MattUK - or anyone else - can you explain the difference between the allinanchor and inanchor prefixes to the Google search term? I've note seen that before (fairly new to SEO). thanks
I disagree. It's worthless when the amount of effort is not worth the little money there is to be made.
This sounded funny to me when I read it, but after a little research I know that is not correct. allinanchor and inanchor do not rank the results from most links with queried anchor text in them to the least. It is just a way to filter your results to only show those that have links with that anchor text. How is the order derived from allintitle? What about related: or daterange:? We know that link: doesn't order them by value. Here is the proof: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allinanchor:lingerie&btnG=Search Result 1 does not have anywhere near the number of links with the word lingerie in them as number 2 does. Also this result makes no sense. None of the sites listed have this anchor text http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allinanchor:digital+sitepoint&btnG=Search _EDIT I just researched the last example I gave, and if you search with quotes.. it displays NO results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allinanchor:"digital+sitepoint"&btnG=Search So that now leads me to believe that searching without the quotes produced results with either keyword being in the anchor text, not both. Also, check out the backlinks on www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Mar19_01/9.htm It has 3 back links with "Football Ticket Prices" Notice the true anchor text is: Football ticket prices increasing $8–$16 Is that site "really" competing for the term "Football Ticket Prices"? No. It is not. Also notice sites listed below the umich site have more backlinks with "Football Ticket Prices" somewhere in the anchor text. How many times is this now MattUK? Like I said countless times before, you have to stop stating your bogus assumptions as fact.
what makes you think that footballticketprices in domain name would help any to rank for football ticket prices?? if you go to search for allinurl:football ticket prices, it isnt there. it only helps if you have all the words separate... if your domain is therapists.uk.co would it help you rank for "rapist" ?
Because Google considers it a factor of relevancy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sexy+shoes http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=red+door http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=big+dogs&btnG=Search It's not the most important factor. It's not a guarantee for number 1, but most generic terms will have the generic term dot com in the top 10 as long as they have made a modest effort at link building. Your last statement is completely false. Yes it could help you rank for "rapist" if it had some backlinks with that anchor text going to it. I doubt there is a single one, and lots of them going to other sites.
all the links you posted show absolutely no proof that having words together in domain help ranking any, since they all contain those words on page separate and in anchor text. and of course it would rank for rapist IF it had "rapist" in anchor text pointing to it. any domain could rank then. but if you want to prove it, show me one page ranking for term that is inside the domain or even whole url (but together with some other word,not separated) and doesnt have that word onpage or in anchor
Says you, LOL. Thats one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Such a thing would not exist. Keyword.com would have to have a link with keyword as anchor text somewhere. I clearly stated that it was not the most important factor. Lets try to explain this where you can undestand. Site A is keyword.com Site B is somesite.com Both compete for "keyword". For this example, lets say that all link factors are equal. Who do you think Google is going to pick? Site A could even be behind on linking to a certain degree, and still take the number one.
exactly, cause there is no reason for it to be a ranking factor at all, big or small i wasnt talking about keyword.com competing for "keyword", i was talking about keyword1keyword2.com (TOGETHER)being a factor in"keyword1 keyword2" (SEPARATE) please, at least first bother to read the post and provide some proof before you call something "the most ignorant statement".... would make for a better discussion
Yes there is a reason. Such a thing wouldn't exist, becuase obviously keyword.com is about keyword, and therefore someone would drop at least one link with keyword in the anchor text. At the least it would be internal. keyword.com is the same as keyword1keyword2.com or even keyword1keyowrd2keyword3keyword4keyword5keyword6keyword7keyword8.com I read the post thank you very much. The proof I provided was quite clear and concrete. You are just too obtuse to see it.
No so - This post explains it pretty well http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=17040&postcount=36 Confirmed here, http://google.about.com/od/a/g/allinanchordef.htm and here, http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=16199&postcount=2
That's less to do with the domain and more to do with the fact that one word .coms tend to be older and therefore have more links pointing to them
Right... so you quoting forum posts from 2004 is to be believed over the real life examples I just gave? No one said anything about one word domains. The examples I gave were all 2 word keywords.
Again not true, non seperated keywords in URLs are treated differently from the seperated versions - hence the debate about hypen or underscore. Google reads, sexyshoes.com as sexyshoes sexy_shoes.html as sexyshoes sexy-shoes.com as sexy shoes I wouldn't bother too much with it as the effects of having keywords in URLs are pretty minimal when compared to other factors.
I'm running some analysis on your 'real life' examples, and so far it's looking like I'm going to be proved right. The tool has around another 40 minutes left to run though so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until then! I am wondering what you based you assumptions on anchor text on though. Did you check the anchor text for all 1,500+ links for each site?
Hi, In my opinion, the high number of football fans creates these viral results of being #1 on Google. Sometimes fairly basic looking sites that are timely in nature can pull high traffic in right seasons. Scott
Its because of the name, most probably. It could also be because not many people build sites like that. Many reasons.
Come on man. I was talking about my specific reference. My use of keyword.com was a placeholder for bikes.com or tenspeedbikes.com bikes is a keyword, ten speed bikes is a keyword. Yes you are 100% correct on how Google reads the examples you gave. But how many times have you seen a hypened domain beat out the one without the hyphen? On any remotely competitive term.. I haven't.
That doesn't actually mean that those links contain the anchor text that it being targeted. The second site in your example pretty spammy, lots of long keyword stuffed links, removed blog comments that haven't been removed from the link: operater search. As things stand the site coming top has a hell of a lot more links just using 'lingerie' in the anchor text. I'll post the full breakdown in a few minutes though. Loads of times. How many times have you seen a domain with NONE of the keywords in beating a domain that includes them? More often that not.