmarking site has one occurance
> of a keyphrase in a submitted bookmark does not mean it should outrank
> the site it is linking to for that exact same keyphrase where it
> appears multiple times. It's a matter of relevancy, and in some cases
> Google misses the target big time.
> > > For some reason Google can not figure out that links pointing to pages
> > > should be ranked lower then the target page. In my case, the social
> > > bookmarked links have only one occurance of the search term, whereas
> > > my page has four.
> > What on earth makes you think repeating a word will increase your
> > ranking for it?
> I'm about to retract something I posted above - at least partially but
> for good reasons. This is pretty much the text on the page:
> "These spreadsheets are designed to calculate individual players'
> statistics over the course of a season. They are designed for local
> teams and players who may not have access to accurate, up-to-date
> player statistics. The goal is maximum statistics for minimal input,
> in a easy-to-read format.
> The basic concept is that you enter player match figures only and the
> spreadsheet calculates all relevant statistics, and displays them on
> both the player's sheet and a team sheet with all players' statistics.
> You could also delete all but one player sheet if you only wish to
> track your own statistics.
> Each player's sheet has two sections: the left side is for entry of
> figures and the right side is for output of statistics. Click here to
> see an example page."
> If I leave out the title and heading, NOTHING on the page tells me
> it's about cricket. It could be about hurling, baseball, basketball,
> Association Football - anything.
> Now - that's what _I_ notice as a human being. I actually read the
> text and wondered - is this a generic multi-sport product or is it
> really specific to cricket?
> "Batsman", "bowler" and "fielder" would be good words to work in,
> within context. Although it's good, Google's stemming is probably not
> up to stemming "batsman" into "batting". Soo work "batting" in
> somewhere, preferably preceding "batting average".
> Your key question should always be: "Does this make the page more
> comprehensible to a human?"
