McDar Experiment

Rational

May 24th 2004, 2:05 pm

Here is the information:

The site is www.sleeping-bag-shop.com the search is sleeping bag (singular).

Currently: The regular results put our experiment page at #25 for that search term. The site mentioned above is not found at all.

If you search for sleeping bag -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa, the experimental page is no longer appears anywhere in the 806 results returned. The site mentioned above with 9 Backlinks is then in #17 position.

What is the explanation for this?
Rational,

The two examples that you commented on do not interest me as much as the example I have quoted above.

The example I have quoted above, removes the experimental page (the focus of this thread) completely from the results!

If using -dsa... simply adds full value to the links you have to a page, then reason would have it that it would displace current positions not replace them entirely.

Why would adding -dsa... remove our experimental page from the results entirely?

Yes, there is definitely something going on here. I ran a test as well, and here are my results for 'sleeping bag' (singular):

http://www.sleeping-bag-shop.com
allinanchor:not listed (678 results)
normal: not listed (826 results)
sandboxed: #17

http://www.mcdar.com/camping1/sleeping-bags.htm
allinanchor: not listed (678 results)
normal: #506
sandboxed: not listed (801 results)

It seems like something drastic is happening to the first of your sites (http://www.sleeping-bag-shop.com). From being at #99 (according to your last data), it has now fallen completely out of both the allinanchor SERP and the regular SERP. But I find it a bit strange that it should have been replaced by the experimental site. The two pages are too different, as far as I can see it.

Are there any other ways the page can have provoced the filter Google applies on the regular search?

Regarding the second of your sites (the experimental site), I don't find my results as disturbing as those you mentioned above. I found it at #506, not #25 (I only checked one DC though). I couldn't, however, find it in neither the allinachor SERP nor the sandboxed SERP. How come?

Maybe the filter that differentiates the sandboxed search and the regular search includes some sort of stemming algorithm (as also have been mentioned in this thread earlier)? In such case, all the anchor text connected to the experimental site ('sleeping bags') could be given some value also for 'sleeping bag' in the regular seach...?

I really hope your site comes back for this search term, Caryl, as seeing something like this is always pretty depressive.

Rational

May 24th 2004, 2:15 pm

I have had a load of links added

normal google uk = 8th - -aasdfetc = #1

I have been steady at 8th for sometime - I have had many PR7 links added (and cached) but no change

I have a smallish site but no effect on the backlinks (different domains etc)

When were these links added? And is the anchor text an exact match? According to the theory, which may or may not be proven -- fully or partly, the effect of links are more or less immediately factored into the allinanchor results (quickly after the page where the link is located has been spidered) and the sandboxed search. Then gradually, over the next 3 months or so (timing is uncertain) the links should gain more effect in the normal search as well.

This could explain why you are still at #8 in the regular search and at #1 in the sandboxed search (at least if your links have been acquired during the last three months).

Please let me know what happens to your site in the future (monitor both the regular search and the sandboxed search), as I would be very interested in as much data as possible to test this theory.

compar

May 24th 2004, 2:39 pm

Why would adding -dsa... remove our experimental page from the results entirely?
I've been away for a couple of hours and obviously everyone has been busy. But unless I've missed something I thing the answer to that question is fairly simple.

The experimental page is only going to show up on a search for "sleeping bag" singular as a result of stemming. We do not use the singular anywhere in the anchor text.

So one can only conclude that that "-das" search bypasses any stemmed results. It only applies to the exact keyword or anchortext phrase.

This seems so fundamental that I fear I missed something in the discussion. If so please set me straight.

ephricon

May 24th 2004, 3:39 pm

This is a very interesting theory. I've had a number of links added in the past few months - a significant number, so I'll try and keep all posted regarding my experience with any significant impact upon rankings in the next few months...

Rational

May 24th 2004, 3:48 pm

mcdar

May 24th 2004, 3:52 pm

I've been away for a couple of hours and obviously everyone has been busy. But unless I've missed something I thing the answer to that question is fairly simple.

The experimental page is only going to show up on a search for "sleeping bag" singular as a result of stemming. We do not use the singular anywhere in the anchor text.

So one can only conclude that that "-das" search bypasses any stemmed results. It only applies to the exact keyword or anchortext phrase.

This seems so fundamental that I fear I missed something in the discussion. If so please set me straight.

Precisely Bob,

If this is the case, then the -dsa... search is NOT an accurate representation of the serps without "sandbox" as it is obstructing other very important factors in the algorithm.

It is not just adding full values to links. It is distorting other aspects of the serps as well.

View the difference in the two searches with Keyword Analysis Tool (http://www.mcdar.net/Keyword.htm)

compar

May 24th 2004, 6:45 pm

It is not just adding full values to links. It is distorting other aspects of the serps as well.
If that is your point then I agree.

I'm sure the "-das" search is not so simply as to just remove all links from the sandbox. It is obviously interfering with the way Google is presenting their SERPs. If as we suspect it is interfering with the sandbox effect, who knows what else it is interfering with?

Only time will tell how good a prediction tool this search is, but I don't think you can expect it to give absolutely normal results other than removing the sandbox effect.

It is a bastardized search that I'm sure Google never anticipated. I wouldn't be surprised that they adjust for it like they did after Florida. But we shouldn't be looking for perfect results from it. It is an interesting curiosity at best.

Rational

May 25th 2004, 4:34 am

Based on the SERP results in relation to McDar's site above, it seemed - to my great sorrow - conclusive that the sandboxed search did not include stemming, which the regular Google search does.

Therefore, today, I decided to check one of my own sites for stemmed phrases -- and the results I found makes yesterday's conclusion less certain, at least in my eyes.

Here are my results:

1) Normal phrase
allinanchor: #4 (929 results)
sandboxed: #5 (1.82 mill results)
regular: #21 (1.76 mill results)

2) Stemmed phrase (learning vs. learn)
allinanchor: not listed (149 results)
sandboxed: #19 (1.72 mill results)
regular: #20 (1.98 mill results)

3) Related phrase A (inner page)
allinanchor: #20 (67 results)
sandboxed: #42 (1.77 mill results)
regular: #293 (1.76 mill results)

4) Related phrase B (another inner page)
allinanchor: not listed (4.470 results)
sandboxed: #59 (1.3 mill results)
regular: #276 (1.2 mill results)

Related phrase B is plural of related phrase A, and of these four SERPs, the #1 is most competitive, followed by #4, #3 and #2.

Regarding search #2:
I checked the search for the stemmed phrase on another datacenter as well, and got #11 on both the sandboxed and the regular search -- and not listed in the allinanchor SERP.

Further: there is not a single link pointing to the index page with this as anchor text, and I think the term occurs one time in the text of the page. Google's stemming can, in other words, be pretty powerful.

Regarding search #3 and #4 (the related searches):
I included these because each of these pages has only one link from the main page (and only one of these links contains the search term). So, in some way or another, Google also gives weight to related search terms on other pages on the same site. Maybe ontology does matter?

As you can see, I've found both stemmed and related search terms using the sandboxed search -- something which is in contradiction to yesterday's findings.

Any comments in relation to this? If anyone has data/tests to confirm/contradict this -- or explain why McDar's site wasn't found yesterday using the sandboxed search -- I would very much like to hear about it.

mcdar

May 25th 2004, 4:39 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640[/COLOR] - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

compar

May 25th 2004, 5:08 am

As you can see, I've found both stemmed and related search terms using the sandboxed search -- something which is in contradiction to yesterday's findings.

Any comments in relation to this? If anyone has data/tests to confirm/contradict this -- or explain why McDar's site wasn't found yesterday using the sandboxed search -- I would very much like to hear about it.
Both this test and McDar's are interesting, but I'm sure you both know that we are trying to draw conclusions from a way too small data set. We would have to repeat these tests on 50 or 100 different web sites before we could really get a general case.

The problem is we think of Googles algos as some straight forward arithmetic calculation. If this is so then results should be completely consistent and a pattern established from a single test would be meaningful. I think the algos must include a lot of bayesian logic and conditional statements. The result of this would be significantly different results for the same test on different sites, based on issues and items that we would never perceive or consider.

Let's for instance introduce just one simple variable, size. What was the size difference between the site that McDar tested and the one Rational tested? How do we know that that variable alone didn't trip some conditional criteria that resulted in handling the search results entirely differently? And of course size is only one of potentially 50 or 100 variables that Google may be looking at in deciding how to respond to the search.

I hope this post doesn't sound preachy, but I think this tendency to draw conclusions from a single point of data is tempting, but potentially misleading.

mcdar

May 25th 2004, 5:12 am

Rational,

... As you can see, I've found both stemmed and related search terms using the sandboxed search -- something which is in contradiction to yesterday's findings.

Any comments in relation to this? If anyone has data/tests to confirm/contradict this -- or explain why McDar's site wasn't found yesterday using the sandboxed search -- I would very much like to hear about it.

As the experimental page is very controlled, I can tell you that the search term sleeping bag occurs 23 times on the page. the keyword density for the term is 10.02%.

The off-page factor is most likely the culprit. There is NO occurrance of sleeping bag (singular) as the anchor text. 100% of the anchor text is the plural version.

If stemming is effected by using -dsa... then that would be a big factor.

I am certainly not rying to be a stick-in-the-mud here. But, if we are trying to systematically prove/disprove commonly held ideas or theories, I think it would be irresponsible of us NOT to investigate this one as well.

If the use of -dsa... disrupts other aspects of Googles algorithm it is not an accurate indicator of where a site would be IF all of the current links had their full effect.

This is not to say that we cannot achieve #2 in the serps for the experimental page (as the use of -dsa... predicts), it is just that we will not achieve this simply because Google releases the full effect of our current links.

At best, it is an indicator that we might be doing much better, but I have heard some folks state that "the #(*) position is rightfully mine, if Google wasn't penalizing me." It is not that simple.

I have no doubt that Google is doing something to "dampen" the full effect of newly acquired links. AND it would be wonderful IF we had some gauge to view this with. But we would be remiss if we did not report that the use of -dsa.. is only a rough indicator and not entirely accurate.

Caryl

Rational

May 25th 2004, 11:06 am

I agree with you both, Bob and Caryl, we need more data. And as time goes by, my hope is that we will either gather it ourselves or get it from others viewing this thread. After all, this is what we do, and I think we've made very good progress over a very short span of time.

By studying Google's regular search function, the allinanchor search and the sandboxed search, both isolatedly, and the relationship between them, I think we are learning a lot. This latter part of the discussion, for example, with focus on stemming has enlighten us. Now we know that we need to look out for this when conducting our research, and that this in particular needs to be investigated more closely. Who knows what will come up next?

The sandboxed search in general will probably only give us a rough indication, as Caryl mentioned, but even that is huge progress -- and very helpful. But that's in general... in some cases it is seems like it is going to be very accurate... what if we were able to isolate those cases and compare them with cases where (after 3 months or so) there still was a difference of 100-200 positions between the SERPs?

I think such comparisons could really learn us something. Even if there are a huge number of variables we don't know, I think lack of anticipated/expected upwards movement in the regular SERP despite a good number of backlinks with anchor text -- is because of something major, and when seeing these effects (lack of upwards expected movement) we might also find the cause.

By discussing these issues like this, and having different opinions, we also have a better chance of getting where we all want in the end -- namely understanding the market we are operating in better.

Rational

May 25th 2004, 11:22 am

compar

May 25th 2004, 6:29 pm

Foxy

May 26th 2004, 12:42 am

Sorry to seem as tho I'm not here but I've got guests for these three days and will be free again-ish tomorrow so I should be able to comment by the weekend - in the meantime guys keep up the good work - it is obviously in good hands :)

Rational

May 26th 2004, 4:29 am

I'd be happy to start backing off my links if someone on a different web site with a different IP address can replace them with like quality links.

However again I don't think we should do anything until we think we are both out of the sandbox and have seen some stability.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that you should do that. I too think it is best to wait this one out as long as possible -- at least until it is reasonably certain that the (potential future) lack of progress is not due to the age of the links.

If there is still no progress after for example three months, then I'm afraid we can't blame the lack of upward movement on the sandbox any more -- and consequently will have to seek other explanations (and thereafter test them, one at a time).

Rational

May 26th 2004, 5:13 am

Here's an observation I just made regarding links from the same domain, by the way:

Six days ago I sat up a new site and gave it apx. 750 links from another domain of mine. The next day Google spidered the index page, found the new link, and the new site was placed in position (apx.) #180 for both the sandboxed search and the allinanchor search. The next four days the site stayed between 215-220 in both these SERPs.

Tonight Google deep crawled the older site, and found apx. 600 new links. I've checked the stats a couple of times today, and the result is that the new site disappeared from the allinanchor SERP and was moved down to #455 in the sandboxed search.

There are also two other sites affected by this. The older site had already one link to an external site on each page. For this site, the allinanchor and sandboxed SERPs positions remained stable (#5 and #4 respectively). In the regular search it fell 6 positions, the largest movement so far (it generally moves 1 position, the largest before this was 3).

The site giving the links, which had been between 10-11 allinanchor the last 10 days, fell to 21, and the sandboxed search (also 10-11 the last 5 days), fell to 16. In the regular search the site fell 50 positions.

The results for the site giving the links may be skewed, since I at the same time as I added the new links removed the javascript PR channeling navigation. This shouldn't matter though, since Google followed the links in the javascript code ("Home", in the navigation was for example in javascript; I used the alt text of the logo to ensure that the right anchor text was associated with the index page). If this matters, then the internal anchor text of a site might be more important than I had imagined.

I will test this, and make other changes as soon as the results have been stable for a few days.

mcdar

May 26th 2004, 6:04 am

One thing I'll be very interested in finding out, by the way, is how the fact that all the links to the experimental page are coming from so few domains will effect the ranking in the long run.

If it doesn't move up, then maybe there is some extra dampening done on links from the same domain. In such case the sandboxed SERP position and the regular SERP position will never converge.

There are still a lot of interesting theories to work with and investigate. We will, in other words, have much fun also in the future :)

We need to be very careful NOT to ASSUME or attribute reasons for results that we have no evidence to support. This is how many of these "filter" theories get started in the first place.

There can be many reasons why we would NOT abvance further in the serps. If we look at the results of the Keyword Analysis Tool we can see that the size of the site is small, relative to other competitors. Also, it is evedent that manufacturers seem to have an advantage. Another reason could be that we just do not have enough backlinks period.

At this point, I would ONLY ASSUME some wierd dampening effect on current links if we had the competition beat, hands down, with links. This is nowhere near the case!

As far as I know, the sandbox theory was to do with a time delay between the discovery of a new links and that link being credited with it's full strength. The sandbox theory did not also encompass a permanent devaluation of links coming from the same source.

It is my take on this experiment that we are trying to present hard evidence that will challange some of the current thinking regarding linking strategies.

We are focused mainly on anchor text. Another aspect is the type of sites you receive links from (themed or related to your field). This is what we have controlled for.

Remember, evidence is what we are looking for. Speculation can be done with a lot less time and effort.

Yesterday, I was able to present evidence from this experiment on another forum when questioned whether 100% of the same anchor text would be penalized.

I was able to say...

http://forums.seochat.com/t10987/s.html
The experiment I referred to has been going on since 4/7. Results are recorded daily and can be viewed in the Digitalpoint Forum

The page was put up new and every link to the page was exactly the same (the target keywords).

There are a total of 60+ PR4 or greater links to it plus
nearly 4000 signiture links to the page. (all exactly the same anchor text).

The page is now #4 for Allinanchor: and has been as high as #15 in the regular serps. (Bouncing around like most this last week).

IF, 100% anchor text would hurt a page, it should have been "hit" by now.

Before this experiment, I tried to get my main page to move up for that keyword but as hard as I tried, I could only get it up to #33 for allinachor and position #220 in regular serps.

Although the main page had a PR6 it had too many mixed anchor text pointing to it to turn it around.

The new page, even without PR surpassed my main page in the serps immediately. It started out in position 104...

This experiment is a bit of proof that 100% anchor text does NOT bring a penalty as some have speculated.

:)

Caryl

mcdar

May 26th 2004, 6:22 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Position #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

compar

May 26th 2004, 6:38 am

Here's an observation I just made regarding links from the same domain, by the way:
Wow! Rational, you need to draw me a flow chart of this one. I thought I was with you until you suddenly started talking about the old page. What old page? What is it's relationship to the new page?

And then you are changing multiple variables all at the same time.

I'm really lost on this entire explanation. Maybe a summary of your speculations would be helpful.

mcdar

May 26th 2004, 6:48 am

Rational,

Although I didn't follow you exactly on your last post, I think I got the gist of it.. :p

I had an experience where I wanted to improve the placement of a product page and knew that adding a few links with the appropriate anchor text should get the job done.

OMG!!! :eek:

After I added the anchor text the page fell from position #11 to now #25.

Now, it could be that it just coincided with Googles recent fiddling around or the added new links caused some dampening effect. Google only knows!

I guess now is not a great time to try to determine cause and effect...

regular search #25
-dsa... #8

We'll see :D

Rational

May 27th 2004, 5:20 am

Hehe... :) I re-read my post, and even if I knew what I was talking about in advance it quickly got a bit complicated ;)

But my main point was what Caryl mentioned. Here, I'll summarize the post:

Seven days ago, I sat up a new site C and linked from every page on site A to the index page on site C (in total 735 links). Every page on site A had before this already one outboud link to site B.

So what happened with site C:
As long as Google only knew about one link (it picked up this one six days ago), it remained relatively stable in position 215-220 in both allinanchor and the sandboxed search (nowhere to be found in the regular search).

Then, yesterday night, Google deep crawled site A and found apx. 600 more links, and site C dived to #455 in the sandboxed search, and disappeard from the allinanchor. Today it is at #427 and still gone from the allinanchor SERP.

Site B did also drop in the rankings (#7 positions in the regular SERP). When site C's position has stabilized, I'll check out more thorougly what power there are in these links -- I'll remove all links pointing from site A to site B. It will be interesting to see the effects of this on both A, B and C.

Hmm.. this ended up being more than a summary, more a re-telling I guess... hope it was more clear this time :)

compar

May 27th 2004, 5:37 am

Much better this time. I now understand what you were talking about.

If I were you I wouldn't change anything for some time. I can't believe that these negative effects are really intentional as it were. I would agree that they were probably triggered by the large infusion of links, but I expect the expected value of the links will start to show up and that both sites C and B will recover.

mcdar

May 27th 2004, 6:12 am

I agree with Bob!

This is the hardest part of SEO... being PATIENT :o

But, if we have learned anything, it is that Google is delaying some effects of SEO. Too many changes, too quickly, will obscure what effects any of the changes really had.

I am finding myself being a little impatient with what is going on (or not going on) with the experimental page right now. HOWEVER, we must wait for Google to settle down, before we proceed. :(

Caryl

mcdar

May 27th 2004, 6:21 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

compar

May 27th 2004, 6:26 am

Damn, I wish Google would finish the next update.

Maybe Anthonycea (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=734) is right. Maybe it is just a conspiracy to piss us all off. :D

Foxy

May 27th 2004, 8:21 am

Amen and all that to that :)

mcdar

May 28th 2004, 5:17 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

mcdar

May 28th 2004, 7:36 am

I just happened to notice that the search for sleeping bags -dsa... had us at #2 this morning.

We are now #17 for that same search.

Google is changing things again!

Foxy

May 28th 2004, 9:00 am

Hi, I'm back

In reading over the posts over the last few days to catch up I thought it would be interesting if we took a virgin site up and running to test alongside this one a few theories based on Rationals experience and thoughts combined with all your comments.

As it happens I intend to "Change My Name" only because some a..holes out there have taken it - one of which is a porn site - and so I thought well why not make a new site from scratch to sell some software, and the product recipes, that we do very well, as well as test some theories and be independent from the main sites that really ought to be concentrating on what they do best - make money.

So that's what I am about to do. As I haven't registered the site PM me and I will send you the test page and then if you think its a good idea I will build it by consensus according to what we ie. "royal we" want. It does not matter what we theme it, title it as and we can have forums, blogs, chats, on anything and as you will see from the name there is not too many people out there who would choose that one!!!

hehe

:D

Arnica

May 29th 2004, 10:10 am

I just happened to notice that the search for sleeping bags -dsa... had us at #2 this morning.

We are now #17 for that same search.

Google is changing things again!
You're right Caryl

I was ranking #5 for my keyword phrase -dsa search and now I don't show at all. Let's hope it's a good shake up!

Mick

compar

May 29th 2004, 11:09 am

As an alternative to Foxy's new site may I suggest a site I registered and launched on May 21. It is called Online Poker Rooms (http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu).

As you can see all I have done so far is stick up a home page and put 3 affiliate banners on it. I have also linked to it from my InfoPool pages and half a dozen other pages and sites. Google has indexed it and here is what Caryl's keyword tool (http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/keywordtool.asp.html) reports.

I have now located a lot of additional material I want to add to the site. Once I decide on a design look and feel I will be adding that material. I'd be open to any ideas for promoting this site that we could use as an alternative experiment.

This is a really competitive area or subject matter so it would make an interesting test vehicle.

Foxy

May 29th 2004, 11:44 am

Thats cool Bob - you already have material - loads, and it is competitive and it would be fun getting wherever we get it for you and prove a few things on the way.

Perhaps we could use my one as well - it was registered today and has no index page or links to it yet. That I will do tomorrow. But I think your site is probably in a better positon technically to test things. :)

compar

May 29th 2004, 11:48 am

The interesting thing about Caryl's report on my online poker room site is that the @www.online-poker-rooms.nu search only show 3 pages. But if you do a 'site:www.compar.com +online poker rooms' seach you get 52 pages from that site alone. And then as I said there are links from about half a dozen other sites.

Strange the difference in these results?????

Foxy

May 29th 2004, 1:51 pm

Isn't this the lag of Google between your site and the new site launched on May21? Even if G is aware of the links to the new site it hasn't yet [read won't] confirmed the position on the new site by listing them?

Or is it too many wines and I need to go to bed? :)

Arnica

May 29th 2004, 1:52 pm

The interesting thing about Caryl's report on my online poker room site is that the @www.online-poker-rooms.nu search only show 3 pages. But if you do a 'site:www.compar.com (http://www.compar.com/) +online poker rooms' seach you get 52 pages pages from that site alone. And then as I said there are links from about half a dozen other sites.

Strange the difference in these results?????
More confirmation that something is currently afoot at Google!

compar

May 31st 2004, 6:23 am

Foxy

Jun 1st 2004, 1:21 am

The 'sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa' search with Caryl's tools reports the site as #20. I checked that directly in Google and it came up as #17. In either case this is a big drop from the page's previous rankings for this search. In terms of sandbox theory I'm not sure what that tells us????

In my parallel-ish experiment with me Weber bbqs I had dropped to 40 [from 17] in the serps for both the xxx and the xxx -dsa but am back to 20,21 today with the -dsa [still at 40 with the normal] with no difference in my allins.

Not sure what this tells us either! :)

mcdar

Jun 1st 2004, 6:26 am

I assume that Caryl is away for the holiday weekend.

Here is what her Keyword Analysis tool reports about our experimental page this morning.

http://www.mcdar.com/camping1/sleeping-bags.htm

Place In SERP: #30

Pages in site: 257

Backlinks: 49

Allinanchor position: #5

Links: 521 (as reported by a "@www.mcdar.com/camping1/sleeping-bags.htm" search)

If the number of links reported are actually what Google has seen or is reporting it confirms my suspicion that Google is probably only picking up one Sig link per page. And that rather than the site being credited with the approx 3500 sig links on the forum it is only being credited with about one in ten.
The 'sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa' search with Caryl's tools reports the site as #20. I checked that directly in Google and it came up as #17. In either case this is a big drop from the page's previous rankings for this search. In terms of sandbox theory I'm not sure what that tells us????

Hi All,
I am back from a much needed holiday! :)

Bob,

The search @www.mcdar.com/camping1/sleeping-bags.htm ONLY picks up incidences where the url is present on the text of the page. It would not pick up where anchor text is used. The results for this search is 8.

The Keyword Tool is reporting the results for the main site @www.mcdar.com where there are 518 occurances found of www.mcdar.com.

In regards to the "sandbox" search -dsa..., I have seen many reports of a change in these results, starting last Friday. Google certainly has been changing things!

I did keep track of some of the major data in our experiment over the weekend so I will be updating this right now.

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 1st 2004, 6:46 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/1/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 [/COLOR] - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________[/QUOTE]

mcdar

Jun 1st 2004, 7:00 am

mcdar

Jun 1st 2004, 7:39 am

Attached is a "snapshot" of today's results from the Keyword Analysis Tool.

KeywordTool6_1.html (http://www.mcdar.net/KeyTool6_1.html)

I have added a column to indicate Category. I have maintained all along that Manufacturers have an edge over Retail and the evidence in the results seems to support this.

I have also felt the site size plays an important role and will give an advantage to the represented page.

You will notice that we have surpassed all but one retail site, in the top tent, in Backlinks AND our allinachor ranking clearly indicates we should be on the first page, BUT WE ARE NOT.

If you look at the other Retail sites in the top ten, you will see that they have the McDar site beat Big Time is site size!

What would be interesting would be if I could find a way to add a considerable amount of pages to the site (no additional links or changes to the experimental page)and see if the addition of those pages helps the experimental page to advance in the serps.

I attempted to do this with the addition of some Amazon affiliate links via a PHP script datafeed. Google has found the Amazon main links but is not following the links on those pages to the individual product pages.

Any other ideas on how I could quickly add a ton of pages?

Caryl

hulkster

Jun 1st 2004, 7:52 pm

~ May 31 Update ~

1 for Alek's Link

Yes, I see the http://www.komar.org/ backlink (I'm still a PR7 - yea!) ... so glad it showed up and hopefully it was helpful.

As discussed, I offerred to leave it in for a month if folks took a look at the using your Google Toolbar for a good cause page (http://www.powder2glass.com/Google_Toolbar_Compute/) ... but I left it in for 2 extra weeks until the PR/BL update.

I'll be removing it tomorrow (Wednesday) ... and Googlebot typically crawls my main page daily in the late evening, so after that, it will be gone ... so you can see if any differences.

alek

P.S. BTW, the powder2glass team is now in the top-20 overall for Google Compute (but the competition is getting tougher) - take a look at the above URL and consider signing up to help find cures for diseases! ;-)

compar

Jun 1st 2004, 8:05 pm

Anybody taking bets?

I'll bet that the removal of Alek's link has no discernible impact. I have a theory that Google is not as quick removing link pop as it is adding it. The link should disappear on the next upgrade, but I don't think we will see either a movement in SERP position or a change in PR as a result of Alek taking it off his site.

Foxy

Jun 2nd 2004, 12:19 am

I think it might be interesting to do both of these sites simultaneously. If one search is more competitve than the other, we might be able to witness the sandbox...

It certainly bears discussing the pros and cons here.

Caryl

I have actually put up my index page and I was going to go for SEO [as I don't do Other Peoples SEO] as I thought it could be interesting. But I am happy for the site to be taken any which way. Just advise.

BTW the site was crawled on Day 1 May31 by Google, MSN and The World Wide Web Worm and again yesterday by Google.

Go and search on "zplus2".... :D

compar

Jun 2nd 2004, 5:05 am

Caryl & Foxy,

If we do this next project or experiment -- Z+2's page and mine -- should we start a new thread?

I now have a designer working on my site so we should start to see some real content over the next few days.

I just checked and the site has been crawled by various Google bots since it has be up. It has also been visited by Yahoo! Slurp and by Ask Jeeves/Teoma.

As I said I have already put up approx. 60 links from my InfoPool and a few links from some other sites on my server. I also made a deal with a webmaster who to put up about 2,000 links from a British forum archive.

What do you think we should do with this site and Foxy's. I still think links are the way to go, but what other techinques would you like to see tried.

mcdar

Jun 2nd 2004, 5:28 am

mcdar

Jun 2nd 2004, 5:44 am

I posted this yesterday and nobody responded so, I will re-post it today.

Here is a look at yesterday's Keyword Analysis Tool results for sleeping bags...

KeywordTool6_1.html (http://www.mcdar.net/KeyTool6_1.html)

We have beaten all but one in the top ten with backlinks and are #5 for allinanchor.

If you identify retail and manufacturers, I believe the results do indicate that Category and site size really play important roles in the serps.

Category cannot be changed but how many additional links does it take to make up for lacking in site size?

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

mcdar

Jun 2nd 2004, 6:10 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/1/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/2/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004

__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

hulkster

Jun 2nd 2004, 6:25 am

note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004

OK guys - I just pulled the link at 0720 MDT ... googlebot has spidered the main http://www.komar.org/ page at 2111, 2109, and 2111 MDT the last three days respectively (almost like clockwork, eh?!? ;-) ... so assuming tonight's crawl happens at the same time, this change will be "seen" by Google tonight.

Yea, be interesting to see what affect, if any, this causes. I believe it is the highest Page Rank link to the sleeping bags page (?)

alek

P.S. Thanx again for your support of team powder2glass's Google Compute team (http://www.powder2glass.com/Google_Toolbar_Compute/)

compar

Jun 2nd 2004, 6:31 am

I posted this yesterday and nobody responded so, I will re-post it today.
I had a good look at the chart yesterday. There just didn't appear to be much to add to what you had already said.

I agree that Google must be applying some extra relevance to the manufacture's sites. I don't think it is wrong for them to do that. I'd just like to know how they do it via an algorithm. It has always been considered that Google's SERP placements are untouched by human hand. If so, how did those manufacturer's get where they are in the rankings?????

Now I have never completey shared your opinion about the impact of the size of a site on the relevance or placement of its pages. But if you do believe this is a factor why doesn't your site rank ahead of the sites in 7th and 9th place? I would guess the sandbox effect is the only reasonable explanation.

On other threads in this forum there are several debates going about the value of link from topically relevant pages and about multiple links from a single domain. Our experimental page has virtually no backlinks from topically related pages and all it links are from only a very few domains.

So if you discount the sandbox effect it would be interesting to research the pages in 7th and 9th place to find out the source of their backlinks. Are they from topically related pages? Are they from a large diversity of domains?

Or even if you don't want to discount the sandbox effect.How long have their links been in place? I don't know how you can ascertain this, but it is the question that needs to be asked.

mcdar

Jun 2nd 2004, 7:04 am

Bob,

The manufacturers are in a different category in the Google Directory. The category is higher on the "food chain", if you will. I would think that recognizing manufacturers as more of an authority than retailers would be an easy assumption.

Sites in positions 7 and 9 are manufacturers and that is the edge I believe they have. There site size and number of links just do not seem to justify their position otherwise.

I find the site in position #10 the most interesting...

**us: sz=257 BL=170 Allinachor=5 Retail
them: sz=899 BL=49 Allinanchor=31 Retail

We are in the same Category AND have them beat BIG TIME in Backlinks and Allinanchor. BUT, they have us beat in site size!
Note: ALL of their 49 reported backlinks are internal backlinks from within the site.

stripersonline

Jun 2nd 2004, 5:09 pm

What do you think we should do with this site and Foxy's. I still think links are the way to go, but what other techinques would you like to see tried.

I'm not sure how it can measured, but I'm personally curious how Google treats links from pages titled "links.html" or "links.htm" or "links.shtml". Also if there's any effect of the anchor text to that "links" page - does Google care if the page uses anchor text of "Link" or something like "additional resources"?

I ask because I'm having a very tough time finding referrence in Google backlinks for sites linked to my site from pages named "links" or "link" with anchor text containing "Links". I've checked a few other sites and likewise cannot find backlinks from pages with those titles - even though I know they exist.

For my own head, I searched Google for "links.html" - found a PR9 page titled "links.html" ( http://travel.state.gov/links.html ) - and I checked the backlinks of some of the sites that page linked to - couldn't even find that PR9 page listed among those sites backlinks. Now that's scary!

mcdar

Jun 3rd 2004, 6:20 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/25/2004 [3 DCs #26, 6 DCs #27] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/1/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/2/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/3/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004

__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 3rd 2004, 11:20 pm

Well usually decide what you are trying to test for then design an experiment to test for this.

I think linking is something that can be (somewhat) quantified where as any on-page factors cannot. So, we should stick to testing about linking.

I would really like to see some kind of experiment where two sites of different sizes go head to head, basically, for the same keyword. All linking the same for both sites.

Also, can there be a way to measure for sandbox effect?

I think this sounds good to me perhaps bringing in rationals thoughts from before

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6335&postcount=518
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6335&postcount=519

mcdar

Jun 4th 2004, 6:04 am

To have a true experiment, you need to limit as many variables as possible. The more variables you have, the less real evidence you have.

To run an experiment between two sites, targeting the same keywords, you would need to start them approximately the same time. The control would be that they had exactly the same links pointing to them. The variables would be on-page optimization, host location, and Site size. The site size would be a main focus of the experiment.

We would predict that IF a sandbox effect was to occur, it would appear in the same time frame (both within a few days) and the results (loss of position) to be approximately the same.

Since the links would totally be controlled for, there could be no question of greater value, theming, etc.

Make any sense?

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 4th 2004, 6:10 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/26/2004 [7 DCs #26, 8 DCs #27, 5 DCs #29] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 3 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

mcdar

Jun 5th 2004, 4:41 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/27/2004 [7 DCs #27, 8 DCs #28] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 5th 2004, 5:40 am

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 9:28 am

There are a lot of interesting experiments on the verge of taking off here now! :) Let me know if I can help out with some linking etc.

Here is something I've been thinking about lately:

Anchor text broad matching (similar to the standard matching used in AdWords). I think this is why the allinanchor doesn't give a correct view of where a site should be placed in the serp for a given search term. It may be that Google puts more weight on anchor text that doesn't entirely match the search term than we have thought.

Examples:
Bob is aiming for "online poker rooms". In a while he'll rank high in allinanchor for this term as he starts to accumulate links with this anchor text. But wouldn't links with "online poker" or "poker rooms" also indicate a certain relevance for the search?

Sites with "online poker" and "poker rooms" will, however, not show up at all in the allinanchor for "online poker rooms".

Add to this stemming. "online poker room" [singular] should also be relevant for a search for "online poker rooms", sites with this as anchor text will not show up in the allinanchor for "online poker rooms" either. A real world example would be one of my sites. I don't rank at all in allinanchor for this stemmed search term, but am #11 in the regular search.

Google probably weighs this differently:
#) full match, i.e. "online poker rooms"
#) partial match, i.e. "online poker" or "poker rooms"
#) stemming: "online poker room"
#) stemming of partial matches...
#) single words: "online", "poker", "rooms"
#) stemming of single words

How much weight they assign each factor/match, is difficult to say but a full match should weigh most, maybe followed by stemming (of the full match).

Because of this, we will see allinanchor = regular serps (at least more or less) for highly competitive search terms, as everybody there has actively targetted only the search phrase as anchor text. But as you start to move down in the serps, you'll see differences.

This might explain why allinanchor not gives a very good indication of the site's total strength. We have no way of measuring stemming in anchor text (expect through the regular serps), but luckily we have a function to check partial matches: inanchor (which places the McDar page at #25). Maybe it is time to start watching/analyzing this operator to see if we can learn something new?

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 9:37 am

Oh, and Bob, Caryl and z+2 (how did you come up with that name, by the way? ;) ), I can help out with some linking as your experiments progress.

It seems like there is some upward movements in the regular serp for the McDar experimental site again, but if it stabilizes I could for example give you 730 links from one of my sites. It is a low pr site (PR 1-4), and was deep crawled really rarely until I started using it for experimentation :)

I just need to clean it up first, i.e. get rid of the other outbound links (too see the effect on the internal links and the external sites). But if this is interesting, let me know and I'll remove the links and set yours up.

compar

Jun 5th 2004, 11:55 am

Rational,

You make some good points. I agree that there appears to be a correlation between allinanchor: and the position in the SERPs, but I have never believed that that was all that was necessary to drive a page into the top ten.

And stemming is a very real factor. I have a site www.yourfriendlypharmacy.com which never uses the term "online pharmacies" in any anchor text anywhere. And BTW this is a very competitive search term.

McDar's tool reports that the site is #15 in the SERPs for "online pharmacies", but the allinanchor:, as one would expect, is not in the top 100.

For the term "online pharmacy" which is used in many many of the backlinks to this page McDar's tool reports the page as #29 but the allinanchor at #13.

In fact I just checked and our experimental page is #31 in the SERPs for "sleeping bag" (singular) and of course not in the top 100 for allinanchor:.

So there maybe a correlation, but certainly not a one on one or absolute relationship between SERP placement and allinanchor:.

I have seem many occasions when a site ranks higher for a stemmed version of the search term that for the actual anchor text.

I don't like long posts, so I'll talk about online poker rooms in a separate message.

compar

Jun 5th 2004, 12:18 pm

Now to online poker rooms. I purposely chose that domain name and keyword phrase for exactly the reasons you point out. It combines two legitmate two word phrases "online poker" and "poker rooms" and should stem to both "online poker room" and "poker room".

So in my mind and afer doing some keyword research, I have one keyword phrase that may get my page ranked on 5 different contractions or variations. Damn clever don't you think :D

Now then the question is what should I use -- or we use, if you guys want to get involved -- for anchor text? Should I stay with the one complete phrase? Should I diversify the anchor text and use some or all of the phrases. Should I only use the plural phrases and let Google apply stemming to rank for the other two (singulars)?

Now McDar has a theory that the size of the site has a significant impact on it's SERP placement. How would you suggest that I add size to this site? I could add a forum. I could add poker tournament news feeds. I could link to all the books on Amazon about gambling. I'm sure there are other options I can't think of at the moment.

We didn't do any reciprocal linking to the sleeping bag page. Gambling sites love to exchange reciprocal links. Should I set up a resouces (link) section and aggressively pursue link exchanges?

I think it is probably impossible to set up two absolutely parallel pages to experiment with as Caryl has suggested. But we could add one or more features to this page that the original page did not have or use, and them track the results and progress against the time line of the original page. In otherwords after one week the sleeping bag page did X and after one week the online poker page has done Y etc.

Does this experiment make sense or appeal to anyone?

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:12 pm

Well, this is going to be one long post, so I'll follow Bob's example and break it into several:

Now to online poker rooms. I purposely chose that domain name and keyword phrase for exactly the reasons you point out. It combines two legitmate two word phrases "online poker" and "poker rooms" and should stem to both "online poker room" and "poker room".

So in my mind and afer doing some keyword research, I have one keyword phrase that may get my page ranked on 5 different contractions or variations. Damn clever don't you think :D

Hehe... :) It most definitely is.

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:14 pm

Now then the question is what should I use -- or we use, if you guys want to get involved -- for anchor text? Should I stay with the one complete phrase? Should I diversify the anchor text and use some or all of the phrases. Should I only use the plural phrases and let Google apply stemming to rank for the other two (singulars)?

This is very promising. I think we here have the chance of monitoring many different factors/matches/aspects of the Google algorithm. Interesting. Very interesting. I'll pledge you a run of the site with links from the site i mentioned in my previous post (after I have taken down the other links).

I think you should go for "online poker rooms", as you initially had planned -- and not vary the anchor text at all. That way we could monitor and measure the stemming effect isolately.

Phrases to monitor could therefore be:
- online poker rooms
- online poker (adjacent words)
- poker rooms (adjacent words)
- online rooms (non-adjecant words)

In addition I'd like to examine stemming:
- online poker room
- poker room

And relative words (in accordance with Google's ontology):
- online card rooms
- online casino rooms

According to Google "card" and "casino" are related to "poker", for example. It would be nice if some of these words could be found in the text and some not. One of my own sites rank high for a related word (it is low in density -- like all my targetted words -- and non-existent in allinanchor), but it would be interesting to see the effects in a more controlled experiment.

I would also be interested in monitoring a four words search term... a search term containing one word more than what the page is being optimized for. I don't know what this term should be though... something relevant, though.

There will be a lot of measuring/monitoring here... I'm not sure if it is necessary to watch all the datacenters, or if we could settle for one. There is also a question regarding which operators we should use for the monitoring all the search terms. Examples:
- regular
- allinanchor
- inanchor
- sandboxed

I'm a bit uncertain about the last one... after the big shift happened. I still believe in the sandboxing of links, since this makes to a lot of sense, but am very uncertain about what the -dsa search measures.

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:17 pm

Now McDar has a theory that the size of the site has a significant impact on it's SERP placement.

I don't think the size of a site has any direct impact on a site's placement in the serps (but I can't say this for certain, and an experiment is therefore always welcome). Indirectly, however, I think McDar is on to something. A large site with a massive amout of pages, means two things:
1) linkage (in itself)
2) internal anchor text

Both these are factors in the ranking, so when conducting the experiment to check if size matters, it will be important to rule out these (by only linking one-way through the hierarchy of pages).

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:21 pm

How would you suggest that I add size to this site? I could add a forum. I could add poker tournament news feeds. I could link to all the books on Amazon about gambling. I'm sure there are other options I can't think of at the moment.

Adding a forum is probably the best way to get unique content, but is also probably the most work. It would take some time to get a large number of pages. Taking a feed from Amazon seems to be the best way to add a massive amount of pages quickly. There is always the danger of Google spotting the content as not being unique, but this is probably a minor risk. ...if this is a concern, maybe you could use Barnes&Nobles since presumably fewer use their data..?

To make this an integral part of the experiment, maybe after having added some links, when the placement in the serps have stabilized, it is possible to add a huge number of pages (from for example Amazon) -- and watch the effect this has on the serps... By being careful in how the data is distributed throughout the site and how the pages are made accessible (re: links and anchor text), it is possible to do this in three phases:

1) Add a huge number of pages at once with only outbound links from the main page and throughout the hierarchy. Once the pages get spidered, it is possible to measure whether size matters.

2) Add a link back to the main page. Here we can measure how much effect there is in internal links without any anchor text -- once a deep crawl has been conducted.

3) Add anchor text to the links. Now we can also measure the effect of internal anchor text.

During this phase of the experiment, I assume all other factors are kept in stand by, i.e. no new inbound links.

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:23 pm

We didn't do any reciprocal linking to the sleeping bag page. Gambling sites love to exchange reciprocal links. Should I set up a resouces (link) section and aggressively pursue link exchanges?

Maybe it is possible to do the linking in phases? First focus on only inbound linking (while preparing a list of potential reciprocal link partners) and when this method has been exhausted, go for a large number of reciprocal link exchanges in as short time as possible (for then again, afterwards, to monitor the results over time until the serps stabilize)?

Rational

Jun 5th 2004, 5:36 pm

I think it is probably impossible to set up two absolutely parallel pages to experiment with as Caryl has suggested. But we could add one or more features to this page that the original page did not have or use, and them track the results and progress against the time line of the original page. In otherwords after one week the sleeping bag page did X and after one week the online poker page has done Y etc.

Does this experiment make sense or appeal to anyone?

I think this experiment sounds very interesting! We have the chance of monitoring/testing a range of different elements:

adjacent words in anchor text
non-adjacent words in anchor text
stemming of anchor text
related words to anchor text
size of the site
inbound only links
reciprocal links
internal linkage
internal anchor text
etc.

After this experiment we should all - hopefully - understand the market we operate in better :D

compar

Jun 5th 2004, 6:10 pm

I still believe in the sandboxing of links, since this makes to a lot of sense, but am very uncertain about what the -dsa search measures.

I think Google has largely fixed the -das search as part of the last upgrade. As far as I'm concerned it hasn't worked since. It still gives marginally different results but I don't think it is voiding the sandbox effect.

compar

Jun 5th 2004, 6:15 pm

Rational,

I'm pleased to see that you are interested and think we have something we can learn from. Hopefully Caryl and Foxy will check in tomorrow and make their comments.

I think it would be an interesting and worthwhile experiment, and I wouldn't mind the boost it would give the site either.

BTW do any of you Guys play poker. It is an interesting online activity.

Foxy

Jun 6th 2004, 1:18 am

Hi Rational and Bob

Golly you go off to have a glass of wine [australian semillon chardonnay] and the world has moved on.

Rational even though my user name is z+2 - I'm still called foxy. [Geez I'll have to alter my signature!]

I think this experiment sounds very interesting! We have the chance of monitoring/testing a range of different elements:
adjacent words in anchor text
non-adjacent words in anchor text
stemming of anchor text
related words to anchor text
size of the site
inbound only links
reciprocal links
internal linkage
internal anchor text
etc.

With my name change [it is actually a personal thing] I put down my new site zplus2.com and it immediately proved, ie one day, the importance of allinurl going to no1 in that day for "zplus2" [if we really needed to prove that fact!]

I chose the name because of the difficulty of "using" [read getting ripped off by others] the site with the + in the name, and because there was no examples of it on the web as z+2 and only one example of zplus2 [its a transformer I think!!]. In this way we had a truely "virgin" site. The only links to it were using Search engine optimisation from two sites as I thought it could be fun to push it to the top [I don't do other peoples seo] and hand over enquiries to the main people here.

Now we have this site to use here as a control for what we do with Bobs site - we can do whatever we want with it - it does not have to stay as what I set it out to be but I do think we should use it as a control because of its virginal quality [unlike me hehe!].

Other than that I think that you have covered most of the factors and I look forward to carrying out the experiment. :)

mcdar

Jun 6th 2004, 5:36 am

I'm with you guys on this! Plus, I would like to see Foxy's site used as a control.

I'll have to comment in greater detail tomorrow as I am off to go fishing (after I post update)

Rational, it is really great to see your involvement here. You bring fresh eyes and some very interesting ideas!

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 6th 2004, 5:43 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #23 allinanchor: #4 - 05/28/2004 [3 DCs #22, 8 DCs #24] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 6th 2004, 11:23 am

as I am off to go fishing

And what are we fishing for? :)

mcdar

Jun 7th 2004, 5:35 am

And what are we fishing for? :)

haha, I go fishing for Large Mouth Bass :D

I camp every weekend from May to October and there is a great little fishing spot there.

BTW, I do have a Road Runner connection at the camp and I bring my laptop so I am never really out of touch. But, I spend as little time on the computer as possible.

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 7th 2004, 5:44 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/29/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/30/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 7th 2004, 6:00 am

haha, I go fishing for Large Mouth Bass :D

I camp every weekend from May to October and there is a great little fishing spot there.

BTW, I do have a Road Runner connection at the camp and I bring my laptop so I am never really out of touch. But, I spend as little time on the computer as possible.

Caryl

Right on - nice to hear :)

mcdar

Jun 7th 2004, 7:30 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by compar
I think it is probably impossible to set up two absolutely parallel pages to experiment with as Caryl has suggested. But we could add one or more features to this page that the original page did not have or use, and them track the results and progress against the time line of the original page. In otherwords after one week the sleeping bag page did X and after one week the online poker page has done Y etc.

Does this experiment make sense or appeal to anyone?

I think this experiment sounds very interesting! We have the chance of monitoring/testing a range of different elements:

adjacent words in anchor text
non-adjacent words in anchor text
stemming of anchor text
related words to anchor text
size of the site
inbound only links
reciprocal links
internal linkage
internal anchor text
etc.

After this experiment we should all - hopefully - understand the market we operate in better :D

I think that all we would need to do is have Foxy set up a site of two or three pages and target the same keywords/phrases.

What would have to be controled for is the linking to Foxy's page would mirror those to Bob's page.

Rational has a good point about internal linking and we could control for that by having Bob's page have only one internal link to it.

Certainly, the on-page factors will be different, but even if Bob's site is in position #20 and Foxy's is in position #60, if there is a point that our linking strategy "trips" any "fliters" i.e. sanbox" it should effect both sites the same regardless of their individual ranking in the serps.

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 7th 2004, 7:44 am

I also caution about attempting to investigate too many aspects at the same time. As this may only serve to blur the cause and effect evidence we are trying to establish.

Having Foxy's site as a "control" would allow us to run "sub" experiments down the line especially if both sites show similar results to our linking changes/strategies. If the sites react similarly enough, we could get to a point where we could change links only to one of the sites and monitor changes that are reflected only to the site targeted by the links.

Again, the MOST important factor between the two sites would be maintaining the same exact links to both.

Caryl

compar

Jun 7th 2004, 11:04 am

schlottke

Jun 7th 2004, 5:14 pm

If I could find a camping spot with cable access Id be camping every weekend too, any tips on where these e-resorts are? lol.

Foxy

Jun 7th 2004, 11:19 pm

I also have the element of a domain name with my hyphenated keyword phrase. How is Foxy going to duplicate that?

To a certain extent that is one of the points - you don't. The fact that this is a "virgin" site [that is without competition in the url, without competition in the allins etc] gives a base that can show movements totally independent from a highly optimised site.

I also don't quite understand the control page. Is it going to be the same theme. If so how are we going to parallel the links? Nobody will want to put to indentical anchor text links on their pages??? The theme can be decided as to what is necessary - thus we can write it with the same on page factors as your site/page and then establish the base linking that we think acceptable. Then we do not alter it and see where it sits.

compar

Jun 8th 2004, 5:15 am

To a certain extent that is one of the points - you don't. The fact that this is a "virgin" site.
The theme can be decided as to what is necessary - thus we can write it with the same on page factors as your site/page and then establish the base linking that we think acceptable. Then we do not alter it and see where it sits.
That's the first time anybody referred to one of my sites as "virgin". Most people think they are "f**ked" :D

We don't have all the new site design finished yet, but here is the proposed design and home page online poker rooms (http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/demo).

Any thoughts or comments are welcome. I'm working with the designer to improve some of the on-page optimization. For instance all the heading are in graphics rather than text. They look nice but won't work as keywords.

Foxy or Caryl can you tell me how Foxy will set up a control page for this test?

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 6:36 am

If I could find a camping spot with cable access Id be camping every weekend too, any tips on where these e-resorts are? lol.

haha... e-resort..

I have a membership with a little conservation club/campground. Just got friendly with the caretakers and talked them into getting Road Runner. I pay for the service from May to October, they pay the rest of the year.

We installed a router at the caretackers house and ran CAT5 all the way out to my camper. I have a router at my camper and 3 others plug into it there.

This has certainly given me a lot of freedom to spend time out there that I could not otherwise aford due to responsibilities.

I absolutly love it :D

Rational

Jun 8th 2004, 7:07 am

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 7:07 am

I'm interested in this experiment, but I have a problem. I want to start earning income from this page as quickly as possible, and to this end I already have about 1,000 IBLs in place.

I also have the element of a domain name with my hyphenated keyword phrase. How is Foxy going to duplicate that?

I also don't quite understand the control page. Is it going to be the same theme. If so how are we going to parallel the links? Nobody will want to put to indentical anchor text links on their pages???

Caryl you said two posts back

Rational has a good point about internal linking and we could control for that by having Bob's page have only one internal link to it.

I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting?

Bob,

Usually, an experiment is designed to prove or disprove a theory. But, in this case, we have an "experiment" and are now trying to decide what theories we can test for. Kind of the cart before the horse, so to speak (as far as research goes).

You are putting up an entire new site. We really could only experiment with one page of that site. Unless you have these 1000 links pointing to every page, I'm sure we could pick out one page, or make one page, as the experimental page.

The experimental page from your site will be from the "large site", the experimental page from Foxy's site will be from the "small site".

We do not want to have duplicate content, although titles could be the same and links should be identical to each page.

The idea of having a "control" in an experiment is there to eliminate "environmental" variables. In our case, if we changed links to one of the pages but saw that both pages dropped 10 places, it would then be easy to conclude that it was a result of something other than what we had done that caused the change.

The control page gives us something to measure against, as we have no control over the fluid movement of all of the other pages in Google.

This would also give us an excellent way to measure/record any sandbox effect because, if such a filter is in place and all the links are the same, each page should show the effect almost simultaneously.

Remember, it is not even neccessary for both pages to be in approximately the same position. Even if your page is #10 and Foxy's is #20, both pages would "take a tumble" in the same time frame and both should recover in the same time frame.

Again, we should ONLY be concerning ourselves with ONE page from each site. I would like to see them go live on the same day. Each page should only have one internal link pointing to it.

Note: I do not have any problem having two anchor text the same on a page. Actually, at some time during the experiment, if we perceive the order of the two links is having an effect, we could reverse the order.

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 7:19 am

Sorry guys for being a bit back and forth here... I'm currently in the process of moving to another country, but assume that things will be a bit more stable as soon as I get organized there (by the end of the week, I guess).

To keep track of how Bob's poker site behaves SERP wise, I've made a simple excel spreadsheet where the different factors/rankings can be monitored on a daily basis. I've added a link row at the bottom, where it is possible to enter the number of links being indexed that day.

Is this something we can work with? If you want to add/change/remove stuff, just play around with it.

Rational,
If we are only going to monitor the results from one datacenter, we should isolate one datacenter and query it. i.e. - 216.239.53.99.

We should NOT just do the search on www.google.com as the results can come from any one of a number of datacenters and changes we would be recording could just be the difference between datacenters, not actual changes.

Also, if we include Fozy's page as a control, it would be nice to see both results side by side on the same page.

Caryl

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 7:59 am

Sounds good to me - just tell me what you want on the page Bob, and what the link should be - needs to be your call.

Rational, Caryl if you have any other thoughts let me know. :)

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 8:11 am

We should probably try to come up with a time that we can all be on this thread so we can actually get things decided and going in a reltively short time frame.

Caryl

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 8:26 am

I is here :D

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 8:32 am

Great! no word from Bob yet.

It would be nice to get a look at Bob's site to see what he is doing. I would suggest that you make at least an index page and link from it to a sub page. The sub page would be our experimental page.

You could put blabla on the index page and then put similar content to Bob's on the experimental page.

Just speculating here...

Don't really know what Bob's thoughts are to my two previous posts.

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 8:36 am

Here is the index page

zplus2.com and there is a site_map.htm

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 8:37 am

Oh and I did some news!!!

schlottke

Jun 8th 2004, 8:45 am

If you all need any help with this project, I'm ready, willing, and able to lend links, etc.

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 8:45 am

Great! You could leave the design the same on that page plus the news feed.

Just change the languge to Gambling type stuff. Then create a page to link to from there to be our "experimental page".

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 8:47 am

If you all need any help with this project, I'm ready, willing, and able to lend links, etc.

Great, Thank you for the offer!

stick around.

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 8:50 am

Great! You could leave the design the same on that page plus the news feed.

Just change the languge to Gambling type stuff. Then create a page to link to from there to be our "experimental page".

I'll go and grab the stuff from the demo page of Bobs, alter it, and perhaps we should then wait for Bob to look at it as well as the sub-page.

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 8:50 am

If you all need any help with this project, I'm ready, willing, and able to lend links, etc.

Nice one matey :)

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 8:54 am

Yes, we will have to wait for Bob's input to help with the content, etc of your "experimental" page.

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 9:03 am

OK they are done

I have only linked from the index page to the sub and not through the site_map :)

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 9:08 am

Kewl ;)

That should probably be okay to use for the experimental page, as it stands.

All we'll need to do is name it the same as Bob's experimental page.

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 9:10 am

Still no sign of Bob.

Perhaps he is off setting up Road Runner to his campsite... :D

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 9:11 am

Okichoki - I need to go out now but will check in later - about 2 hours - I guess Bob is out to lunch - hehe - I wonder what wine he is having today? :)

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 9:13 am

I'll be checking in later as well.

Foxy

Jun 8th 2004, 12:44 pm

I'll be checking in later as well.

20.43 our time that makes a very...good lunch for Bob! :D

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 1:16 pm

Haha :p

He must be "out and about" as they say in Canada...

compar

Jun 8th 2004, 2:33 pm

Haha :p

He must be "out and about" as they say in Canada...
Well I'm in now. I guess my blind spot in this experiment was that I was thinking of setting up my home page at the test page. In otherwords I want to promote the entire site -- via the home page, that is how most SEO starts at least.

But what I understand you now to be saying is that you'd like me to set up an interior page purely as a test page. That's what the "one internal link was all about". I guess that is ok. It doesn't stop me from promoting my home page (the entire site).

I guess I find it a little artifical in that I don't think anybody sets up a brand new site and immediately starts to optimize an interior page. We have talked about site size as a variable. Do you think site size is going to have any impact on an interior page that is virtually an orphan on the site -- restricted to a single internal link?

The other cost to me is I'm now going to have to put up links to the test page and I'm sure that some of these will be in lieu of links to the home page.

But ok let try this for an idea. Before I got a designer started on the page I put up this home page http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu.

Why don't we use this as the test page. I'll rename it as pokerrooms.html and put a single link to it from the home page with "original poker rooms page" for anchor text. I'll probably change the content a bit to explain that it was the original page and is now being used as a test. Other than that I'll make no changes.

So if that is ok all we have to do is coordinated the launch day and decide who is going to put up links to which pages, foxy's or mine, and what anchor text to use.

mcdar

Jun 8th 2004, 3:06 pm

compar

Jun 8th 2004, 4:03 pm

Bob,

It seems that we (I) have totally missed your initial idea for an experiment.

I guess the question to ask here is, what was your initial idea for an experiment?

If we used your main page to your new site, what would we do and what would we be attempting to prove?

Caryl

Damn! I wrote a long response to this and then I guess I didn't hit the submit button. Just trying to get caught up on too many things after being out of the office all day.

In anycase I'm on side with this now. I have modified the page that I suggest I use as the experimental page. See http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-rooms.html.

We plan to put the new design up either tonight or tomorrow, so if you guys approve this page, and Foxy can duplicate it, that all I have to do is drop a link on the new home page to it and we are in business.

What is the plan for the actual experiment? Who is going to link to whom?

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 12:02 am

Damn! I wrote a long response to this and then I guess I didn't hit the submit button. Just trying to get caught up on too many things after being out of the office all day.

We call it "out to lunch" which normally results in our missing quite a few buttons on the return too...!!! Ha .. just kidding ..er..sort of ! ...no seriously :D

I will be in around 12 GMT+1

Rational

Jun 9th 2004, 12:31 am

It seems like I misunderstood a bit here. I thought the purpose of this was to get Bob's site to the first page of Google for the different search terms, and that we would monitor and examine the various efforts and results along the way -- thereby trying to learn as much as possible.

These were some of the aspects I thought we could study closer:

adjacent words in anchor text
non-adjacent words in anchor text
stemming of anchor text
related words to anchor text
size of the site
inbound only links
reciprocal links
internal linkage
internal anchor text
etc.

Buying inbound links, setting up reciprocal linking campaigns, adding 10000s of pages by using for example a feed from amazon, etc... is going to take a lot of effort; both time and money. My puny part in this would simply be to comment on the efforts and results together with you guys, plus giving the 6-700 links from one of my sites -- but it would be Bob who had to do the actual work here.

So, the question is, are you motivated to do all this for an internal page, Bob? I know research in itself is interesting, but combining it with the monetary reward of having your index page among the top 10 in the regular Google SERP is often necessary.

I would be equally interested in following Foxy's site to the top for its targetted search term. And I would give links to see this happen as well. That way we would have three sites where we could analyze efforts and results on a daily basis.

This is how I understood things initially; because I think it takes a lot of comittment to get to the top, and that getting on the first page of Google is the main goal. Along the way, we would, however, try to analyze and learn everything we can about all the actions/steps taken to get there.

Anyway, I have a plane to catch, but I'm with you regardless of what you decide :)

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 4:17 am

So, the question is, are you motivated to do all this for an internal page, Bob? I know research in itself is interesting, but combining it with the monetary reward of having your index page among the top 10 in the regular Google SERP is often necessary.
Yes Rational, that is a key question. And the answer is that I'm not willing to spend much time to get a none paying page into the top ten. So everything I will be doing will be aimed at getting the home page and as a result the whole site pushed as high as I can in the SERPs.

Now these things should have some spin-off value to the experimental page. For instance if Caryl's theory about site size is correct then the experimental page will benefit, I guess, even thought it is virtually an orphan as I suggested early.

The most difficult part of this experiment for me will be to see a large body of backlinks added to this experimental page rather than pointing at the home page. However, there will be some of these links that are only available because of the experiment and which I'd never get for the home page anyway.

So I guess what I'm really ready to do, in the name of research, is donate the page, but I will be looking to the other members of this research team to do a lot of the planning, tracking and reporting, because I'm going to be concentrating on the whole site.

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 5:14 am

Bob Caryl Rational - why don't we just point at the home page on both/all? :)

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 5:22 am

I am here know! Just having my first cup of java

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 5:25 am

I apologize if I have sidetracked this experiment. I was just trying to come up with ideas that would be measurable.

I will offer my links to the new experiment, whichever way it goes.

Caryl

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 5:35 am

I apologize if I have sidetracked this experiment. I was just trying to come up with ideas that would be measurable.

I will offer my links to the new experiment, whichever way it goes.

Caryl

Not at all - it should work just as well on the home pages - shouldn't it?

Whats more we can have the second pages too..

and as I have those already ready - have you looked yet Bob? - we can proceed how we want and when we want.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 5:42 am

I've looked at "whos online" and it appears that Bob has left already.

I'm just gathering the info for today's update while we wait to see if he comes back.

We should also discuss what is going on with this experiment and decide what, if anything, we should do next.

Caryl

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 5:47 am

OK - I will be around on and off

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:02 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #25 allinanchor: #4 - 05/31/2004 [All DCs not recorded] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 4 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
3500 - 5/25/2004
3470 - 5/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
490 - 5/25/2004
467 - 5/26/2004
461 - 5/27/2004
Unchanged from previous date
429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
#2 - on 16 DCs and #3 on 15 DCs 05/25/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#2 - 05/28/2004 (later in day #17)
#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________[/QUOTE]

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 6:19 am

I can tell you this much, my parallel with weber bbqs has me at 43 and 44 now - I am going backwards, except, where I had just one page I now have two. Also the allinanchor allintext have us/have had with the two pages in 1+2 for some time now [months]. allinurl we have the one page at 2 [as it is the only page with it in the url!]

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:31 am

I have done a little bit of check on inanchor:keyword and, in my category it is exactly the same as the reg serps (at least up to position 45 where I stopped comparing)

If you do an inanchor: search is it the same in your case?

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:31 am

Foxy, if you have posted a link to your experimental page I've missed it. Can you post it again?

I have my new site up and running at Online Poker Rooms (http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu) all I have to do is drop a text link on the home page to the experimental page and we are off and running.

But I think we need a plan. Caryl & Foxy what do you see as the first steps?

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:35 am

The current experimental page suddenly dropping 10+ spots and hovering there is driving me crazy.

I do wish we had some control to tell if it was a sandbox thing that should just be waited out or an algo change that will not be adjusted for down the road.

If you look at the page in the Keyword Analysis Tool, it sure seems like it should be ranked higher than it is.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:39 am

Bob,

The link you posted is not working for me.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:42 am

Bob,

Here is the link to Foxy's site

http://www.zplus2.com/index.html

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:47 am

Bob,
The link you posted is not working for me.
I tested it and it works for me, but I am inside our network and sometimes strange thing happen. Here is the actual URL, please try it again and let me know if it comes up.
http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:53 am

No, it still does not work

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 6:57 am

Bob,

Here is the link to Foxy's site

http://www.zplus2.com/index.html
That looks fine. I guess his page is live already so I'll put up the link to mine.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:00 am

No, it still does not work
Strange. I just had someone else check it and it was fine. Foxy where are you? Or anybody else reading this thread can you test this URL and let us know if it loads?

http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:09 am

Bob,

I tried it on another computer and it did not work either. Odd thing is, it goes to "page cannot be found" almost immediately.

Do you have another example of a site hosted at .nu that I could try?

edited: nevermind that is not the problem. I tried other .nu sites and they open fine.

leeds1

Jun 9th 2004, 7:15 am

I can access it from the UK - took a while to download and I have broadband

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 7:19 am

I can access it from the UK - took a while to download and I have broadband
Sorry guys I was having a glass of wine!

link works well, no problems and ok on adsl - thanks leeds1 :)

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:19 am

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:25 am

Maybe it is just hanging up or taking too much time to load and timing out.

I have broadband as well.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:27 am

I have "who's online" open on my laptop and it appears that Bob has stepped out for the time being.

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 7:28 am

Geez - hes off for that glass of wine now too...you know when you need that little whiff of the foxy stuff!!! Ha!

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:29 am

leeds1,

nice to see you here!

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:30 am

Foxy,

Does Bob's page load fast for you? Had you viewed it previously (maybe it is in your cache)?

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:43 am

Bob,

I did a search on Google for site:www.online-poker-rooms.nu/ and viewed the cached version.

If I click on the link from Google the page just hangs up. Is there a script running on open that I may be having a problem with?
I'm actively editing it. But that shouldn't have any affect. And it is hosted on my own server.

Caryl try my home page and see if that works http://www.compar.com

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:44 am

No problem at all with your home page Bob.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:48 am

Your grahics are not showing on Googles cached page either.

I even tried to just view one of your graphics...
http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/sa254.gif

No Go.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:49 am

Well, we can probably deal with this issue later.

We should probably discuss the experiment.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:50 am

Now Foxy appears to have left the forum............

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:51 am

The cache is of the old page. I put the new design line about an hour ago.

Caryl try http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/demo. Will that load?

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:53 am

No, Bob. It goes directly to "page cannot be found"

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:56 am

Bob,

What is the IP address? I'll see if that resolves for me.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:57 am

No, Bob. It goes directly to "page cannot be found"
What a bummer. It seems to work for everyone else in the world. You have two locations I believe. Ask some one to try it from the other location.

Also if it goes to "page not found" that fast it sounds like that message is coming from your cache. Have you cleared your own cache?

leeds1

Jun 9th 2004, 7:59 am

BTW - and I don't know if it's for this thread or not...

I have been adding loads of links with my KW1KW2 into my site and it's made no difference to my rankings.

Just before I did this I had been setting up links with Company name KW1KW2(plural) and this moved me up.

I had 14 links with writing a KW1KW2 and I shot up 27 places to#18

So I wonder if just KW1KW2 is working (I have had a look at all my competitors above me (I'm 6th) and they've hardly got any pure KW1KW2 links pointing at them at all.

I've changed my sig here and in other places so I'll let you know

Food for thought

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 7:59 am

Yes, I tried clearing my cache a few times already.

Nobody is at my warehouse at this time, so there is nobody else around here to test it.

leeds1

Jun 9th 2004, 8:00 am

demo page works ok in the UK (I'm on AOL broadband) so treat that as US I suppose

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 8:05 am

I just tried your page on a third computer (a Mac) and I get the same message.

Granted, these computers are all networked and are accessing the internet through the same connection.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 8:10 am

The IP is 207.61.110.66.

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 8:36 am

Sorry for the delay!

I tried the ip and got the following...
Not Found
The requested URL / was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.29 Server at 207.61.110.66 Port 80

Smyrl

Jun 9th 2004, 8:40 am

I just tried IP 207.61.110.66 and can not reach either.

Shannon

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 8:48 am

Thanks Shannon, I was beginning to think I was doing something mindless here...

T0PS3O

Jun 9th 2004, 8:55 am

Doesn't work here. 2 meg broadband, takes 7 seconds and page not found error shows. Based in London.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 9:11 am

I just tried IP 207.61.110.66 and can not reach either.

Shannon
I should have thought of it before.There is something unique about our Apache setup that prevents you from reaching a site on our server via an IP.

So all you guys who are trying the IP try the URL instead http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu.

I'm going lunch with a friend. Won't be too long. Back in an hour.

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 10:03 am

I should have thought of it before.There is something unique about our Apache setup that prevents you from reaching a site on our server via an IP.

So all you guys who are trying the IP try the URL instead http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu.

I'm going lunch with a friend. Won't be too long. Back in an hour.

I'm here guys haven't gone away - just been like Bob "out to lunch" - a bottle of australian colombard chardonnay, a bottle of argentinian bonarda, and now I'm thinking real clear......err....need to push a submit button or two to check that one out, like Bob !! Hehe :D

and that link works for me - always has!

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 10:09 am

Foxy, You may be able to view that page BECAUSE it is in your cache.

Have you tried clearing your cache and trying again?

Smyrl

Jun 9th 2004, 10:09 am

Had no problem with URL :)

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 10:12 am

Oh well, I guess I just can't get there from here...

We should probably just move on for now.

T0PS3O

Jun 9th 2004, 10:17 am

I can now, hadn't been there before so no cache.

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 10:19 am

Foxy, You may be able to view that page BECAUSE it is in your cache.

Have you tried clearing your cache and trying again?

No I had done that - with Safari being so good you have to be careful - and I just tried again and its fine again :D

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 10:31 am

Oh well, maybe it is because I have IE version 5.5 (old)

I don't upgrade because the newer versions interfere with other programs I am running.

The Mac has version 5.1.6 , I beleive.

We should just move on...

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 10:41 am

just been like Bob "out to lunch" - a bottle of australian colombard chardonnay, a bottle of argentinian bonarda,

No! No! I was "out for lunch", never "out to lunch". At least not that I will admit. No wine just a big pitcher of Stella Artios.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 10:44 am

Caryl,

Take your damn network down and re-establish an Internet connection. I really think the problem is on your end.

In any case what is the plan??????

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 11:01 am

No! No! I was "out for lunch", never "out to lunch". At least not that I will admit. No wine just a big pitcher of Stella Artios.
ah thats nice in the heat - I'm only kidding about "out to lunch" - i only drink wine and the occasional guinness - lager does not agree with me.

anyways lets get on - what next guys? :)

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 11:04 am

Bob - tell me what you would like my control site to be like - is it OK as it stands?

Caryl - tell me what you would like.

In that order....not being bossy here!

Rational - when you land ....catch up...hehe :)

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 11:12 am

Caryl,

Take your damn network down and re-establish an Internet connection. I really think the problem is on your end.

In any case what is the plan??????

Did it... Didn't work...

Lets move on!

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 11:19 am

Foxy, I'm here... waiting my turn...

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 11:21 am

OKay, both of you are gone now.

I will check in now and then later on.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:01 pm

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:03 pm

So Foxy and I are both online, now where is Caryl?

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:08 pm

I'm Here... Give me a chance to read your reply

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:20 pm

I think Foxy's control page is fine. I now have a link up to my experimental page.

So what is the first step? How do Foxy and I manage this job of getting exact and duplicate links? Are we both going to use the same anchor text? I guess we should, but then nobody is going to link to both of us from the same page.

I'd like to stick with the "online poker rooms" anchor text and then we can test some of the things Rational has listed.

I guess we don't have to keep everything identical. If we put up 1,000 links to my page and 500 to Foxy's then I guess we know the impact of 500 extra links.

I have trouble getting my head around how we are going to be able to draw conclusions about sandbox effect from a control page. Can you give me a scenario where having a control page will lead to this type of insight?

What are we going to do with forum sig links? If we both use the same anchor text our normal measurements won't work, because site: plus anchor text won't differentiate to which site the links point. I guess site: plus domain would sort that out???

One varialbe I think we have eliminated with this method is the option to use reciprocal links. Nobody except a research supporter will want to exchange links with one of our experimental pages, I don't think.

Bob,

My idea has been that if we have two pages targeting the same keywords and both have the exact same links, we have thus controlled for those variables.

If two pages have the same exact links and one is in position#10 and the other position #20, what conclusions could you draw?

If you took any two pages from the serps one from Position#10 and the other from position #20 what conclusions could you draw?

In the second senerio, we are left guessing about links. Quality of links, theming, etc. We can only speculate.

In the first, we have controlled for the linking so we could eliminate that as a factor. If a sandbox effect was to occur, wouldn't you expect that it would happen to the two sites almost simultaneously? As they both have the same links, added at the same time, and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Has that helped clarify my reasoning or should I try to explain it differently?

You see what I am getting at. An experiment should be a test where you are eliminating as many variables (unknowns) as possible.

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:31 pm

Ok so tell us what to do.

As I read it you are advocating exactly the same anchor text, quality and quantity of links to both pages. In this case they can both be thought of as control pages.

Let's say we get 1,000 links to both pages that are exactly the same. Having got that issue out of the way what do we then vary?

Foxy and I both have pages in place, so what is step one? How do we manage and oversee this duplicate linking phase?

Who is going to measure, track and report?

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 12:34 pm

Got to take my dog for her walk. Be back in 20 minutes.

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 12:58 pm

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 1:04 pm

Hey what sort of dog ? We have a cocker - golden - wonderful dog :)

Anyway perhaps it is for Caryl to call the linking phase coordination and quantity then my page WILL NOT change variables yours will. BTW should the title and first text be exactly the same?

She is a 9 year old Beagle. Her name is Bailey. She's a fine dog.

Yes I would think identical titles and first on page heading would be a good idea.

I have Online Poker Rooms as the title of my home page that's why I added the item about "original page" to the test page. But I'm flexible make a suggestion and I'll make the change. As to the first heading, why don't you follow me?

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 1:12 pm

She is a 9 year old Beagle. Her name is Bailey. She's a fine dog.

Yes I would think identical titles and first on page heading would be a good idea.

I have Online Poker Rooms as the title of my home page that's why I added the item about "original page" to the test page. But I'm flexible make a suggestion and I'll make the change. As to the first heading, why don't you follow me?

Sweet dogs beagles :)

I have Online Poker, will change to "Online Poker Rooms" and the first heading should be the same.

I have now done that

s... I almost did a link to the zplus2.com with that link

:D

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 1:13 pm

PS our dogs name is "Bolli" after the champagne Bollinger :)

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 1:27 pm

PS our dogs name is "Bolli" after the champagne Bollinger :)
Hmmm, You do have a fixation on wine. I actually prefer Charles Hiedsieck.

Now I thinlk you have changed you title to what I specifically suggested not to do, becuase that is what i"m using for my home page and I don't want two pages on my site with identical titles. So add something after the Online Poker Rooms and I'll follow your lead.

leeds1

Jun 9th 2004, 1:31 pm

Well we have 2 cats called Gucci and Prada :p

Anyway - you may have all missed my earlier post because the site page was going AWOL - here it is again - it may (or may not) influence your test :

BTW - and I don't know if it's for this thread or not...

I have been adding loads of links with my KW1KW2 into my site and it's made no difference to my rankings.

Just before I did this I had been setting up links with Company name KW1KW2(plural) and this moved me up.

I had 14 links with writing a KW1KW2 and I shot up 27 places to#18

So I wonder if just KW1KW2 is working (I have had a look at all my competitors above me (I'm 6th) and they've hardly got any pure KW1KW2 links pointing at them at all.

I've changed my sig here and in other places so I'll let you know

Food for thought

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 1:34 pm

Hmmm, You do have a fixation on wine. I actually prefer Charles Hiedsieck.

Now I thinlk you have changed you title to what I specifically suggested not to do, becuase that is what i"m using for my home page and I don't want two pages on my site with identical titles. So add something after the Online Poker Rooms and I'll follow your lead.

I used to have a preference for CH but went to Bollinger and Krug [when I can afford it!]

Changed the page back to Online Poker - Sorry - don't think 5mins could hurt tho :)

compar

Jun 9th 2004, 1:41 pm

Foxy

Jun 9th 2004, 1:46 pm

In fact I've never met a Champagne I didn't like. What we drink on a regular basis is a Spanish Champagne -- Friexnet -- I prefer the white or clear bottle over the Black -- and I've also enjoyed an Autralian one recently.

I don't know where Caryl is. I think we are both waiting for her lead on this.

Now there is a truth. Mumm is very pleasant as well and I used to row in NZ with a mate called Peter Masfen who took over Montana and they produce an excellent sparkling brand Lindauer.

I keep saying to Shawn he should start a wine section on the forum but he somehow doesn't seem keen ... hehe :)

leeds1

Jun 9th 2004, 2:08 pm

You know there's a Chandon vinyard in the yarra valley near Melbourne Oz that does the most amazing fizzy pop - for us Brits - you can get it in Waitrose for £6.99 - incredible - better drinking it in the vinyard in the ozzy sun but, as it's hot and sunny here then I'm OK :D

mcdar

Jun 9th 2004, 3:01 pm

Now back to our regularly scheduled program... :D

We will take the two experimental pages that contain similar content, same title, etc. and have one internal link point to each.

We then will have the "volunteers" add links to both of these sites (as many as they want to or are able to donate). The links to both sites will have the same anchor text pointing to them.

We will then record the links (number and type ie. from web page or sig link) that we expect to eventually show up. We will also record the initial placement for each page for the keywords we will be monitoring.

This will be our bench mark!

We can watch the serps for a few weeks to see the progress (or lack there of) each page makes.

After, we are satisfied that links have been recognized and accounted for we should then be able to make some changes to links to one of the pages to see what effect that will have. We will have established positions for both pages and changes in links to one of them SHOULD only effect one of them.

If we see both of them moving, we will be able to attribute the change to Google in some way and NOT neccessarily our changes. If Google behaves, we should have some hard and fast evidence to show the effects of keywords in anchor text to placement.

An example would be:

We start both sites out with the anchor text "online poker rooms". Later on we change the anchor text to only one of the pages to "online poker game rooms" (example only) and we will be able to monitor the effect this anchor text has on ranking for "online poker rooms".

Again, IF Google has a "sandbox" both of these sites should experience the effects and recover in the same time frame as they both will have the same NEW and NUMEROUS links at the same time.

Caryl

:rolleyes: Sorry for the long post...

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 5:22 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/01/2004 [1 DC #27, 7 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 10th 2004, 5:42 am

I'm going out soon for about 4 hours so will check in when I get back - if we are a go situation just let me know what you want me to do and I will do it straight away - don't wait for me is what I am saying. :)

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 5:50 am

Foxy,

The three of us are here right now, I think either you or Bob should do up a "copy and paste" for the urls and anchor text to be used for the experimental pages so folks can get started adding links.

What do you think?

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 5:52 am

Bob,

If your new site is trying to target "online Poker rooms" should we compete with that or should the experiment try and target something like "online poker games" (example)?

Caryl

compar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:17 am

Ok so if we can get volunteers to link to the two experimental pages as Caryl suggests that would be great.

The two URLs are:

My page: http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-rooms.html

Foxy's page: http://www.zplus2.com/online-poker.htm

I think we should use 'online poker games' as the anchor text.

Note: Foxy you and I should both change our titles and on-page content to reflect this. The reason for changing the term from 'online poker rooms' is so that the experiment doesn't end up competing with my real site.

Just so everybody is straight, we are asking everyone who participates to put up two identical links on each page, or in your sig, or whatever the case may be. One to each of the URLs.

The pages are up and running so you can start adding links as soon as you like. Please let us know where and when you add them.

compar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:24 am

CORRECTION:

Ok so if we can get volunteers to link to the two experimental pages as Caryl suggests that would be great.

The two URLs are:

My page: http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-rooms.html

Foxy's page: http://www.zplus2.com/online-poker.htm

I have change my URL to http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-games.html.

Please use that as the link to my experimental page.

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:25 am

Should both of you change the name of your pages to poker-games.html?

EDITED: HaHa, you beat me to it, Bob! You are just too good. :D

We should have Foxy change his as well :) In fact, just edit his link and we'll worry about him changing the page url when he returns!

compar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:32 am

Should both of you change the name of your pages to poker-games.html?

Yes I think Foxy should do the same. I also changed the page title and the first on-page heading to "Poker Games". Foxy you should do this also.

Anyone putting up links please wait until Foxy confirms the change in his URL.

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:34 am

Here's an easy "copy and paste" for anyone interested.

<a href="http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-games.html">Online Poker
Games</a>  <a href="http://www.zplus2.com/poker-games.html">Online Poker
Games</a>

Please let us know if you link to this experiment. i.e. How many links, Location, type (webpage or signature)

Thanks a bunch

mcdar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:38 am

Bob,

Can we keep track of both experiments in this thread? How do you think we should proceed?

compar

Jun 10th 2004, 7:57 am

Bob,

Can we keep track of both experiments in this thread? How do you think we should proceed?
The thread is getting damn long. I asked about starting a new thread for this next experiment about 100 post ago. Nobody responded then.

I'm easy either way. Maybe we should ask Shawn if he has any preference. I'll PM him.

Does anyone else have an opinion?

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 4:14 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #30 allinanchor: #4 - 06/11/2004 [ All DCs ] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
4020 - 6/11/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
374 - 6/11/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#22 - 06/11/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 4:25 am

...

Anyway - you may have all missed my earlier post because the site page was going AWOL - here it is again - it may (or may not) influence your test :

BTW - and I don't know if it's for this thread or not...

I have been adding loads of links with my KW1KW2 into my site and it's made no difference to my rankings.

Just before I did this I had been setting up links with Company name KW1KW2(plural) and this moved me up.

I had 14 links with writing a KW1KW2 and I shot up 27 places to#18

So I wonder if just KW1KW2 is working (I have had a look at all my competitors above me (I'm 6th) and they've hardly got any pure KW1KW2 links pointing at them at all.

I've changed my sig here and in other places so I'll let you know

Food for thought

leed1,

I have read your post both times you posted it and I do not know exactly what you are talking about.

I've the site/pages in your sig and find none of them near the 6th position.

Could you restate your findings? :)

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 4:28 am

I have added 100 links to the two new experimental pages. Most of them PR4 and lower.

I know Foxy has not posted back to this forum regarding changing his page name, but I know he has read the info.

Caryl

Rational

Jun 11th 2004, 4:39 am

If you're interested in using an excel spreadsheet to monitor this, I've updated the one I made some days ago.

It now holds three tables to monitor data in relation to:
1) the index page of Bob's site
2) the experimental page of Bob's site
3) the experimental page of Foxy's site

If it is possible, maybe we could divide up the monitoring? If Bob is busy developing links/content for the index page, maybe we could divide it like this: I could update the first table, Caryl the second, and Foxy the third. Or do you have enough to do monitoring your own experimental site, Caryl? These are just suggestions, anyway.

It would be nice if we could have all the data in the same spreadsheet. I think the risk of two working on the document at the same time is minor, but to avoid this, we could for example just write a one-liner post "Currently updating the spreadsheet"... then the other would wait until the updated version is posted.

Regarding the link building, I also think that we should do this in a very controlled fashion. Meaning... one person adds his links, we wait for them to be indexed, checks the results, then the next person adds his links... we wait for them to be indexed, etc.

The same goes for Bob's index page. If it is possible to do the different things we spoke about some pages back in stages (i.e. adding size/internal links/internal anchor text/reciprocal links, etc.), then it would be easier to isolate the effect of each variable.

Do you like the idea of a spreadsheet and what it contains? Anything else you would like to measure?

As for the lenght of this thread, yes, I agree, it is getting very long now... but I'd like to keep the discussion related to all the monitored sites in one thread. Personally, I don't mind writing at the bottom of this huge thread either. Maybe we could have as another goal to create the SEO world's longest thread? ;)

Rational

Jun 11th 2004, 4:41 am

Oopps... forgot about the spreadsheet :o

leeds1

Jun 11th 2004, 4:46 am

Originally Posted by leeds1
...

Anyway - you may have all missed my earlier post because the site page was going AWOL - here it is again - it may (or may not) influence your test :

BTW - and I don't know if it's for this thread or not...

I have been adding loads of links with my KW1KW2 into my site and it's made no difference to my rankings.

Just before I did this I had been setting up links with Company name KW1KW2(plural) and this moved me up.

I had 14 links with "writing a KW1KW2" and I shot up 27 places to#18

So I wonder if just KW1KW2 is working (I have had a look at all my competitors above me (I'm 6th) and they've hardly got any pure KW1KW2 links pointing at them at all.

I've changed my sig here and in other places so I'll let you know

Food for thought

I was quoting g.co.uk not .com - sorry about that

I notice that ALL the listings above me hardly have the KW1KW2 combo in the links pointing the their pages.

Maybe there's been a change in the algo that I can't explain but that exact anchor text is not actually helping a lot

See the sleeping bags - down like a lead balloon now.

The top ranker for my KW1KW2 combo has a lot of plural links into their site (ie: KW1KW2s) but ranks for the non plural and from what I have seen, no direct anchor text with KW1KW2 in it !

Have I explained that well at all ?

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 4:47 am

Two issues:

1. I worked with Shawn on the possibility of moving all the "new experiment" posts to a new thread. The problem is that the two threads -- old and new experiments -- are so interwound that there is no way to separate them with the forum interface. So we continue in one thread.

2. The results of our original experiment are starting to concern me. There are a couple of claims being made by many people that I have tended to dismiss. In fact I thought this experiment specifically disproved them. Those theories are:

a. Google will devalue links that all have identical anchor text. If not devalue then permanently assign them to the sandbox, which has the same effect.

b. Google has radically devalued forum sig links.

c. Google does give more relevance value to links from thematic or topically related pages.

The question is, if we think we have come as far as we can go with this page under the current methodology, what can we do to test some of these theories I list above?

One thing we could do is take down all the forum sig links and see if there is any change.

For point (a.) above I guess we could vary the anchor text, but what would the alternative be? And that would certainly reduce the allinanchor: ranking. But as I illustrated in some thread just a couple of days ago lots of site rank #1 in the SERP with absolutely no allinachor: ranking as a result of stemming.

leeds1

Jun 11th 2004, 4:57 am

Bob

That's effectively what I was trying to say in my previous post(s)

I just searched g.com and the sleeping bag site when you search for sleeping bag (no plurals) comes in at #32 - not bad considering there is no anchor text for this.

I think if you change all your links to sleeping bag you may have more success for sleeping bags

It's only a theory of what I have seen and experienced. Of course there may still be the issue of

a) g not taking account of sig links
b) a penalty on links that all have the same anchor text

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 5:08 am

Goog ideas, Bob!

I think we should attempt to test these factors one at a time.

The first, and easiest, would be to remove the sig links from this forum. See what effect this has. Then replace them, wait for serps to re-adjust, then change another aspect of our links.

So, perhaps we should all remove our sig links today. Once we have all agreed and done so, I'll note it in today's update.

Caryl

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 5:51 am

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 8:41 am

Do you like the idea of a spreadsheet and what it contains? Anything else you would like to measure?
I have some questions about the spread sheet.

1. I wonder if a daily update is necessary? Maybe weekly would be often enough and save a lot of work. Thoughts?

2. I don't understand the three categories. What is 'regular' and 'inanchor'?

3. I don't think we need to record the keyword variations that include words not in the anchor text on a regular basis.

4. On the test pages the word "rooms" and "room" should be replaced with "games" and "game" I believe.

5. It would be interesting to track my home page, but strictly speaking it isn't part of this experiment. Maybe I could just report the progress on it from time to time for everyone's interest.

6. If we drop my home page a more useful layout might be to compare the two test pages side by side for easy visual comparison of results, rather than two separate charts. Thoughts?

I just went and played with inanchor: and now I understand the search. It reports all the pages that have any of the words in them whereas allinanchor only reports the site with all of the words in them.

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 9:45 am

I have some questions about the spread sheet.

1. I wonder if a daily update is necessary? Maybe weekly would be often enough and save a lot of work. Thoughts?

I do think we should keep track daily. I am currently building a tool to simultaneously search for both sites on "online poker games", online poker", and on "online games". It will return position, pages, backlinks, allinanchor, and inanchor for every look up.

All that will be needed is for someone to enter the values to the spreadsheet.

If I can get urls of links, perhaps I can add those look ups to the tool as well.

http://www.mcdar.net/KeywordTool/keywordtoolExp2.asp

2. I don't understand the three categories. What is 'regular' and 'inanchor'?

Position, allinanchor, and inanchor.

3. I don't think we need to record the keyword variations that include words not in the anchor text on a regular basis.

Agree!

4. On the test pages the word "rooms" and "room" should be replaced with "games" and "game" I believe.

Yes, they will need to be changed on the spreadsheet.

5. It would be interesting to track my home page, but strictly speaking it isn't part of this experiment. Maybe I could just report the progress on it from time to time for everyone's interest.

I agree!

6. If we drop my home page a more useful layout might be to compare the two test pages side by side for easy visual comparison of results, rather than two separate charts. Thoughts?

I also, agree. I would like to see them side by side as well.

Caryl

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 10:13 am

I am currently building a tool to simultaneously search for both sites on "online poker games", online poker", and on "online games".
The combination you have missed is "poker games".

Now if we want to test for stemming at the same time you should add, all the above that include games only now the phrase will only include game. So "online poker game", "online game" and "poker game".

We still haven't heard from Foxy.

1. Has he got the control page set up in unison?

2. Is he ready to dump the sig links to 'sleeping bags' as we discussed for the original experiment.

And in regard to this experiment who is going to put up the duplicate links?

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 10:22 am

I have added "poker games" to the tool.

http://www.mcdar.net/KeywordTool/keywordtoolExp2.asp

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 10:24 am

Look at the tool and let me know what you want added that will be checked on a daily basis.

Caryl

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 10:51 am

Look at the tool and let me know what you want added that will be checked on a daily basis.

Caryl
Looks good. You know that we seem to have lost Foxy. Infact he hasn't even change the URL to his page yet to match the URL you are running reports for or put up links to.

So we really need to get him on side or this whole thing is a bit of a waste.

How much work would it be to add Yahoo to the daily results. It's looking more and more like Yahoo really is getting a significant amount of the search traffic so maybe we should try and find out what turns their crank also.

mcdar

Jun 11th 2004, 11:12 am

I think it would be too much to try and analyze both Google and Yahoo in the course of a single experiment. Not to mention collecting and recording all of that data.

The simpler we keep it, the easier it will be to interpret.

Caryl

PS I will be out and about for the rest of the day as I prepare to head off to camp. I will be checking in, however, every now and then from now until Monday.

Foxy

Jun 11th 2004, 1:34 pm

Yes I think Foxy should do the same. I also changed the page title and the first on-page heading to "Poker Games". Foxy you should do this also.

Anyone putting up links please wait until Foxy confirms the change in his URL.

It is done :)

compar

Jun 11th 2004, 1:45 pm

I just read this Article (http://www.compar.com/link-survey.html) on the LED Digest. I have a lot of respect for Dirk Johnson.

I had a quick look at the Link Survey page he references and you can download a copy of the software or buy it for $49.95. If it is as good as he suggests it might be very useful in our experiments.

Is anyone familiar with this package?

Foxy

Jun 11th 2004, 1:56 pm

mcdar

Jun 12th 2004, 4:11 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #30 allinanchor: #4 - 06/11/2004 [ All DCs ] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #46 allinanchor: #6 - 06/12/2004 [3 DCs #44, 8 DCs #45] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
58 - 6/12/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
4020 - 6/11/2004
Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - 6/12/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
374 - 6/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#22 - 06/11/2004
#40 - 06/12/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

Foxy

Jun 12th 2004, 4:45 am

Hello, hello .... whats happening here then? Dropping?

First thing I did was to go to my control/parallel experiment for weber bbqs - no change in normal listings [42 43 as we dropped just the other day from 30], and I have not removed my signature link here like we did with sleeping bags. But the other day I listed an advert with liquid markets - and look what has happened using the mcdar 56 datacentres on allin - number 17+18 are Liquid markets!!
26 is abacus where I changed my signature
13+14 are Seo....
2+3 are this forum as per normal

Hmmmm!!!!

compar

Jun 12th 2004, 4:58 am

Caryl,

You still have 'sleeping bags' in your digitalpoint sig. Do you want to drop it also?

Caryl & Foxy,

You still have 'sleeping bags' in your SEOchat sigs. Do you want to drop those?

There is no way that today's drop in SERP placement can be related to Foxy and I dropping our sig links yesterday. In fact it will be hard to tell, but I've always felt that Google picked up things like links etc., faster than they dropped them.

If I were going to speculate on a specific event responsible for today's drop it might be the loss of Alek's link finally kicking in????

North Carolina SEO

Jun 12th 2004, 5:10 am

This has been an excellent post series to follow. From all of us lurking, you guys (people) rock! :)

Foxy

Jun 12th 2004, 5:40 am

This has been an excellent post series to follow. From all of us lurking, you guys (people) rock! :)

Thanks from the royal "we" - ha :) [I can say that living in England!]

If I were going to speculate on a specific event responsible for today's drop it might be the loss of Alek's link finally kicking in????

Totally agree Bob, the links moved up to 4060 from 4020, but note that a few days ago my teeny control dropped also about the same number of links - I had not "done" anything to my "control". But as a guess with this one, as you, I would say it was Aleks link removal.

compar

Jun 12th 2004, 5:54 am

This has been an excellent post series to follow. From all of us lurking, you guys (people) rock! :)
Lurkers are welcome. We trust the experiment is useful to you.

We are looking for people to put up links for the news experiment. It means putting two links with identical anchor text on each page. Here is the specific instruction from an earlier post:

Here's an easy "copy and paste" for anyone interested.

<a href="http://www.online-poker-rooms.nu/poker-games.html">Online Poker Games</a>
  <a href="http://www.zplus2.com/poker-games.html">Online Poker Games</a>

Please let us know if you link to this experiment. i.e. How many links, Location, type (webpage or signature)

Thanks a bunch

One of the potential problems with the 'sleeping bags' test was that the links were from a very few sites. If we could get a broader distribution of links this time it would be useful. So all lurkers and others are welcome to volunteer.

Foxy

Jun 12th 2004, 6:16 am

And may I say again - please let us know how many, where and type [as asked above]

Thanks

hulkster

Jun 12th 2004, 4:04 pm

But as a guess with this one, as you, I would say it was Aleks link removal.

Wouldn't surprise me - as noted a bazillion posts ago, my experience has been a BAMM dramatic upswing when I've added links (for non-competitive words), and then a slow drop after several days when I remove 'em. Googlebot visits my personal home page (http://www.komar.org/) daily (almost like clockwork in the evening), so Google "sees" the changes fairly quickly, but seems to take a few days to digest 'em (maybe checks a few more times to make "sure" things have changed).

BTW guys, I'm not actively following this thread, so if there is something that I should chime in on, send me a PM.

alek

mcdar

Jun 13th 2004, 5:38 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #30 allinanchor: #4 - 06/11/2004 [ All DCs ] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #46 allinanchor: #6 - 06/12/2004 [3 DCs #44, 8 DCs #45] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #49 allinanchor: #6 - 06/13/2004 [3 DCs #46, 11 DCs #48] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
58 - 6/12/2004 (All datacenters)
59 - 6/13/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
4020 - 6/11/2004
Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - 6/12/2004
4030 - 6/13/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
374 - 6/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#22 - 06/11/2004
#40 - 06/12/2004
#42 - 06/13/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

mcdar

Jun 13th 2004, 5:50 am

mcdar

Jun 13th 2004, 5:54 am

Sorry so brief, but the fish are calling my name...

compar

Jun 13th 2004, 5:56 am

The only way I can think of to "control" for this is to ask Alek if he would re-insert his link to us for another 2 or 3 days then remove it again.

If he did this, I would predict a spike then drop again.

This would have to be done quickly as UNFORTUNATELY, the sig link change may also be a factor soon as well.

Caryl
What about your sig link Caryl, and the SEOchat sig links? Or do you think the links that Foxy and I took off are enough to prove the point one way or another?

Foxy

Jun 13th 2004, 11:25 pm

What about your sig link Caryl, and the SEOchat sig links? Or do you think the links that Foxy and I took off are enough to prove the point one way or another?

I still have my SEO.... links on at the moment - so do we want them off?

Foxy

Jun 13th 2004, 11:43 pm

BTW I just used your tool on "online poker" and zplus2.com and Shawn is 626 with this thread!

compar

Jun 13th 2004, 11:48 pm

BTW I just used your tool on "online poker" and zplus2.com and Shawn is 626 with this thread!
Can you explain that statement a little more?????

mcdar

Jun 14th 2004, 6:47 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #29 allinanchor: #5 - 06/02/2004 [ 9 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 06/03/2004 [ 4 DCs #26, 4 DCs #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/04/2004 [ 2 DCs #19, 6 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #25 allinanchor: #5 - 06/05/2004 [ 5 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #30 allinanchor: #4 - 06/11/2004 [ All DCs ] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #46 allinanchor: #6 - 06/12/2004 [3 DCs #44, 8 DCs #45] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #49 allinanchor: #6 - 06/13/2004 [3 DCs #46, 11 DCs #48] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #47 allinanchor: #6 - 06/14/2004 [4 DCs #44, 10 DCs #46] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/2/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/3/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
58 - 6/12/2004 (All datacenters)
59 - 6/13/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/14/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3530 - 6/1/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3590 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3740 - 6/5/2004
3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
4020 - 6/11/2004
Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - 6/12/2004
4030 - 6/13/2004
3890 - 6/14/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

429 - 6/1/2004
427 - 6/2/2004
435 - 6/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
457 - 6/5/2004
452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
374 - 6/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
368 - 6/14/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#19 - 06/1/2004
#20 - 06/2/2004
#18 - 06/3/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#22 - 06/11/2004
#40 - 06/12/2004
#42 - 06/13/2004
#41 - 06/14/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

mcdar

Jun 14th 2004, 7:03 am

Foxy

Jun 14th 2004, 7:22 am

Can you explain that statement a little more?????

http://www.mcdar.net/KeywordTool/keywordtool.asp

and use www.zplus2.com
and "online poker'

and...b..... it didn't do it this time! but it gave this forum as position 626 the first time I tried :D

Foxy

Jun 14th 2004, 7:23 am

PS What do you want to do with sleeping bags and my other sigs?

compar

Jun 14th 2004, 7:37 am

http://www.mcdar.net/KeywordTool/keywordtool.asp

and use www.zplus2.com
and "online poker'

and...b..... it didn't do it this time! but it gave this forum as position 626 the first time I tried :D
What surprised me about this is that the term we should be seaching on is 'online poker games' is it not?
Then the other thing I don't understand is how using Caryl's tool for your domain would turn up the forum in the results????

compar

Jun 14th 2004, 7:44 am

Bob,

I tried to remove the link in my sig on Friday, however, the specs for the signatures have changed since I originally signed on.

My current sig seems to be "grandfathered". The only way to change anything in it is to change the entire signature.

I just did not have time to do that on Friday.

Foxy,

I have searched for online poker rooms and find nothing for your site or Shawn's. What exactly were you referring to?
I didn't find any change when I removed my sig. Click on "UserCP" top left and chose the 'Edit Signature' option.

I just tried three or four searches with your keyword tool and the results displays where a mess. Have you checked it out this morning?

And I still have no idea exactly what Foxy did?

mcdar

Jun 15th 2004, 5:15 am

Bob,

My sig file is more than 3 lines, which is now the limit. The control panel will not let me make ANY changes unless my changes comply with this new rule.

I will change it this morning so I can add links to the new experiment.

Has anyone else added links to the poker pages? Are you and Foxy going to add sig links to the poker pages?

Caryl

mcdar

Jun 15th 2004, 5:43 am

Well, I just tried to edit my sig file and the urls for the datacenter tool, keyword tool and then both poker links exceed the 250 character limit. Therefore, it will not accept the change.

If I cannot alter it to contain those links, I guess I will just be leaving it as it is.

compar

Jun 15th 2004, 7:42 am

Caryl,

I think you posted on time a menu page or home page as it were for all your tools. I didn't pay any attention at the time, but am I right? Is there a menu page?

If the answer is yes, why not put this in your sig in lieu of the first two lines you have there now and then that would free up some space.

I'm still thinking about where I could reasonable put up duplicate links to the two test pages. I don't know about Foxy, but nobody else seems to have jumped on board. Rational and Schlottke both said they would help but we haven't heard from them yet????

Foxy

Jun 15th 2004, 8:05 am

I'm just waiting for the call to place the links on this forum to your page plus any others that you might like.:)

mcdar

Jun 15th 2004, 8:28 am

Foxy,

I think your current sig also exceeds the 250 character limit and will find a problem trying to change it without eliminating some urls.

I could be wrong.

But, I say you guys should add the links, if you can, so we can get this experiment off the ground.

Caryl

Foxy

Jun 15th 2004, 8:33 am

yep it does or will do I was intending to eliminate the ski one again as it is summer at the moment - I think.

Just going out and will set the link up on my return - about an hour.

mcdar

Jun 16th 2004, 5:40 am

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report (http://www.mcdar.net/update.htm)
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #24 allinanchor: #5 - 06/06/2004 [ 10 DCs #25, 2 DCs #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 06/07/2004 [ 1 DC #26] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 06/08/2004 [ 3 DC #27] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/09/2004 [ All DCs] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 06/10/2004 [ 3 DCs #26, 4 DCs #28] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #30 allinanchor: #4 - 06/11/2004 [ All DCs ] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #46 allinanchor: #6 - 06/12/2004 [3 DCs #44, 8 DCs #45] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #49 allinanchor: #6 - 06/13/2004 [3 DCs #46, 11 DCs #48] **29 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #47 allinanchor: #6 - 06/14/2004 [4 DCs #44, 10 DCs #46] **29 DCs are NOT responding**[/B]
Postion #46 allinanchor: #6 - 06/15/2004 [12 DCs #45] **29 DCs are NOT responding**[/B]
Postion #47 allinanchor: #6 - 06/16/2004 [10 DCs #46] **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:

57 - 6/7/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/8/2004 (All datacenters)
57 - 6/9/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
58 - 6/12/2004 (All datacenters)
59 - 6/13/2004 (All datacenters)
58 - 6/14/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )

3750 - 6/6/2004
3790 - 6/7/2004
3920 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3990 - 6/10/2004
4020 - 6/11/2004
Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - 6/12/2004
4030 - 6/13/2004
3890 - 6/14/2004
3870 - 6/15/2004
2710 - 6/16/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )

452 - 6/6/2004
431 - 6/7/2004
414 - 6/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
397 - 6/10/2004
374 - 6/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
368 - 6/14/2004
367 - 6/15/2004
351 - 6/16/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#17 - 06/6/2004
#19 - 06/7/2004
#20 - 06/8/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#22 - 06/11/2004
#40 - 06/12/2004
#42 - 06/13/2004
#41 - 06/14/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 170)
37 of Caryl's links
46 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
85 for Digitalpoint forums
1 for Alek's Link
___________
~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________