On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:20:42 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 12:16 \__
>
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:18:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:11 \__
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:54:22 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 06:11 \__
>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite my finally getting a PR of 5 for my index page, I'm virtually
>>>>>> invisible in the serps. I'm hundreds deep now for terms I was top ten
>>>>>> or twenty for for years, yet my PR is higher. What kind of a joke
>>>>>> engine is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BB
>>>>>
>>>>>It comes to prove that PageRank embellishments are pointless. Were you
>>>>>expecting traffic to change overnight owing to the TBPR update?
>>>>
>>>> Hell no, I've said publicly PR was irrelevant for years now.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about things a little deeper, I have to say that my traffic
>>>> is as good as ever it was, despite my being all but invisible save for
>>>> my page about templates. And, oddly enough, I recall reading in a
>>>> couple of forums how odd it was during and after Jagger that people
>>>> were somehow still finding sites for keywords and phrases even though
>>>> these sites were buried, absolutely buried, in the serps. I'm
>>>> beginning to wonder if the serps we're seeing from Google aren't
>>>> pretendy ones, and somehow they're spoofing us from the mountain. The
>>>> real ones are actually only presented very very low in the results.
>>>> Something about the current display isn't jake, it just doesn't ring
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> BB
>>>
>>>Results are delivered impartially, regardless of where you are. There are
>>>only the factors of localisation and datacentre misalignment.
>>>
>>>I think you must check to ensure that referrals are not from Google's
>>>sister sites (harvesters),
>>
>> What (or which) would you call a Google harvester?
>
>
>Webcrawler, Scroogle, A9 and the list goes on and on.
I'll have to see if Google Analytics makes this distinction.
>>>opponents, or even Google images. You may soon find a
>>>perfectly-defensible explanation.
>>
>> I expect to, I'm just surprised I didn't already.
>
>
>Make sure you look at the raw logs.
Interestingly, this is not something I ever do, although I do have the
gear to do it (I think). Geez, more to do...
> I know you are using Urchin, but I can't comment on its
>accuracy. Maybe Google are trying to mess up with your mind,
No maybe about it:-(
BB
--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bill.kruse/wall-tapestries.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/anheuser-busch/index.html
kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Gifty! Shiny! BB!
|
|
