Google page rank question

[schmidte]

What's considered a good rank on Google, Top 10 Top 50, Top 100........whats considered the cut off for GOOD.

The reason I ask is I have a website, that when searching for
ONLINE LEARNING, ranks 14 (PAGE 2) out of 4,100,000 returns.

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

I'd say getting in the top 30 is good, top 10 is excellent.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by schmidte
What's considered a good rank on Google, Top 10 Top 50, Top 100........whats considered the cut off for GOOD.

It depends on the interest level of the term searched, but essentially, aim not to go beyond the first three pages. Alternatively, you can use Google Adwords. I find them highly effective for targeted subject matter.

 

[Momentum]

You wanna be in the top 10 in Google because most people are too lazy or too much in a hurry to look at the page 2 results. Top 20 on Google is also very good because you end up on the first page of the search results at Yahoo. So top 10 would be excellent, top 20 would be very good.

 

[bidawinner]

1rst page .. 2nd page big drop off 3rd page forget it...

Google ranking is getting to be w real pain onthe choice keywords.. you need LINKS ..lots and lots of links...

Thats the main component of Google's algo..

 

[DomainPairs]

I seem to surf in a different world from everyone else. When I'm looking for something, the first 4 or 5 pages all seem to contain useless information and promoted sites. I often go straight to page 6 or so to bypass the promoted but irrelevant sites.

I also find it a annoying that a search for something like "car phone" will contain mainly results from hits such as "..........parked the car. Phone me when.............". If I'm looking for a phrase, I'd like it to find a phrase.

 

[system0]

like mole said, it depends on the term searched

say you owned a shoe site, i could get your site to number 1 for "banana filled bouncy shoes"
but obviously this wont bring much traffic - being on page 6 of the term shoes would bring in good traffic though

also, you have to lean more about the way search engines work
ONLINE LEARNING may get over 4 million results but it looks for sites with online learning, online or learning in the content

you need to wrap the term with " to get the right result
"ONLINE LEARNING" gets about 700,000

 

[mole]

Yeah fonz. I base my observations after spending a couple of hundred bucks on Adwords to see search drill throughs and conversions across different keywords.

A term like ___ research for example, has exceptional drill in. For certain content, people are more diligent, for others, its wham bang thank you maam.

 

[system0]

i think people forget to actually better their site these days
if they spent time researching and increasing the amount of content on their sites - not only would google rank them higher but people would link to them voluntarily since it would be a good resource site and pr would increase because of this

 

[mole]

Originally posted by fonzerelli_79
i think people forget to actually better their site these days
if they spent time researching and increasing the amount of content on their sites - not only would google rank them higher but people would link to them voluntarily since it would be a good resource site and pr would increase because of this

Totally agree, fonz. Give people what they want, and don't try to invent a better mousetrap.

 

[MUTU]

I was wondering ... does anyone know how the Google toolbar works? I want to create a script that obtains the PageRank for a page you mention by simulating the Google toolbar

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by fonzerelli_79
i think people forget to actually better their site these days
if they spent time researching and increasing the amount of content on their sites - not only would google rank them higher but people would link to them voluntarily since it would be a good resource site and pr would increase because of this

Thats fine for "informational" sites fonz..but not PRODUCT sites..

The whole concept of webmasters choosing the best sites by "LINKING" is flawed..the biggest Flaw is it allows the people that cheat the best rank hire..

As is setting up a few servers , running hundreds of sites, and crosslinking them, building tens of thosands of pages of "dribble" passing it off as content (the se dosent know it's dribble) and the organized criminal nature of many se'o "netowrking" between themselves trading links..not for content but fir ranking)

That's beside the point because thats the way it is....I am simply awaiting Google's demise... Yahoo has already recognized Google has grown too fast to strong and has just signed Inktomi meaning Google will take a back seat for Yahoo's searches..

Building a "better" site will do nothing for you as long as the rampant cheating holds the best spots (talking about for Google)..

Certainly build the best site you can..

Bottom line.. web surfers should be choosing Ranking (positions) not webmasters linking to each other.. think about how ridiculas that is for a moment...

 

[system0]

i have to disagree with you there on a number of points

i admit that its hard to add content to a product site but the linking algorythm is not flawed
if webmasters put loads of content on loads of sites which are "dribble" as you say - no one will link to the sites so their pr will remain low. If the quality of content is high they will get more inbound links because sites will want to link to them.

i for one dont google to go
Do you want to go back to the days when meta tags were the key algorythm - when at one point there were adult sites appearing in the first page of results for the term disney. I for one dont.

Yahoo, in my opinion are scumbags- they have treated webmasters terribly in the past. I paid $300.00 to be included in yahoos directory for one of my sites a few years ago. They put an incorrect description and despite over a dozen emails to have it amended - i did not get one reply. This was common place a few years back. Regardless of what anyone may think - this is absolutely terrible support from a company for such a high fee.

How you may ask did they get away with it - because they could. Because yahoo was king. Because no one would stop them. I for one am loving the fact that google has stole their crown

Im not saying googles algorythm is perfect - i dont think a search engine can be - but it is the best the internet has had to date

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by fonzerelli_79
i have to disagree with you there on a number of points

i admit that its hard to add content to a product site but the linking algorythm is not flawed
if webmasters put loads of content on loads of sites which are "dribble" as you say - no one will link to the sites so their pr will remain low. If the quality of content is high they will get more inbound links because sites will want to link to them.

i for one dont google to go
Do you want to go back to the days when meta tags were the key algorythm - when at one point there were adult sites appearing in the first page of results for the term disney. I for one dont.

Yahoo, in my opinion are scumbags- they have treated webmasters terribly in the past. I paid $300.00 to be included in yahoos directory for one of my sites a few years ago. They put an incorrect description and despite over a dozen emails to have it amended - i did not get one reply. This was common place a few years back. Regardless of what anyone may think - this is absolutely terrible support from a company for such a high fee.

How you may ask did they get away with it - because they could. Because yahoo was king. Because no one would stop them. I for one am loving the fact that google has stole their crown

Im not saying googles algorythm is perfect - i dont think a search engine can be - but it is the best the internet has had to date

I have I have to disagree back Fonz ..

Yes..even if it's dribble webmasters link to each other..because they dont CARE if it's dribble..it's not about dribble ..it's a about Page rank for you , for me and for all the other webmasters that are participating in our little organized effort to of sharing links to GET to the TOP..

You are right on Yahoo but know you have Google doing the same crap..why ? because now they are king !

I would much rather see something like IXquick.com become king. a meta that takes results from a wide source of engine..

Or even Fasts Alltheweb.com ..

Back to my point about WHY google is flawed.. LINKING.. absolutely the worst possible reason to make a site rank high because the "voterrs" are not the surfers (customers)but the SEO's (or rather the corrupt SEO's)..it's ludicrous

 

[mole]

Originally posted by bidawinner
Back to my point about WHY google is flawed.. LINKING.. absolutely the worst possible reason to make a site rank high because the "voterrs" are not the surfers (customers)but the SEO's (or rather the corrupt SEO's)..it's ludicrous

Could you give us examples of sites that clearly use this, bid?

 

[bidawinner]

Sure can.. I 've got some running to do..

I'll be back this afternoon..

 

[system0]

yes but if dribble links to dribble (am i started to talk crazy talk here), the pr of both sites will remain low

 

[options]

Originally posted by bidawinner
Back to my point about WHY google is flawed.. LINKING.. absolutely the worst possible reason to make a site rank high because the "voterrs" are not the surfers (customers)but the SEO's (or rather the corrupt SEO's)..it's ludicrous

Yes, but it is only one segment of ranking, ok probably the
most important one.
The thing is that SE's are devoted to internet users and Google made surely not the perfect, but the best job for anyone who wants to find information on the web.