The real John Scott - Page 2

Gede · Share | #21 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 03:46 AM

Fun.

Give your site a meta description.

Would it matter in your ranking for:

Touchstone Design Studio / #2 / 27,800
Touchstone Web Design Studio / not in top 100 / only 8,750

?

(I think that if there is no further content your meta description matters for google)

At least it shows up in the SRP's

Johan007 · #22 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 03:49 AM

wow i have never seen
"http://www.mydomain.com -site:www.mydomain.com"

Is this more uptodate backlinks? I have shed loads?

I, Brian · #23 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 03:58 AM

Actually, try:

"http://www.mydomain.com" -site:www.mydomain.com

(quote marks were in the wrong place

)

That will show all links (regardless of PR) that include your URL, excluding those links specifically from the site stated.

HOWEVER, it neither counts links hidden in anchor text, nor does it differentiate between active links and non-parsed links.

Johan007 · #24 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 04:17 AM

cool it works without using "

Has anyone used this to guest mate if Google counts low PR links towards rank?

janeth · #25 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 05:53 AM

Hi John,

I can not blame you for that. WPW is a new forum with over 30,000 members they have a lot of want to be SEO guys there each one thinking they have figured something out or at lest want everyone else to think they have.

As time goes on I think they will get a handle on everything but until that happenes it can be a bit crazy from time to time.

But anyone that has tried for any of the good key words know your right.

JuggoPop · #26 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gede

Give your site a meta description. ...
(I think that if there is no further content your meta description matters for google)

Tel me what to put, and well test it... unless it doesn't really matter as long as there is "more content" and not really what it says...

either way... I'll see if I can jump up a bit for that search.

however, I still can't see why I don't show up better is a search with less results, then one with more results... especially seeing as that is the full name.

I guess I just don't have my head around this SEO thing...

compar · #27 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

HOWEVER, it neither counts links hidden in anchor text, nor does it differentiate between active links and non-parsed links.

What is a link "hidden in anchor text"?

And what is a "non-parsed link". If someone has either www . mydomain .XXX or the "http://" variant, it is going to be an outbound link, is it not?

Gede · #28 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Tel me what to put, and well test it... unless it doesn't really matter as long as there is "more content" and not really what it says...

The phrases you want to be found on, in a "yes click there" slogan.

compar · #29 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 04:47 PM

Remember Google only shows backlink from pages with PR4 or higher in it's link: search.

JuggoPop · #30 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compar

Remember Google only shows backlink from pages with PR4 or higher in it's link: search.

I didn't realize that.

though, juggopop.com is a 4 (dropped from a 5 recently) and the link: search didn't show it... it does however show a link from a 1 and 0...

I just get confused on this stuff, and I just have never had the free time to really dig deep into it.

compar · #31 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 05:56 PM

PR4 is the general rule, but others have found exceptions. I've never heard of a 1 or a 0 though. Could you give us the actual search involved? I'd like to see that.

Then the other question relative to juggoppop is, how long has the link been in place? If it is newer than a month Google may not have found it yet or updated their listing.

JuggoPop · #32 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 06:14 PM

the domain is touchstonestudio.com

and the link has been in place ... oh, about 2 months. it comes up in other things in google, just not on touchstone's backlinks..

of course I normally don't talk about seo, I just lurk these forums... I don't feel I know enough to really get involved (this is my first jump in with both feet... so to say)

You guys know of a lot better places to find answers to things like "whos linked to me?" and "what the real PR# is" (i've heard the toolbar is not 100% right)...

Is there a place, a thread or site, that has a "cliff notes" version of good source links, terms, and all the "switches" for google.com (or other search engines)??? Something easy to read for a SEO Newbie? I've seen a lot of great sites with lots of info and atricles, but I hope to find a page that will give me simple answers to basic stuff...

compar · #33 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 06:44 PM

This search <-site:http://www.touchstonestudio.com www.touchstonestudio.com> confirms that juggopop.com does have a link to touchstone.

However the page the link is on, <http://www.juggopop.com/faq.php>, has a pagerank of 0. So that is why Google doesn't show the link in a backlink search. The link from your home page doesn't show up anywhere and that is confusing. However I notice that all your internal "home" links go to <http://www.juggopop.com/index.php>. This page has no PR at all.

You should change all your "home" links to just point at the domain. By pointing to the index.php you are diluting if not wasting your internal PR. And I feel it may have something to do with the fact that the link from the home page does not show.

JuggoPop · #34 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 06:52 PM

I was wondering about that... it used to be html and I changed it to php and my site dropped a point. That makes total since.

compar · #35 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuggoPop

That makes total since.

Wow! I've never made total since before

But the issue is not whether it is index.html or index.php. The issue is that your internal link should just go to <http://www.joggopop.com>. And by the way so should your external or backlinks.

JuggoPop · #36 (**permalink**) 02-04-2004, 10:53 PM

I love how people tear up my name

jugggopop juggpoop jugapop joggopop ...j/k I get it all the time.

Yeah I changed that the second I read your post. Hope it helps me.

My other problem is getting google to list the new bling bling tutorial after it moved... it was in a folder ".../tutorials/blingbling/" and set as an index.html page... now it's not in a folder and named blingbling.php... and I guess I just need to wait longer??? is there a trick to helping google find moved pages?

I, Brian · #37 (**permalink**) 02-05-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compar

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

HOWEVER, it neither counts links hidden in anchor text, nor does it differentiate between active links and non-parsed links.

What is a link "hidden in anchor text"?

And what is a "non-parsed link". If someone has either www . mydomain .XXX or the "http://" variant, it is going to be an outbound link, is it not?

"Links hidden in anchor text" is a clumsy sentence. I basically mean that with "www.domain.com" Google is specifically doing a search for the phrase - which is actually very very different from searching for an active link.

For example, look at the page in this link: "skatersguide.com" appears on it twice:

1/ As a title link - which is modified by "out.php", so this will not be classed a backlink.
2/ As non-parsed text in the entry: the link is text only - it is not active - therefore it will not count as a backlink.

However, although a search for "skatersguide.com" would indicate it present on this page (twice, in fact), in neither instance would Google count "skatersguide.com" as having any active backlinks from the page - just text containing the name.

compar · #38 (**permalink**) 02-05-2004, 06:01 AM

Ok Fair enough. But the original question was from a person who had no idea how many pages might link to him or any idea how to find out.

So while my answer may not be 100% correct in all circumstances, it is a better approximation than no idea whatsoever. Normally if someone puts www.mydomain.com in the code, or on the page, of a web site it will be clickable. Evidence the fictious domain I just entered is clickable.

The page you gave went to rather unusual lenghts to change that convention. So if you have no idea how many pages might link to you my search suggestion is still useful. Don't you agree?

I, Brian · #39 (**permalink**) 02-05-2004, 08:25 AM

Hi compar - sorry, I wasn't actually trying to correct you on the issue, as much as illustrate limitions.

Really, though, I think tools such as "URL" search, and link:URL, are both useful and complementary procedures for tracking backlinks, and their usefulness.

The trouble is, unless you have a very distinct brand name, then it can be very hard to trace backlinks based on keyworded anchor text, so these can be hard to search for precisely. "URL" search is definitely useful, but unfortunately is also limited in certain areas, which is why I mentioned so.

One especial problem is that modified and non-parsed URLs are actually suprisingly common: many directories are particularly bad with modifying URLs - simply for tracking purposes - whereas there are also sites (such as cre8asite) which intentionally use script(s) to cripple a range of outgoing links.

As for non-parsing - it's actually not to uncommon either, and is a particular problem for vbulletin forum HTML archives - where the dymanic posts, which include an active sig link, are not indexed - but the HTML archive, where the sig link is non-parsed, is indexed.

And then there are those instances where the links may be purposefully hidden from spiders by Javascript, or a robots.txt file...