-gobbledygook bypasses backlink strength?

I just noticed something. I have several newish sites that aren't yet ranking. These sites don't yet have many backlinks to them (maybe 10 or so). If I pick any keyword phrase that I would expect to rank well based on on-page factors only, and use the "keyword phrase -asdf -asdf -asfdf -asfdf -asfdf -asfdf -asfdf -asfdf " type of search, every single one of them ranks in the top ten. Just got me to thinking that maybe this gobbledygook type of search is only bypassing the value of incoming backlinks, and is ranking the sites on on-page factors only. Anybody else able to reproduce this? (Remember, pick phrases that you would expect to rank well because you've optimized the page well for that phrase.)

 

I have a site launched on Friday, showing no backlinks (although there are a few that haven't been picked up yet), and when doing the same thing for the keyword phrase I have optmised for, I appear at number 9 in the SERPS.

Take from this what you want as I must admit that sometimes I get lost in all the theories about new sites, backlinks, -asdf -asdf, etc

 

It may not really mean anything. Perhaps it's just a good way to check and see how good a job we've done at optimizing our sites with on-page factors. It's just something that popped in my head and I thought I'd see if anyone had any thoughts on it.

 

never heard of this before, ( the -asdf thing or what ever) but have tried it and some of the pages that are recently worked on appear to be showing well... spent ages changing "people who" to "keywords" in the text etc... so with a bit of luck am going in the right direction... so thanks for that

 

www.toptentshirts.com come up top 3 for every "top ten reasons to date a..." wrestler, baseball player, football player, etc- using this. Im getting the feeling it bypasses inbound links being recorded by google.

 

I tried one of my sites for my keywords, then my keywords with ten "garbage" minus tackons, and got essentially identical results. I almost shrugged it off, but . . . .

Just a few days ago I set up a nonprofit organization's site. I tried "washington state history museums" (its keywords) bare and was not in the top 100; I tried it with the same 10 "garbage minuses") and it came up #3! (Right after 2 pages from the same major museums site.)

Veeeerry interesting . . . .

POSTSCRIPT: The minimum number of garbage tackons required to reveal the effect was, in this one trial, six.

 

Owlcraft-

The reason the tackon is 6 in that particular search is because you need to offset the google limit of ten words. That is the only time it works. If it were a two word key phrase, you'd need 8 bogus terms.

 

Thank you: very useful knowledge.

Now if the general reckoning is correct, and this ploy forces a reading of SERP with no allowance for backlinks, then it might be a useful test for how one is doing with backlinks. For example, the virtually brand-new small-town museums site (http://ritzville-museums.org is a nonprofit, so let me give the site a little PR there) isn't in the top 100 for its keywords (as far as I had patience to look), which makes perfect sense as it has almost no backlinks yet, but is #3 otherwise. That, one hopes, signifies that with some links it will rise high. Meanwhile, one of my other sites is at nearly the same position either way, which--correct me if I'm wrong here--suggests that it won't be helped much by more links. Does that follow, or can one excel one's inherent "linkless" position with enough good links?

 

Owlcroft-

You are correct, if you have the same position (and it isnt top ten) I would suggest working on the ON PAGE SEO. I've found that the -junkkeywords report tends to give results of the most properly SEOed sites first since backlinks have no effect.

 

My first post here, let me make a rather brief pat on the back statement for the folks on this forum - excellent work folks. I snoop around a few SEO forums and I must say, excellent work here...OK, enough mushy stuff

Thank you for the pointer on possible backlink bypass stuff, it's very interesting. One thing I noticed in my few minutes of playing around with some of the keywords I watch is almost alarming and I'm not sure if it's a new weighting by Google or not. For one particular 2 word keyword phrase, my site was #1 and #2 for a long while...which was nice Now we're #2 and #3, not that big a deal presently. But when I added the -asdf line to the search for that keyword phrase, the #1 website really caught my eye - I'd never seen or heard of it, not even in the 5 years of looking. The site has a total of 6 backlinks (only 3 from pages even in the Google index - 2 @ PR2 and 1 @ PR4 - the other three link pages aren't even indexed much less carry any PR)

OK, so you're thinking that the -asdf thing shows sites basically on the merits of their SEO optimization. That's what I thought, too. Lets pretend the phrase is "widget hunting". The site is not cloaked, I checked Google's cache. Here's the kicker - the page has both keywords in the title, but in reverse order "hunting widget" - it has 1/2 the phrase in it's domain name "something-something-widget-something.com" - it has no meta description, no meta keywords, does not have the phrase in alt tags, has the keyword phrase 1 single time correctly "widget hunting" 2.9% density) and 2 times in reverse but plural "hunting widgets" 5.8% density.

Here's the key - All 6 links, even those not yet indexed by Google, all have the exact phrase "widget hunting" in the anchor text!

One thing that appears to show is the -asdf may remove weight from the # of backlinks, but it sure doesn't appear to discount the anchor text of those links. Is it possible that the -asdf unnaturally weights anchor text? Or is it possible that Google is giving so much weight to anchor text that alt tags, title, H1, keyword density, meta description and everything else combined can't overcome solid anchor text?

Sorry for the lengthy first post, I'll try to keep it within reason next time

 

hmmm....interesting first post, TimS. something to think about...

 

I can validate your findings D/D. well sort of. I find that using the modifyer/operator seems to remove all filters including but not limited to Sandboxes, page reputation, yada yada, I suppose I may be over complicating things and perhaps now that I think about it, it could just be that the -asdfdsf operators rank you just on onpage, if that were the case then, should we be able to use it to our advantage by getting our onpage to rank #1 for keyword -asdf -asdf etc and then move on to offpage criteria and link architecture for the rest of the way?

 

And christmas? Good lord not already

 

right, seo guy. i'm thinking it's an onpage criteria only (just a guess), which means we can use it to get our onpage tweaking right, and then move on to the offpage stuff.

 

If that's possibly the case, does anyone have any idea as to why the example I described previously would be ranked #1? I know Google likes to leave everyone guessing, but I compared that site to many others that are much better "optimized" for the keyword phrase in question - the only thing that site has going for it is the anchor text for the three low PR pages linking to it.

I'm curious about that one. Does the -asdf parameter work or should it be -asdfdsf as SEO Guy noted?

Thanks for you help.

 

Thats a good point Tim, I never looked at that before. I wonder what it does actualy

 

Hmmm..

And I thought they were just a Hilltop workaround. ie Primary/Industry key words (how you rank with/without the Hilltop algo in play).

But then I haven't read this whole thread.. there's gonna be something I don't have the time to miss

 

hmmm another intersting point stripers, what if your onpage is inferior, yet you have lots of backlinks and the operator function shows you ranking well, then it would be a case of removing filters as I origionally expected and not just where you would be with just onpage, hmmm how to test? I think I will try an operator test and point a few thousand backlinks at a domain with a nonesense keyword, I should not rank right away for hta kw, but If I try the operator seach and I do rank then Its showing where I will be after I get credit for the backlinks, make sense? Is there a flaw in the test? I realize it doesnt prove everything but if correct then it would rule out the "its just showing where we are onpage" stuff hmmmmmm damn its after midnight and im still thinking DOH!

 

What you have found is what has commonly been called the "Google Sandbox effect". That is that a number of new sites are put in a sandbox to go and play by themselves, until they come of age.

Using the 10 -tags takes the sandbox off and shows where it ought to rank without the filter.

How do you get out of it - anyones guess. Links from other sites ranked well for the term, time ie 3 months plus, ... It is a real pain when you analyse the competition, create your own site to be better, then it does not rank where it should. Taking the filter off and seeing that you rank top at least gives you hope that when Google comes to its senses regarding your site, that it ought to rank well.

 

What are the "off page" things that need to be done apart from getting inbound links with the anchor text correct ?