Hi All,

I have been trying and trying to get my pages to number one for 'Feminization Hypnosis', but I had a thought. Would it be easier to get www.feminization-hypnosis.com to number 1 rather than the old links of;

http://www.richardmackenzie.co.uk/femin ... pnosis.htm
http://www.richardmackenzie.co.uk/shop/ ... is-mp3.htm

This is a fresh domain that I purchased two days ago and put a page on. Will this automatically go to number one - or will I still need to get those links in?

Richard

we've discussed this recently and concluded that just having the name URL doesnt necessarily mean that you'll jump to number 1, it is a factor when the search engines calculate ranking.

However in your case theres very little competition, its not exactly a competitive keyword so i'd say with that domain and the right on page optimization you'll be in the top three.

I have a similar site http://www.jetskiforum.co.uk, i rank #1 on msn, #2 on yahoo and #4 on google for the search term jetski forum.

one thing i wil say though is that even though you may rank in the top 3 you'll still need to build up the sites pagerank if you want all of the pages to be indexed.

additionally, how old is your exixting site?

Hi,

My other site is about 3 years old.

Also should I submit my URL to google or should I wait for it to be picked up naturally? If the latter, is there anything that I can do to make this move faster?

Richard

Links

Google will tind to visit and crawl sites more frequently and deeper the more links and better PR you have. Additionally, linking also appears to be the key to getting more of a site's pages in the regular index.

Dave

I am going to agree with Dave.......link, link, link, link, and keep linking!!

Hey Dave,

Thanks for the comments - I was going to do the 'directory thing' but because the subject is little understood I think that most will get rejected. I tried to get some paid links - PR7 and the such, but everyone said that they couldn't approve the site.

I done an article and sent it through Isnare and Article Marketer, so lets hope that this makes a shift. Top 3 would be good.

Richard

wheres the link from the homepage that links to:-

http://www.richardmackenzie.co.uk/femin ... nosis.htm??

does it link to that page using the keywords Feminization Hypnosis?

If you visit the Marketing Services forum here, there are at least a couple of very reasonable link submission services. With exceptionally niche terms, sometimes "throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks" isn't a bad approach.

Dave

i really don't think external links are the the problem, the pages that rank above you are absolute rubbish.

I'm thinking you need to sort out your link structure so that pagerank is fed to the page you are focusing on using the keywords you are targeting.

The top sites is a very amateur looking pr3 site, you shouldnt need a domain name url to compete with that if you set your site up right.

Ok.. guess I’ll pipe in..

1. Links; Be careful when crafting a Link Profile in a post-Big Daddy world. Yahoo is coming on strong in fighting Link Spam so be advised. It’s not just throwing links against the wall it’s about quality and relevance.


2. URL; Both connotations are actually the URL

a. www.feminization-hypnosis.com

b. http://www.richardmackenzie.co.uk/femin ... pnosis.htm

Do a search on google as such ; inurl:feminization
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... inization+

You’ll notice it considers the longer strings as PART of the URL. Not merely the TLD itself.

So the URL is important, it’s understanding what the SE thinks a URL represents. The above IMHO does illustrate this.

Gee another Dave too..man Do you really believe that no harm can come from such thinking? A diluted Link Profile score can certainly tank one in the SERPs.

I spend time cleaning up client Link Profiles and it is a part of life these days with folks that have paid for directory submissions or other bad ideas.

I am just not comfortable with 'isn't a bad approach.'

argg... Dave v Dave what is the world coming to I ask?

lol

I suppose I should clarify my point...

As far as catergorized directories are concerned, "throwing" links at a related category in as many directories possible and see how many "stick" isn't a bad approach when it comes to exceptionally niche terms.

I am not suggesting linking with anything and everything available and ignoring relevance.

Dave

i was under the impression that reciprocal links etc are being devalued and may carry less weight nowadays but wont have a negative effect on rankings..

are you suggesting we need to start undoing the links we've built up?

it seems crazy that bad links could ruin SERPS, if thats the case i would focus of getting getting crappy links for my rivals

Hmmm I won’t even mention GB in public forums (the name of what U speak). Between U me and the fence post, be careful. You are venturing near BH territory and should you not know how to protect one’s self when playing such a game against your competitors, it could well backfire :0)

As far as recips. See the ever popular Timeline post --- http://mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/

Some other tidbits;

Nov16-2005 - WMW Las Vegas Organic Site Reviews Panel

This panel, made up of representatives of the Big 3 and more, was giving general reviews of sites from the audience form an ‘organic’ SEO standpoint.
My interest in this was the high ‘weighting’ score for Matt Cutts when it came to addressing IBLs (inbound links or back links).

While other luminaries covered a variety of topics, Matt seemed to have a particular interest in IBLs.

In Order, his comments on the sites, (other SE comments removed);

‘ArtInternationalWholesale.com’ – “Matt says they need to look harder at link quality”

‘OnlineHighway or InformationHighway...something like that...I so could not see the URL’ – “used to have multiple location based URLs...301ed to one central domain. Matt Cutts recommended that.”

TicketsToGo.com – “Matt Cutts said "tell me about your backlinks" ... uber spammy reciprocal linking campaign. said good news is no manual spam penalty, but few of the low quality links this site has are doing it any good.”

BargainTravel.com - Matt pointed out bad cross industry linking between his own site (like mortgage and credit sites), but said there were some good links

MicroMatic.com - Matt Cutts calls some of their paid backlinks "painfully obvious" to most any search engine. Matt said those links are not hurting them, but they are not helping in Google.

LendingTree.com - Matt Cutts said the partner links section on IACI properties as a technique do not work in Google.

While the others seemed to move around different weighting factors/advice, Matt (et al) seem to have a keen interest in linking patterns. I am always very careful about linking programs and we are starting to really ‘devalue’ them because of the inherent risk that can be involved.

Matt followed it up on his Blog saying;
“The main point I want to get across is that in 1-2 minutes, it was easy to tell whether a site was (over)doing reciprocal links or trying to buy links. One site said: “we used to be doing okay last year, but for some reason we’re just not doing as well this year.” And I was able to tell them why: they had no spam penalties, but Google is getting better at handling paid links, and the paid links that might have helped them last year just weren’t doing them any good now.”



So there is just SOME of my stuff on linking in a Post Big Daddy world… want more?

No, I don't believe the one way IBL's can harm a site. If it were the case, one could use submission services etc. in order to submit their their competition and harm them in the SERP's. Whether or not all such links provide a benefit and if they do by how much is another question altogether.

AFAIC, anything that has the potential to help, without the potential to harm, should always be considered. Especially one where the investment in time and money are minimal.

I find the thoughts concerning the supposed use of a link profile score interesting. More of a "buzz phrase". From what I can tell there is some speculation surrounding its' existance but no verifiable examples. Even a Google search for it gets you these results. Same with "TrustRank". Speculation, but again, little verifiable examples that it's being used. Since Google's "thang" is "PageRank" I rather doubt they'd drop that in favor of what "TrustRank" white paper outlines even though I do believe "trust" in some form is taken into account. The "TrustRank" authors were/are affiliated with whom?

Dave

TrustRank=Authority Site? ... a Rose by any other name?

I am certainly a subscriber to a form of TR score. If it's the actual TR well, that I am unsure. There seems to be some form of filter in there.

As far as the LPS (Link Profile Score) we created our own formulas for a sliding scale score that we finds works great against Google SERPs. With the Big G not showing 'true' back links it is a bit of a pickle to do.
Because of this I know what factors affect a Link Profile and you'd be surprised what you find with an in-depth study of the link profiles of various SERP leaders across varied markets.

Just because Google TELLS you something isn’t so do you believe it? Or do you research it? I prefer the latter. Would it be in G’s interest to discuss the problems surrounding current Link Profile calculations (or any other Black Hat techniques?)

It’s about as likely as the US Government handing over their plans for the war on terrorism complete with weak spots.

As with all things in the SEO world it one big IMHO (and tons of research)

Since Yahoo has filed a patent application for TrustRank and, if I'm not mistaken, Google just received an extention of their intent to use trademark application, indicating that they have yet to use "TrustRank" commercially, I don't think your equation is accurate.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about what Google is TELLING me that you're inferring I'm taking for granted. Could you be specific?

So I'm clear, link profiles and link profile scores is something you do? And it's a correllation that you are making between your link profile and Google SERP's? And not a known profile or score used any of the SE's?

We certainly agree that tons of research is a good thing.

Dave

i was only being sarky about the crappy links for my rivals, i wouldnt stoop that low but some of the spammers out there would do just that if they thought they could influence search engine placements by working on bad links for their rivals.

Youve pretty much agreed with me in your last post, what matts saying is that 1000 reciprocal links may not do your serps much good but at the same time they wont do any harm. If nothing else they may get your site indexed more frequently.

we all know that the answers high quality one way links from sites wth relevant content.. if only that was easy eh!

Coincidentally, (in my mind) I came up against BD linkage profiles today. I decided to deep link from one site to another site from each results page on the first site. The links would go to specific pages on the other site that are concerned with variations of the topic that the first site doesn't cover, but the other site does. It's good for the users.

Then I thought, hang on a minute. This is going to be thousands of links from one site to another, albeit from thousands of pages to thousands of pages. They are useful, relevant links, but what about the BD linkage profiles implications for both sites. Those links would be an overwhelmingly large part of the BD linkage profiles for both sites, and I thought, what the hell sort of Web world are we living in now, when you can't add useful links without fear of damaging some profiles, and risking more of the Supplemental index. It's grim when you have to think like that, isn't it? I added the links anyway.

I agree with CrankyDave's idea of throwing the stuff out there, and seeing what sticks. If most of it doesn't help, because of the nature of the links, so what? But it's bad to suddenly throw a large amount of stuff out there (like I've just done), because it could trigger a flag for a different type of profile check - the sudden significant change flag.

First off THANKS for being a nice bunch.

My aforementioned journeys around SEO forums against PageRank got me more than a few FLAMES. Ya’ll have been good, if in agreeance or not. I have been looking for a new haunt to hang my keyboard at and am enjoying myself so far!

Cheers

On with the fun…

Trust Rank; Yes I know about Yah. I was merely saying that Goo and Yah have a TRUST/AUTHORITY element. Most interesting is the read of the recent Google editors patent and some of the stuff on editor roles and how the algo assists and correlates ‘TRUST’ type elements. A good read for the whole family


“about what Google is TELLING me” – Point is that some things are out there that many SEO enthusiasts believe CANNOT BE. There are some THAT ARE. Google (and the other SEs) are constantly STAMPING out spammers and there are always LOOP HOLEs in the system. Google isn’t going to advertise them


‘And not a known profile or score used any of the SE's?’ – Currently the formulas are Google centric. It is the mass of our work. We don’t get many clients asking to “Be #1 in Yahoo” unless they have their Google rankings in place.


“Youve pretty much agreed with me in your last post, what matts saying is that 1000 reciprocal links may not do your serps much good but at the same time they wont do any harm. If nothing else they may get your site indexed more frequently.” ----------- See point #2 “about what Google is TELLING me” . I still advise crafting a SMART link profile.



“we all know that the answers high quality one way links from sites wth relevant content.. if only that was easy eh!” – How about this;

101 Ways to Build Link Popularity in 2006;
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml

Where to start a Link building Campaign;
http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/08/order_matters_s.html

Advanced Link Building;
http://www.seomoz.org/articles/advanced-link-building.php

Link building tactics and relevance;
http://www.seomoz.org/articles/advanced-link-building.php

Link Development vs. Traffic Development and Staying with the Times
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum12/3047.htm

The Right honorable Matt Cutts on Link baiting;
http://mattcutts.com/blog/seo-advice-linkbait-and-linkbaiting/

Unconventional Link building techniques
http://www.seobook.com/archives/000895.shtml

Sadly I agree. I anjoy surfing, reading, researching and learning. It is not what we once hoped it would be.

I empathize with individuals, businesses and search engines alike. The war on spammers never ends. Even the 'Big Boys' get caught at it. Tsk tsk

The Utopian dream lives on.

Thank you for the nice comments, Dave. I don't think we've ever had a heated thread here, and we have people with greatly differing opinions.

Good.


Linking... I'm not convinced Google has figured out a way to value/devalue links algorithmically. Case and point would be reciprocal linking. As long as reciprocal links remain in the index, the carry ranking value. I've seen no indication that this doesn't remain true. Their answer to reciprocal links was to de-index entire pages. No link, no value. Crawling/indexing implications are another matter altogether.

Trust... Again, I certainly do believe there's an element of trust, perhaps as a dampening factor, but I believe its more a matter of who you link to and not who links to you, coupled with the way you link to them... structure. Whether or not it's age or stability, I do believe this is factored in as well.



This kind of thing has been the "bur under my saddle" for a variety of reasons. It's becoming more of an atmosphere of building sites for SE's first. As long as SE's attempt to handle things algorithmically without the aid of some sort of intelligence, artificial or otherwise, we'll find ourselves increasingly wary of SE "approval" of what we already know to be of benefit to our visitors.

Dave

(have we thoroughly hijacked this thread? )

thoroughly

thread hijacked and the web could be a better place.....

sigh.......

http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml

just took a look at your first suggestion and it actually recommends the practices your opposed to?!

thanks friend but there are 100 ideas there.

I have no idea which you're referenceing and I certainly didn't say I AGREE with them all (but who's gonna argue with Aaron? he he)

Keep in mind 30 of them are BAD WAYS to do things.

Anyways, which ones did you wish to chat about?

Aaron is quite new to the seo industry, so he is certainly arguable with ;)

I read a couple of the articles that you listed (Aaorn's and seomoz - I like the seomoz one the best) in case there was anything that I hadn't thought or heard of, but there isn't. They just served to continue my long-term annoyance at how Google has really screwed up the Web <sigh>.

Phil, I know we just met, but I like ya already!

I am more the Biz Development side and own a web development firm, (and hosting company as a side line) the Search world I am only a few years into as far as intent study. I am always traveling forums (theGypsy or cdsadmin ) and always enjoy a more 'earthly' view of things. It really is my personal perspective. Strangely my professional opinions can vary from my personal ones. It happens.

Have you ever met the over-popularized, but humble MC? Seems he'd appreciate your 'utopian' web dreams. To dream the impossible dream. I am with you on that.

(and my list was more a NOOBs organic linking course, not my Gold Seal on the matter)