Asked Google to remove #1 position - it blow'ed up real good!

[hulkster]

As suggested by my signature, I like BBQ Grills! ;-)

If you do a Google Search for 'BBQ Grills' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bbq+grills&btnG=Google+Search) the #1 entry is a web site that was "removed/cleaned out" over a year ago (http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/~ghg/) - this is the infamous George Goble "lighting a BBQ using liquid oxygen" web page - you can click here to see an historical page (http://web.archive.org/web/20021003203611/ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/~ghg/) - unfortunately without pictures and movies.

I'm sure it is #1 because so many sites link to it - heck, I used to link to it from my BBQ Grill FAQ because it was awesome! But George was told by the "authorities" to remove it over a year ago, so despite being basically a ONE sentance page, it still commands the #1 spot based on links/anchor text alone - currently shows 273 back links and PR7. It's #1 for a number of other keywords such as liquid oxygen (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=liquid+oxygen)

It is not George's "fault" his page is still #1 (he should sell some advertising on it! ;-), so at the risk of being a party-pooper, I clicked on the "dissatisified link" at the bottom of the Google Search page and mentioned that this page probably should be removed because it isn't really about BBQ Grillls anymore - this was a few days ago - so far no changes.

I thought some folks might be interested in an example that clearly shows the power of back links/anchor text with ZERO help from on-page SEO ... and it might also be interesting to see what Google does with this.

alek

[digitalpoint]

Uhm, let's keep the keyword spamming to signatures...

- Shawn

[hulkster]

Uhm, let's keep the keyword spamming to signatures...

- Shawn

FYI: I think the three personal URL references added some humour to the first post, but I've pulled 'em and only left in those directly germane to the subject topic.

Thanx for the feedback,
alek

[digitalpoint]

I don't mind "self-promotion" for the good of the forum, but it was a little ridiculous... :)

- Shawn

[Owlcroft]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, he does have a point: it is not uncommon to see high search placements for sites that consist of a brief (and extravagantly clear) announcement that the site is defunct. Google's reported headline for one such was "Gone".

And that is quite aside from abandoned sites that no one has bothered to clean off a server somewhere . . . .

[Old Welsh Guy]

C’mon guys get focused. The reason for your ranking is to achieve your goal, be it orders or enquiries.

Sites that appear for your search phrase that are bombed and not relevant are NOT COMPETITION so forget about them. Having a #1 position is not going to get you business by itself, your site has to do the business also. Just as page rank is a part of the algorithm, ranking is just part of the process for online success.

I know however that it sticks in the gut when crap sites appear above you :D

[compar]

I know however that it sticks in the gut when crap sites appear above you :D

But I don't think that was Alex's only point. He said that the example was interesting as another example of the power of backlinks even for a page without all the on page elements considered so important by some SEO people.

So of course the page would be useless to anyone, other than possibly to sell advertising on as he suggested, but the real point is that if you do desire good placement in the SERPs -- Google's at least -- backlinks are the surest way to achieve it.

On the reverse of this argument show me a page without a single backlink that ranks #1 for any mediumly popular keyword search.

That is of course a trick challenge, because Google won't even list a page without at least one backlink. So show me a page that ranks #1 for any mediumly popular keyword search and only has the single mandatory backlink.

[hulkster]

Bob,

Yep - that's what I was trying to say - I'm not "bothered" by it being #1 in a keyword that interests me (remember this is a hobby for me), but it is a real good example of a couple of things - this one is easy because most "dead" sites leave their content up, whereas this one actually did put the "gone/removed" sentance on it.

It's also a slightly competitive keyword, so it's not like it's "winning" for some esoteric phrase.

It will also be interesting to see how Google handles my request/suggestion to remove it (if they do) since while it's not offensive or spam, it's clearly an example of an incorrect result ... so they could remove it without the potential backlash they might have if they dealt with the keyword "jew" returning anti-semantic sites.

All part of analyzing/understand the Google Black Box! ;-)

alek

[Owlcroft]

So show me a page that ranks #1 for any mediumly popular keyword search and only has the single mandatory backlink.

While "mediumly popular" is open to subjective interpretation, I would reckon that the name of the author Eric Eddison, usually given as "E. R. Eddison", might qualify, as he is not famous but not obscure either.

Search term: e. r. eddison

Total hits reported by Google: 9,490

Page: http://greatsfandf.com/AUTHORS/EREddison.shtml

Page Rank: 0

Backlinks: 0

Pages in Site: 2

SERP: #1

--which disconcerts even me.

[compar]

No, No, OwlCroft you've got it all wrong. That is just part of the fantasy. :D