Links and PR
Mr. Polzek
I am currently working on links to my site, for the first time :)
The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site is
has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which PR
influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
Paul
Borek
wrote:
> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site is
> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which PR
> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
0
PR is calculated for every page separately. Thus it is PR of the page
where the link is placed what counts, not the PR of the site's home page.
But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
backlink, PR is not that important.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
Paul B
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:13 +0100, Mr. Polzek <paul...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
<snip>
>But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>backlink, PR is not that important.
I'd just like to expand on this part.
Also, make sure that the PRO page has been cached by the engines. And
also *when*
Just the other day I was checking some of my backlinks. Two of them
have not been cached in over a year !!
Needless to say, I will be removing my links to those sites.
I have no objection to being on a PR0 page ...... as long as :
1: The pages are cached (and recently)
2: the page is new(ish) - rather than a page that has been there for a
long time.
3: Not 100's of links on the page.
4: the other links are related to what the page should be about.
>Best,
>Borek
plh
Paul
--
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Timmermans
"Borek" <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in message
news:op.s6u1iyhz26l578@borek...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:13 +0100, Mr. Polzek <paul...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site
is
> > has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which
PR
> > influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>
> 0
>
> PR is calculated for every page separately. Thus it is PR of the page
> where the link is placed what counts, not the PR of the site's home page.
>
> But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
> backlink, PR is not that important.
Also, with some luck that PR0 page will grow into a value, so there might be
potential gain from it in the future. The difference, today you might be
able to get linked from such pages easily, when they are PR5 or up it will
be less likely they make linkspace available... first come fist served.
Steven
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:13 +0100, Mr. Polzek <paul...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site is
>> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which PR
>> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>
>0
>
>PR is calculated for every page separately. Thus it is PR of the page
>where the link is placed what counts, not the PR of the site's home page.
>
>But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>backlink, PR is not that important.
Quite true, I forgot to mention, you should rather be asking yourself,
will I be getting traffic from this link?
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fairy-collection/index.html
kr...@crystal-liaison.com Gifty! Shiny! BB!
Big Bill
0. But it can only go up.
Paul B
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:53:13 GMT, "Mr. Polzek"
><paul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am currently working on links to my site, for the first time :)
>>
>>The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site is
>>has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which PR
>>influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>>
>>Paul
>
>0. But it can only go up.
Or, it can remain at PR0 if they play dirty games.
>BB
Borek
>> But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>> backlink, PR is not that important.
>
> I'd just like to expand on this part.
> Also, make sure that the PRO page has been cached by the engines. And
> also *when*
>
> Just the other day I was checking some of my backlinks. Two of them
> have not been cached in over a year !!
> Needless to say, I will be removing my links to those sites.
The interesting thing is that one may expect pages YOU are linking to
SHOULD be cached - as your sites are SEOwise good enough for the Google to
treat it more seriously than page made by Joe Average.
Borek
>>> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site
>>> is
>>> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which
>>> PR
>>> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>>
>> 0
>>
>> PR is calculated for every page separately. Thus it is PR of the page
>> where the link is placed what counts, not the PR of the site's home
>> page.
>>
>> But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>> backlink, PR is not that important.
>
> Quite true, I forgot to mention, you should rather be asking yourself,
> will I be getting traffic from this link?
Good question. At the same time I often catch myself thinking - "well, if
I have already found this page and it is possible to ask for a link, I can
either ask - not risking anything - or waste the time spent to come to
this place. Let's ask" :)
Of course in case of reciprocals it is slightly different situation as
Paul already pointed out.
Borek
>>> I am currently working on links to my site, for the first time :)
>>>
>>> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site
>>> is
>>> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which
>>> PR
>>> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>> 0. But it can only go up.
> Or, it can remain at PR0 if they play dirty games.
One thing you can be sure off - it won't go down :)
Mr. Polzek
"Borek" <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in message
> One thing you can be sure off - it won't go down :)
Oh, it can... Get banned :)
That would mean a bad neighbourhood...
Paul
Borek
wrote:
(PR0)
>> One thing you can be sure off - it won't go down :)
> Oh, it can... Get banned :)
> That would mean a bad neighbourhood...
If it is reciprocal - yes. If not - I doubt.
Paul B
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:44:12 +0100, Paul B <lamewo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>>> backlink, PR is not that important.
>>
>> I'd just like to expand on this part.
>> Also, make sure that the PRO page has been cached by the engines. And
>> also *when*
>>
>> Just the other day I was checking some of my backlinks. Two of them
>> have not been cached in over a year !!
>> Needless to say, I will be removing my links to those sites.
>
>The interesting thing is that one may expect pages YOU are linking to
>SHOULD be cached -
You would have thought that. But in reality, it is not. I play a very
fair game with links.
I'll give good position if they do the same.
I'll internal link if they wish to. I don't over crowd my links
pages.
I let them choose what page they want to be on. (I could have two
pages with the same PR, but the deeper page may have less/no links on
it. All depends if they want the link for customers or PR.)
I even create new pages in advance, so they have PR for when I am
ready to use them ! - Can't be fairer than that.
>as your sites are SEOwise good enough for the Google to
>treat it more seriously than page made by Joe Average.
aaaaw shucks :)
Paul B
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:47:26 +0100, Paul B <lamewo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I am currently working on links to my site, for the first time :)
>>>>
>>>> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site
>>>> is
>>>> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which
>>>> PR
>>>> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>
>>> 0. But it can only go up.
>
>> Or, it can remain at PR0 if they play dirty games.
>
>One thing you can be sure off - it won't go down :)
Well, it could - as such.
It could be greyed out *then* you ought to be shaking in your boots :o
>Best,
>Borek
Paul B
Great minds think alike.
Great name too :)
plh
Paul
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:13 +0100, Mr. Polzek <paul...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> The question is, if the home page on the website where link to my site is
>> has PR5, and my link is placed on links/resources page with PR0, which PR
>> influences my website? 5 or 0 ?
>
>0
>
>PR is calculated for every page separately. Thus it is PR of the page
>where the link is placed what counts, not the PR of the site's home page.
That's true.
>But if you see a related page even with PR0 don't hesitate to ask for a
>backlink,
I'd agree, consider any link that makes sense long term to your site
especially if the site looks like it will be a high quality site in
the future. If someone had a new high quality site that's PR0, not
indexed but was run by someone who was going to put effort into the
sites content I'd give them some decent long term links for well
placed long term links in return. The difficulty is finding webmasters
like that, most webmasters who create great sites don't go looking for
link exchanges in general, since long term they don't need them (and
probably too busy to look for links as they are building a great site
:-)).
>PR is not that important.
Why has the idea that PR is no longer important become another "well
known SEO fact" in this NG?
I see it posted by many of the regulars now and it's total bull!! PR
represents the number/quality of links to a page, if you are saying PR
isn't important then you are also saying the number/quality of links
to a page isn't important and to believe this you must be mad or not
understand the first thing about SEO!
Looking at the PR of a page alone will not tell you if that page is
going to rank highly for a given SERP, but along with a few other bits
of basic info like the number of links from the page it does tell you
the sort of benefit you can expect to receive from a link from that
page.
Come on people do some research of your own, don't blindly follow a
few outspoken regular posters who parrot the same things over and over
again. It's like the validation being important for SEO a while back
(lets not open that back up though :-)), a few regulars think it's
important (which is their prerogative) and now it's practically a well
known SEO fact in the NG and advised as standard to anyone looking for
SEO advice who has a site that doesn't validate!
Oh and I'm yet to see an argument why PR is no longer important to the
search engine that based it's business model on PageRank? Are there
people here who believe Google has completely changed it's system to
no longer take a link as a vote?
>Best,
>Borek
BTW did anyone else see toolbar PR revert to the previous update value
yesterday? Every page I visited yesterday showed the old values, which
was a surprise as the toolbar PR update was over a while back, you'd
think all their servers would have the new data by now.
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> PR is not that important.
>
> Why has the idea that PR is no longer important become another "well
> known SEO fact" in this NG?
> I see it posted by many of the regulars now and it's total bull!! PR
> represents the number/quality of links to a page, if you are saying PR
> isn't important then you are also saying the number/quality of links
> to a page isn't important and to believe this you must be mad or not
> understand the first thing about SEO!
Well, perhaps my English failed me - but I am not stating PR is not
important. I have written 'PR is not THAT important' and I thought it
means 'PR is not the most important thing you should consider', or 'not
only PR is important'. But perhaps 'PR is not THAT important' and 'PR is
no longer important' means exactly the same and I am wrong.
Any native speaker here willing to enlighten me if I was wrong? (No no,
not about PR, Dave already mixed me with mud on this one, about the
meaning of my words).
> Come on people do some research of your own,
Let's see... Is there optimal size for a page?
tonnie
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:26:39 +0100, David
> <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> PR is not that important.
>>
>>
>> Why has the idea that PR is no longer important become another "well
>> known SEO fact" in this NG?
>
> important. I have written 'PR is not THAT important' and I thought it
> means 'PR is not the most important thing you should consider', or 'not
> only PR is important'. But perhaps 'PR is not THAT important' and 'PR
> is no longer important' means exactly the same and I am wrong.
I'm not a native speaker Borek, but 'not that important' sounds to me as
'not that important' or 'less important as everyone lets us beleive'.
And certainly not as 'NOT important AT ALL'.
>> Come on people do some research of your own,
It's best that Dave here starts to do his own research over again and
start reading bevor replying.
And i do to state that "PR is not THAT important". PR3 sites overrule
PR7 sites in the serps easily.
But hey, i am merely joker no. 3. :-D
Tonnie
--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com
canadafred
news:ZltUf.220450$Q22.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
There is a little controversy going on in the post regarding the importance
of PR and linking to web sites based on relevancy and PR value. I personally
have decided not to waste my time with anything external, things like
backlinking and PR values don't mean anything to me anymore. It's a waste of
my time.
I'll use an example. I have a client who has been with me on and off for
over 8 years. We have gone through alot together over the years as some of
you may well understand. He had used other web site promotion services for
brief periods of times, the ones that have convinced him to fire me. This
has happened at least two different times in the eight years. Each time I
have been rehired and made to clean up the mess and reestablish the web site
dominance in a highly competitive / cut-throat industry.
Last time I came back into his picture, I was staring at a greyed out of the
PR bar. He was seriously into link building at the time and the results were
truly devastating. This, of course, wasn't the only factor to leading his
web site getting severely penalized from the Google SERPs. So I started by
unraveling the linking mess. So many people wouldn't link back properly it
was unreal, we inherited penalties from other web sites like crazy. Trying
to get our web site removed from the trouble makers web sites was
exhaustingly futile sometimes, especially the ones that used tricky
dynamically driven links to outside of their web site. Most of these "link
partners" and "link harvesters" just wanted us to fill in their content and
care absolutely nothing about how their link to us affected us.
I tried for a while to find better link partner. This was a complete waste
of time. So we rethought the whole strategy about linking about three months
ago and decided to concentrate on our internal linking structure, building
more quality pages within the web site all having good links to the
important pages that we want top SERP positions. This strategy is paying off
way better than looking for external links and it's paying off quickly. We
are jumping three or positions each sweep of the spider. To me, quality
internal links are much better and more sustainable in the long term SEO
strategy. I have started to concentrate all of my work this way. I no longer
seek external links at all. Instead, when I get a little anxious about a web
site's performance, I build a new page or two or three ....
This is not to brag but being on the 5th page of the SERPs for two years for
the primary keyphrase was disheartening for my client and for me.
It took a while to clean most of the mess up. Now we have crawled to the
14th position and have decided to keep building internally. This has worked
very well for us so far. Our site only has 38 pages, a PR4 and is competing
against PR5s with thousands of pages with thousands of links. It's all about
quality of content today, your content.
Today, moving up the ranks is a fairly stable process and boosting PR
internally is the safest thing to do in comparison to seeking outside the
web site for ranking boosts.
But, that's just my take.
--
In best regards, Fred
www.canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com
( this is a good place to flame me too )
www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com
( ethical SEO issues, basic techniques and SEO resources )
Borek
<ad...@rezultz-web-site-promotion.com> wrote:
> of time. So we rethought the whole strategy about linking about three
> months
> ago and decided to concentrate on our internal linking structure,
> building
> more quality pages within the web site all having good links to the
> important pages that we want top SERP positions. This strategy is paying
> off
> way better than looking for external links and it's paying off quickly.
In my experience good internal workings of the site are necessary, but not
enough to gain good positions. Several times I have internally optimized
my sites for a selected KWs, directing PR to the selected pages, doing all
kinds of on-site optimalization I could think off - and it works, but only
to some point. Without external links you will not get higher then some
level no matter what you try.
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:26:39 +0100, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> PR is not that important.
>>
>> Why has the idea that PR is no longer important become another "well
>> known SEO fact" in this NG?
>
>> I see it posted by many of the regulars now and it's total bull!! PR
>> represents the number/quality of links to a page, if you are saying PR
>> isn't important then you are also saying the number/quality of links
>> to a page isn't important and to believe this you must be mad or not
>> understand the first thing about SEO!
>
>Well, perhaps my English failed me - but I am not stating PR is not
>important.
Your English is not failing you, rather it seems to be the case that
whatever it is slithering about under Dave's skull masquerading as a
brain has failed him yet again. It has spewed out two sentences that
are rendered nonsensical by their proximity and he plaintively
presents this jumble as coherent argument supporting an unclear POV.
Another self-defining SEO Dave moment. The only appropriate response
is treatment, which ain't up to me, and it's why I never bothered even
trying to reply when I read it. Just let him ramble and ignore him,
it's the easiest thing.
canadafred
> In my experience good internal workings of the site are necessary, but not
> enough to gain good positions. Several times I have internally optimized
> my sites for a selected KWs, directing PR to the selected pages, doing all
> kinds of on-site optimalization I could think off - and it works, but only
> to some point. Without external links you will not get higher then some
> level no matter what you try.
I think it all depends on the keyphrase competitors. I would suspect that
you are referring to keyphrase competitors that have either tens of
thousands of web pages or ten of thousands of BackLinks. Some are at the top
only because of their external links, others are there only because of the
internal work, and then some are there because of a combination of both.
Perhaps we differ somewhat in our way of looking at this but I think we both
agree that a properly implemented internal linking strategy is a fundamental
aspect to consider when optimizing a web site for long term sustainable
performance.
I find linking partners unreliable. Of course, my idea of a competitive
environment and your idea of what is a competitive environment probably are
worlds apart.
I work mostly in the tourism industry where most of the competitors are
medium-sized family owned businesses that have perhaps a couple of thousand
dollars a year to invest in their Internet marketing. I probably am in a
different league. I am careful to point out that this works for me in my
present circumstances.
canadafred
news:ih6522lnt73cknq2h...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> BTW did anyone else see toolbar PR revert to the previous update value
> yesterday? Every page I visited yesterday showed the old values, which
> was a surprise as the toolbar PR update was over a while back, you'd
> think all their servers would have the new data by now.
I read from Matt Cutts blog this morning that there are two more servers
left to upgrade with their latest software.
Big Bill
<ad...@rezultz-web-site-promotion.com> wrote:
>"Borek" <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in message
>news:op.s6vk4jvv26l578@borek...
>
>> In my experience good internal workings of the site are necessary, but not
>> enough to gain good positions. Several times I have internally optimized
>> my sites for a selected KWs, directing PR to the selected pages, doing all
>> kinds of on-site optimalization I could think off - and it works, but only
>> to some point. Without external links you will not get higher then some
>> level no matter what you try.
>
>I think it all depends on the keyphrase competitors. I would suspect that
>you are referring to keyphrase competitors that have either tens of
>thousands of web pages or ten of thousands of BackLinks. Some are at the top
>only because of their external links, others are there only because of the
>internal work, and then some are there because of a combination of both.
>Perhaps we differ somewhat in our way of looking at this but I think we both
>agree that a properly implemented internal linking strategy is a fundamental
>aspect to consider when optimizing a web site for long term sustainable
>performance.
It's something I always do. It works to a degree, and the degree to
which it works is inevitably determined by the competition. Sometimes
it's pretty much enough, sometimes it's far from adequate. But it's
always worth doing, and worth doing well.
David
Exactly, internal linking will not increase PR in a significant way,
it increases it a little, but it's the equivalent of each new page you
add is like dropping a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean and
believing that's going to raise sea levels (PR) significantly!
Keeping on the water analogy internal linking can be used to redirect
your PR to where it is most needed like farmers use irrigation
channels to water crops. It doesn't increase PR (the amount of water),
but it does direct it to where it is most needed.
If the main river dries up (you loose incoming links) the crops go
without water (internal pages loose PR). So obtaining incoming links
with PR is essential to Google rankings, but without the right sort of
internal linking structure you can waste lots of that PR and never
gain maximum traffic possible.
David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:26:39 +0100, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> PR is not that important.
>>
>> Why has the idea that PR is no longer important become another "well
>> known SEO fact" in this NG?
>
>> I see it posted by many of the regulars now and it's total bull!! PR
>> represents the number/quality of links to a page, if you are saying PR
>> isn't important then you are also saying the number/quality of links
>> to a page isn't important and to believe this you must be mad or not
>> understand the first thing about SEO!
>
>Well, perhaps my English failed me - but I am not stating PR is not
>important. I have written 'PR is not THAT important' and I thought it
>means 'PR is not the most important thing you should consider', or 'not
>only PR is important'. But perhaps 'PR is not THAT important' and 'PR is
>no longer important' means exactly the same and I am wrong.
>
>Any native speaker here willing to enlighten me if I was wrong? (No no,
>not about PR, Dave already mixed me with mud on this one, about the
>meaning of my words).
Well as I read it and I'm sure many not familiar with PR will read it
"PR is not that important" is saying it's not important.
Something is either important or it isn't and clearly since PR has a
direct correlation with the quantity/quality of the links to the page
PR is very important.
Do you believe there are more important things to Google rankings than
links? If so what's more important?
If you meant what you state as one of the options above 'not only PR
is important' then I've misread your post as I agree with this, also I
couldn't argue with 'PR is not the most important thing you should
consider' so maybe it's "PR is not that important" was badly worded.
And just to clarify this was a general statement about some of the
regulars who post a lot rather than you in particular Borek since I
don't have a table with all your names on ticking a box every time one
of you say "PR isn't important" or words to that effect (I've no idea
how many times you've said anything similar or not). So it's a general
feel of the message coming from this NG, seems the consensus is PR
isn't important, another well known SEO fact!.
If I'm reading the most prolific posters incorrectly feel free to say
so (don't take this as a personal question to you Borek, it's
generally to the group), I'll admit I'm barely reading 10% of messages
here since Christmas, so could easily be picking up an anomaly and
really you all think PR is the best thing since sliced bread!
>> Come on people do some research of your own,
>
>Let's see... Is there optimal size for a page?
Be a little more specific, for example is this just with regards SEO
or in general, since they are different questions with different
answers?
>Best,
>Borek
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> Let's see... Is there optimal size for a page?
>
> Be a little more specific, for example is this just with regards SEO
> or in general, since they are different questions with different
> answers?
SEOwise.
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:20:32 +0100, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Let's see... Is there optimal size for a page?
>>
>> Be a little more specific, for example is this just with regards SEO
>> or in general, since they are different questions with different
>> answers?
>
>SEOwise.
>
>Borek
For Google below 101KB and preferably more than a few paragraphs of
text so your content includes derivative search phrases (based on the
main phrase for the page) for maximum overall related SERPs, beyond
that it doesn't matter.
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Let's see... Is there optimal size for a page?
>> SEOwise.
> For Google below 101KB and preferably more than a few paragraphs of
> text so your content includes derivative search phrases (based on the
> main phrase for the page) for maximum overall related SERPs, beyond
> that it doesn't matter.
Well, you are asking others to do some testing before posting their SEO
ideas, but you are on your own doing the same mistake of posting things
that can be easily falsified with simple test :)
Size DOES matter - there is a bell curve with optimal size of the page.
When comparing series of pages of identical keyword density, all other
things being identical, pages of some particular size are ranked higher.
What was a rather shocking discovery for me (reported earlier to the
group) the same doesn't hold for keyword density - there is no optimal KW
density, the higher the better. I never tried above 50%, but it just
doesn't make sense.
Best,
David
I made a post, but decided to put it on one of my sites instead of the
newsgroup-
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/03/26/page-size-and-keyword-density/
Big Bill
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> Size DOES matter - there is a bell curve with optimal size of the page.
>> When comparing series of pages of identical keyword density, all other
>> things being identical, pages of some particular size are ranked higher.
> I made a post, but decided to put it on one of my sites instead of the
> newsgroup-
Quoting you:
> Assuming you did the tests, your tests are flawed
Assuming you have a car, your car is broken.
How do I know it if I haven't seen your car? Well, how can you know my
test is flawed if you haven't seen the methodology?
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>> I made a post, but decided to put it on one of my sites instead of the
>> newsgroup-
>
>Quoting you:
>
>> Assuming you did the tests, your tests are flawed
>
>Assuming you have a car, your car is broken.
>
>How do I know it if I haven't seen your car? Well, how can you know my
>test is flawed if you haven't seen the methodology?
>
>Borek
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/03/26/page-size-and-keyword-density/#comment-3
That analogy makes no sense especially since I explained why your test
is flawed.
You assumed correctly, I have a car, so why is it broken?
If I said my car was making a funny noise, so yesterday I poured a
bucket of washing up liquid (the type you wash dirty dishes with) into
the engine block to clean it, you could tell me my car is broken
without seeing it . You told me part of the SEO test method, and from
this I can see you’ve made the assumption that by keeping keyword
density static you can test the effects of page size only on specific
SERPs.
Since there is no obvious relationship between keyword density and
page size (which you also found from other tests) you can’t make that
assumption and accurately test the effects of page size on specific
SERPs.
Let me put it another way if the optimum keyword density was 5% no
matter what the page size then you could setup a test like you have
since you set the keyword density at 5% and vary the page size only.
Since there is no obvious keyword density pattern you can’t use it in
the way you have.
Good to have an interesting SEO discussion though.
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Assuming you did the tests, your tests are flawed
>>
>> Assuming you have a car, your car is broken.
>>
>> How do I know it if I haven't seen your car? Well, how can you know my
>> test is flawed if you haven't seen the methodology?
> Since there is no obvious relationship between keyword density and
> page size (which you also found from other tests) you can’t make that
> assumption and accurately test the effects of page size on specific
> SERPs.
What is 'obvious relationship between keyword density and page size'?
These are independent variables.
> Let me put it another way if the optimum keyword density was 5% no
> matter what the page size then you could setup a test like you have
> since you set the keyword density at 5% and vary the page size only.
> Since there is no obvious keyword density pattern you can’t use it in
> the way you have.
There is a pattern - the higher the density, the higher the page land in
SERPS (perhaps with the exception of border cases, but for reasonably
sized pages increasing the densty moves page up). There is a huge
difference between 'no optimal density' and 'no relationship betwen
density and SERPs' statements.
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:15:18 +0200, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Assuming you did the tests, your tests are flawed
>>>
>>> Assuming you have a car, your car is broken.
>>>
>>> How do I know it if I haven't seen your car? Well, how can you know my
>>> test is flawed if you haven't seen the methodology?
>
>> Since there is no obvious relationship between keyword density and
>> page size (which you also found from other tests) you can’t make that
>> assumption and accurately test the effects of page size on specific
>> SERPs.
>
>What is 'obvious relationship between keyword density and page size'?
>These are independent variables.
that was a typo meant to say
"Since there is no obvious relationship between keyword density and
SERPs (which you also found from other tests) you can’t make that
assumption and accurately test the effects of page size on specific
SERPs."
>> Let me put it another way if the optimum keyword density was 5% no
>> matter what the page size then you could setup a test like you have
>> since you set the keyword density at 5% and vary the page size only.
>> Since there is no obvious keyword density pattern you can’t use it in
>> the way you have.
>
>There is a pattern - the higher the density, the higher the page land in
>SERPS (perhaps with the exception of border cases, but for reasonably
>sized pages increasing the densty moves page up).
So what relationship (pattern) between keyword density and page size
did you use in your SEO tests?
And how did you get around the problem of creating spammy pages (high
keyword density with a lot of content) that I've found results in the
pages not doing well?
Put another way a low content page with just a H1 header with this in
it-
"Search Phrase Filler Words"
And "Search Phrase" is a 2 word phrase you are tracking, you have a
keyword density of 50%. I've found you can get a page like this ranked
in Google if the title is similar.
If we then go to a higher content page to get anywhere near that sort
of density you need to go spammy-
Search Phrase this is Search Phrase not a Search Phrase very good
Search Phrase idea, OK.
That's not even a medium amount of content and 50% is very spammy.
More content we have more spammy it's going to get, so inevitably as
we add more content keyword density drops (unless you go with spammy
content).
A large article with thousands of words you'd be hard pushed to get
the density above a few percent, a short paragraph or two however and
5%+ is easy. So I don't understand how you could use keyword density
in your page size tests?
>There is a huge
>difference between 'no optimal density' and 'no relationship betwen
>density and SERPs' statements.
>
I didn't say 'no relationship between density and SERPs' I said "no
obvious relationship..." that's a big difference!
Might help to list exactly what you did for your test as so far it
makes no sense at all to me and I have a background in scientific
research.
>Borek
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
> A large article with thousands of words you'd be hard pushed to get
> the density above a few percent, a short paragraph or two however and
> 5%+ is easy. So I don't understand how you could use keyword density
> in your page size tests?
> Might help to list exactly what you did for your test
I am not asking you to reveal your methods :)
> as so far it makes no sense at all to me and I have a background in
> scientific research.
Why do you think you are the only one with such background here?
In this particular case I am covering 2-dimensional variable space with
experimental points. That's the most basic technique used in such
situtations. I am using pages made of generated content, thus I am not
limited by size nor KW density.
David
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:36:11 +0200, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A large article with thousands of words you'd be hard pushed to get
>> the density above a few percent, a short paragraph or two however and
>> 5%+ is easy. So I don't understand how you could use keyword density
>> in your page size tests?
>
>> Might help to list exactly what you did for your test
>
>I am not asking you to reveal your methods :)
I note you didn't answer the questions regarding the flaws in the
test, I take it you'd rather not continue this thread then :-(
>> as so far it makes no sense at all to me and I have a background in
>> scientific research.
>
>Why do you think you are the only one with such background here?
How does the above equate to me thinking I'm the only one with a
scientific background? I know there are others here with a scientific
background so that falsifies your statement.
>In this particular case I am covering 2-dimensional variable space with
>experimental points. That's the most basic technique used in such
>situtations.
Be more specific as that doesn't give enough information to repeat the
tests?
About the only way the above could possibly work is to run a lot of
test pages (hundreds of tests) using the same keyword phrase with
varying amounts of content and covering specific (arbitrary) keyword
densities for all content values. Then perform detailed statistical
analysis on the data set.
But this would cause other problems due to lack of resources available
to standardise all other variables including the quality of links to
the test pages (this is one reason why testing something like this is
challenging), where the test pages are hosted etc... and I doubt you
have the resources to do this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
>I am using pages made of generated content, thus I am not
>limited by size nor KW density.
Sounds like spammy content to me, which skews your results further
since you've added another assumption into the mix that Google can't
filter spammy content!
How many pages did you use to do the tests, how did you standardise
the amount of PR/links they received?
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Might help to list exactly what you did for your test
>>
>> I am not asking you to reveal your methods :)
>
> I note you didn't answer the questions regarding the flaws in the
> test, I take it you'd rather not continue this thread then :-(
Let me put it this way: I don't want to tell too much about the methods
used. Judging from your response you don't know how to do this test, which
means that the idea that seemed for me so obvious is not obvious for
others, thus it is valuable and worth further work. Or at least it is not
a thing to give away for free ;)
>>> as so far it makes no sense at all to me and I have a background in
>>> scientific research.
>>
>> Why do you think you are the only one with such background here?
>
> How does the above equate to me thinking I'm the only one with a
> scientific background? I know there are others here with a scientific
> background so that falsifies your statement.
Well, somehow I have read you statement about scientific bacgkroud as "I
know what I am doing, others don't". As others have scientific background
too, they may know what they are doing, which falsifies my understanding
of your statement. But it could be wrong from the very beginning.
>> In this particular case I am covering 2-dimensional variable space with
>> experimental points. That's the most basic technique used in such
>> situtations.
>
> Be more specific as that doesn't give enough information to repeat the
> tests?
> About the only way the above could possibly work is to run a lot of
> test pages (hundreds of tests) using the same keyword phrase with
> varying amounts of content and covering specific (arbitrary) keyword
> densities for all content values. Then perform detailed statistical
> analysis on the data set.
I told you it is very basic.
> But this would cause other problems due to lack of resources available
> to standardise all other variables including the quality of links to
> the test pages (this is one reason why testing something like this is
> challenging), where the test pages are hosted etc... and I doubt you
> have the resources to do this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Feel corrected :) I am more and more convinced that my idea was brilliant
;)
>> I am using pages made of generated content, thus I am not
>> limited by size nor KW density.
>
> Sounds like spammy content to me, which skews your results further
> since you've added another assumption into the mix that Google can't
> filter spammy content!
That could be a factor, but judging from the results - it is not. If (for
the same page size and same other factors) page with 50% KW density is
higher in SERPS than pages with 2%, 10% or 32% - seems like Google ignores.
> How many pages did you use to do the tests, how did you standardise
> the amount of PR/links they received?
About 40 per batch, zooming next batch on the previous maximum. But these
tests are history, I am checking other things atm. While I am quite
confident I am able to filter out links and PR influence, there are still
factors that add unpredictability to the results. I am beginning to wonder
if sometimes G doesn't use just random number generator :) Could be there
is some internal order of the pages in the index - like order of addition
or something - that is used when all other factors seem to be identical.