It does when I physically check them. 3 backlinks with 2 being in the anchor text beating out a site where I found 4 baclinks with the anchortext and another 1200+ backlinks I didn't check remaining was good enough for me. Can you give an example. I didn't say sites with NO term in the domain never rank higher. Things are clearly not equal in that scenario. I guess I should have been a bit more specific. How many times have you seen a hypen domain beat out the non hyphend version, when the sites were in the same "range" in regards to content, seo effort, etc. I know that if the non hypened is a crummy site, and the hypen is authoritative... it's obvious who would come out on top. When I discuss what kind of consideration a "seo factor" is given to a site that has it compared to a site that doesn't, I am basing my statements assuming that all other factors are equal, just for the purpose of discussion.
Not so when you scan them (automation is a wonderful thing ) The second site contains a lot of entries in it's Yahoo link report like this, (Damn it's spammy) http://article-free.net/disiase/ http://bird-flu-symptom.info/news/kiwi/ http://blogsense.biz/kelvin/?p=389 http://consumer.press-base.com/en/d...Offers_Beauty_Tips_the_Fashion_Conscious.html http://electrical.press-base.com/en..._to_the_United_States_for_the_First_Time.html http://www.jossip.com/gossip/paris-hilton/jossip-juxtaposition-playing-paris-hilton-20060206.php?rss http://hnn.us/comments/37462.html http://motowalls.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=2&page=11 http://scienceandresearch.press-base.com/en/ds/139595/Lasers_Scan_Caves_for_Science.html It looks like they're pretty heavily into spamming guestbooks Either way a lot of the links being reported by Yahoo don't actually exist. (Removed by the owners or paid links are no longer running) Hence why they're not coming top for the allinanchor query in Google despire reporting more links in Yahoo. Plenty of times, and plenty of times visa versa. Ysually running some pretty detailed link analysis you can work out why any site come above another. 99 times out of 100 it's down to the number, quality and relevance of it's link profile. People get too hung up on on-page factors. Nowadays most sites coming in the top 50 for a competitive search are pretty well optimised, the ones at the top are the ones that have the better links.
Okay, these are the results, Format = Anchor/Link Type/Number Site 1 reports <no link text> map 1 <no link text> image 3 <no link text> text 1 <no link> <not detected> 18 24 lingerie com your source for intimate apparel text 1 adres text 1 click here text 2 erotic lingerie text 1 http www lingerie com text 17 lingerie text 402 lingerie com text 72 lingerie com safe and discreet shipping on all items text 1 lingerie com your source for intimate apparel text 18 lingerie com your source for intimate apparel text 1 lingerie com's plus size fashions text 1 open this site in another window image 2 sexy lingerie text 1 undirföt text 5 www lingerie com text 430 Site 2, <no link text> image 3 <no link> <not detected> 913 http www lalalingerie com text 1 hustler lingerie text 1 la la lingerie text 14 lalalingerie com text 2 lingerie text 16 sexy lingerie image 1 sexy lingerie text 40
Not when I scan them? I don't doubt that automation is a great thing, but I don't understand what that has to do with the example I found manually. The number 2 site, the umich article only had 3 links total. 2 of them were internal and those are the ones that had the anchor text. There was another site with 1200 something odd backlnks in the 7 or 8 position. Checking less than 10, I was able to find 4 with the same anchor text. So, that tells me that it does not rank them from most to least. I agree, but again I am talking about one factor assuming all others are equal. We are talking "theoretically" because such a situation isn't possible in real life. I agree 100% with that. But the original discussion was about having the search term as the .com as a factor that Google considers. I feel I have come across quite a few scenarios where it just didn't make sense that a searchterm.com was beating out another site that from what I could tell was the better site. What about this scenario. It was a brief anamoly, but it did happen. The domain leatherlingerie dot org expired early this May. 2 days after it was re-registered and turned into the domain park you see now, it sat at the number 4 spot on Google for leather lingerie for over 3 days! It had NO links! It was above sites with a top notch linking like Yandy and Allure. I know it didn't last, but for those 3 days clearly Google thought it to be important. The only reason I could see was having the term in the domain.
Look at the domain name, & look at the seach query. That's why it has a very good ranking in Google for that search term.
wrong. page doesnt have to have keyword on page or in incoming anchor to rank for something, as long as its in url SEPARATE from other words. example, take any forum thread number as a keyword, lets says t124356 and search for it. first page on google is http://www.bjinvest.gov.cn/english/bn/200607/t124356.htm and it doesnt have t124356 on page or in anchor you didnt provide a single proof, just your own opinion that you couldnt backup with anything, so you had to resort to personal attacks. and you know what they say about opinions... keyword.com isnt the same as keyword1keyword2.com. keyword is something that people may type in and nobody will typein keyword1keyword2keyword1keyword3 but they may type in keyword1 keyword2 keyword3. since the point was that footballticketprices.co.uk will help you rank for footballticketprices, but not football ticket prices, so again please read and think before you respond
I never said that it did!! Way to take quote 15 posts back when I was not referencing RANK! keyword.com would have to have a link to it with keyword in anchor text because someone is going to type www.keyword.com or keyword.com somewhere. on whois look up, etc. That is at least one! Thank you Professor SEO for a lesson on what everyone already knows. Wow. Tha's funny. I backed it up quite clearly. Numbers don't lie. I never attacked you. I made objective assesments of your lack of understanding. It was from the way i referenced it. keyword.com, searchterm.com, whatever.com Get the picture? First of all, who are you to say what people will type in or not? NO, that was not the point, and YES it does help you rank for it. Why does Google highlight footballticketprices in the url when you search for football ticket prices??? The spaces don't seem to matter then! I read and think everytime thank you very much. You should take your own advice.
what numbers did you provide that PROVED that google takes into consideration when keywords are together in a domain or url? you are just going around in circles without proving anything who am i to say that people wont type in mortgageratesinnewyork instead of mortgage rates in new york???....well...common sense i guess google highlights all the terms you typed in after it parses the results, doesnt mean it bothered to identify them if they were together with other words before ranking them. how do i know that? well common sense after you check for yourself.. type in mortgage. first one that comes up is mortgage101.com type in inurl:mortgage, and mortgage101.com is nowhere to be found. in fact, no listing there has word mortgage that isnt separated. so why not, mortgage101.com obviously has mortgage in domain name? could it be cause google doesnt care if keyword is there but isnt separated...
i missed a bit but i'll jump in with the mess and make a few further points about issues raised: * google accepts when keywords are likethis or like_this in the url, but prefers the exact match. similarly, u can type in WWW and get a highlighted match saying World Wide Web, and i can type Ski and get a match saying Skiiing --- but Google still prefers the exact matches rather than the manufactured ones. one-two is perfect match for only one-two ... and very good match for "one two" but not perfect. * keywords in urls can be enough without the same keywords anywhere else for the site to rank for the search term, but they have very little weight. the title tag is the boy to look at for keyword matching, then headings, then definition terms and anchor text... and eventually any old text on the page. the url keywording is one of the least significant forms of match.
Right Here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3394428&postcount=45 No one is going in circles but you. LOL! Yeah, you sure have a lot of that. Way to make your example with a 6 word term. People search for golfclubs instead of golf clubs all the time. You are so ignorant to claim that you know for certain what every internet user on the planet will or won't type in. It highlights them because it is identified as RELEVANT. It clearly identifies them. If it's highlighted because it matches the search term, it's been identified. Again quoting "common sense" that you don't have. Google knows that certain words are "together" even though there is a space between them. Do a search for new york real estate, and watch how it groups the terms beside number of results. NO that isn't it at all! The inurl: is not even relevant to the discussion. You act like these syntaxes were created for SEOs to track competition, give them insight to how the algorithm works in regards to rank, and make wild assumptions based on that like the one above. If you understood the purpose for inurl , you would know why it doesn't show. These syntaxes were created so that users could get the most detailed results possible. inurl:mortgage will not show mortgage101.com because it would defeat the purpose of it, and make combining it with other syntaxes much less effective. Yes, that has been my point all along. I clearly stated that it was not the most important factor, but that it IS something Google considers.
Oh come on, it cant be THAT easy. Put up some **** site with a matching domain name and description, and BINGO ? How competive is his keyword ? I just cant think that google is so easily impressed.....hard to believe...
It's not. Your intuition is correct. The keyword has no competition. I believe though that having the search term as the domain is something Google will consider, but not over things like good backlink structure, age, etc.
Yes, of course it would have an effect, though as I rough guess it would only make up 5% or less as part of the algorithm. Using keywords in the URL or domain are more important from a linking point of view when people use the URL to link to the page, apart from that it's very very minor. Again, to get the full effect it would have to be hyphenated.
I get your mean. Someone typing www.footballticketprices.com would be viewed as having www footballticketprices com as the anchor text, whereas www.football-ticket-prices.com would be viewed as having the anchor text www football ticket prices com. So anyone with a one word domain that has that words as a keyword get a huge advantage in regards to links with anchor text.
SEOMoz (I think it was) said title was the #1 on page SEO, along with good content rich pages, that can do 90% of the work itself.
Yes exactly, IMO that's far more important than actually having the domain name itself. I'd agree with that too, the page title is the most important place to include your main/secondary keyword