__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 12:16 \__
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:18:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:11 \__
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:54:22 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 06:11 \__
>>>>
>>>>> Despite my finally getting a PR of 5 for my index page, I'm virtually
>>>>> invisible in the serps. I'm hundreds deep now for terms I was top ten
>>>>> or twenty for for years, yet my PR is higher. What kind of a joke
>>>>> engine is this?
>>>>>
>>>>> BB
>>>>
>>>>It comes to prove that PageRank embellishments are pointless. Were you
>>>>expecting traffic to change overnight owing to the TBPR update?
>>>
>>> Hell no, I've said publicly PR was irrelevant for years now.
>>>
>>> Thinking about things a little deeper, I have to say that my traffic
>>> is as good as ever it was, despite my being all but invisible save for
>>> my page about templates. And, oddly enough, I recall reading in a
>>> couple of forums how odd it was during and after Jagger that people
>>> were somehow still finding sites for keywords and phrases even though
>>> these sites were buried, absolutely buried, in the serps. I'm
>>> beginning to wonder if the serps we're seeing from Google aren't
>>> pretendy ones, and somehow they're spoofing us from the mountain. The
>>> real ones are actually only presented very very low in the results.
>>> Something about the current display isn't jake, it just doesn't ring
>>> true.
>>>
>>> BB
>>
>>Results are delivered impartially, regardless of where you are. There are
>>only the factors of localisation and datacentre misalignment.
>>
>>I think you must check to ensure that referrals are not from Google's
>>sister sites (harvesters),
>
> What (or which) would you call a Google harvester?
Webcrawler, Scroogle, A9 and the list goes on and on.
>>opponents, or even Google images. You may soon find a
>>perfectly-defensible explanation.
>
> I expect to, I'm just surprised I didn't already.
Make sure you look at the raw logs. Don't rely on interpretation of
statistics tool. I know you are using Urchin, but I can't comment on its
accuracy. Maybe Google are trying to mess up with your mind, encouraging you
to run plenty of searches, getting more AdWords, which gives them revenue.
*lamp lights up*
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Have you hugged your penguin today?
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
12:15pm up 5 days 0:34, 9 users, load average: 1.01, 0.62, 0.67
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
