Info From Google

[Virtual Imager]

Straight from the horse's mouth.... a few words from Google reagrding Page Rank, SEO, and a neat tool that tells you who links to you...

 

SEO

Page Rank

Link Tool

 

Nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless...

 

VI

[Deverill]

Yes, by all means read these documents.

 

 

... but don't believe everything in it. For instance, they say

The query link:siteURL  shows you all the pages that point to that URL.

 

If I do the query link:www.covenantwordchurch.org I get 7 entries. link:covenantwordchurch.org also yields 7 entries.

 

If I search using "+covenantwordchurch.+org" I get 222 entries. Granted not all of them are links but the #3 entry has a true link to us as does the #4 entry and so on.

 

It's good info but not all of it is true.

[dsdemmin]

Just a syntax comment for some consistency. When referring to page rank (or the SERPs [search Engine Ranking Pages], best to refer to it in lower case. When one is referring to Google's PageRank, refer to it as a single word where both the 'P' in Page and the 'R' in Rank are capitalized. This should eliminate some of the confusion in the recent posts regarding PageRank and page rank.

 

For example, in the reference Virtual Imager your Page Rank link is discussing page rank (which in Google's world is affected by PageRank). As Jim has explained in several posts, PageRank is playing a lesser role in Google's overall algorithm (which is really not a correct way to state the reality of what is going on but I use it for simplicity).

 

And Jim, I agree with your comment questioning the patent of PageRank and it's association with the reduced role in page rank. Stanford definitely has a substantial claim on PageRank as it was developed on it's campus... every major University requires signatures for any patents that are developed during research stints. I suggested long ago that the major changes (way back) that first put many into a tailspin (and frenzy) was do in part to an attempt to minimize PageRank prior to an IPO. It is all about dollars and cents and as time goes on more and more evidence would suggest that this is true.

 

Citations (e.g. backlinks) are still important (especially the actual link text). However, on-page characteristics are ever so important (e.g. keyword density, title, header tags, first words, bold tags, etc.).

 

I too agree that any automated rank tool has its faults, always best to check by hand.

 

link:www.somesite.com will show all links with a PageRank of 4 or higher [although occasion PageRank 3's slip in there]

 

+www.somesite.+com (using Google) should show all pages linking to 'some site', however this recently has not been as accurate as the past (backlink databases are definitely not being updated on a regular bases).

 

Lately, I prefer using Yahoo for checking total links:

 

linkdomain:www.somesite.com

 

It seems to be more up to date and accurate.

 

Two cents

[Deverill]

Hey Scott,

Thanks for the reminder about the customary use of PageRank versus page rank. If we all can remember to do it then it will surely help.

 

I also like using Yahoo for checking links. It's especially nice when you get disappointed looking at Google and go there and find out you didn't really waste your time getting all those links.

 

I suspect that things will change even more quickly with Google as the money-minders ramp up to full speed. I just hope it doesn't change enough that the whole thing collapses around them.