I realize an authority site is something information rich... But is there some structure to how its listed in the SERPS? Because the leader in my niche has many 'sub' keywords on their SERP listing --- almost like a mini directory. Each little keyword listing goes to a seperate page of their site. Do you guys understand what I am describing?
By authority sites people mean sites with Google Site Links. Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shoemoney
The measure of the quality of a given site, gauged by some combination of size, importance, relevance. A link from an authority site to your own is more valuable than just any old site.
I disagree. Nobody is talking about company websites who get site links added to their listings. An authority site is a site that dominates a particular niche. It has lots of backlinks from within that industry, it links to some other sites in that niche and has a lot of content focused around that niche.
Google sitelinks are automatically added to any first page result whose domain closely matches the search term. Google is assuming that these type of websites may be company websites and likely what you are looking for. So they add some internal links of that site to try to help a person find what they want faster.
At least 1 years old & nice quality site is required. It's up to Google, there is nothing you can do.
That's a nice description of the Shoemoney's site Can you show me such sites without Google Site Links?
zexy you are interlinking totally separate things. Just because a website has sitelinks in Google's search results, it does not mean it is an authority site. It just means that particular keyword is close enough to their url that it must be their company name. There are plenty of authority sites that don't show up first for a keyword, but they are still an authority. Think of wikipedia. They are considered an authority for many niches, yet they won't show up with sitelinks for any of those niches.
Wikipedia have sitelinks, separate niches don't have it. This might be due of the structure of the site. I'm not sure if a structure like this could ever get sitelinks (no matter of how authoritative it could be): ex: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Anderson Too many slashes. pamelaanderson.wikipedia.org would have sitelinks. I'm 100% sure.
sigh...I'm done replying to you zexy. You seem to have it stuck in your mind that sitelinks and authority go hand in hand. Well they don't. They are two completely different things. If you don't see the difference yet, you probably never will.
Google don't explain the meaning of the sitelinks. How can you be sure about that? Any examples to support your theory? If you don't have something meaningful to say or you're just tired or whatever, please don't come with replies like "I'm done replying to you" (after replying just once!) because such a reply doesn't help anybody here.
If you read every post I have made on this thread, you will see they are all about clarifying the difference between sitelinks and authority sites. It was you that brought up this mistaken connection in the first place. I don't want people to fall for your bs. Google explained the meaning of sitelinks a long time ago when they first introduced them. It was originally released for bigger company names who's name gets a lot of searches. They found people were also trying to find a page within that company's website. Those same people were often adding a second word after the company name to find an inner page. Since this didn't always bring up the desired results, Google tried to limit the need of people refining their brand name searches. Eventually they released it for any keyword that could potentially be a company name. It is not my theory...it is the facts. Do you see anyone else agreeing with your bs about sitelinks equaling authority? Your replies about saying the same false information over and over doesn't help anyone either. Unless you know what you're talking about, don't state it as if it is a fact. Ok I'm done with this thread.
My own definition of authority sites is that: 1. Good backlinks. 2. Search Engine Friendly 3. Ranks well in the top 1,000 website 4. had the best relevance with your target keyword 5. Trusted by offline people 6. Good track records. 7. Not blacklisted on any search engine 8. Sexy 9. Adorable 10. Cute 11. 8-11 does not represent an authority website
This is hardly a company name: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=addons Well I don't see anyone else agreeing with you either. Yeah, me too.
Actually it's really simple. Ask yourself which site do you see (and many others see) as an authority on a certain subject? Now the sites you are thinking of are authority sites. Another good measure is when you look at the number of rss subscribers of a site. E.g. ghacks.net has more than 10000 subscribers, so that certainly is an authority site. And when people regard a site as an authority then Google probably too!
I agree with vansterdam. With a little searching you can find tons of websites with sitelinks which are certainly not an authority. Of course when a site is an authority it is an indirect consequence to earn sitelinks, but it's wrong to think that this makes you an authority. E.G. President Bush is wearing a suit. Bush is rich. So if somebody is wearing a suit he most be rich. (NONONONO) vs. Many authority sites have sitelinks. So if you have sitelinks you are an authority site. (nope not true in every case)
I own a few "authority sites" Just build 100% unique content, build up backlinks, get a good amount of daily traffic, become known in your niche and the G-Man will handle the rest for you...