Re: Re: more Crowing? (was VCO, RBC hemolysis and oxidative stress)

[Guest guest]

Dolores,

That's not at all how Google determines rank. Google and most other search

engines determine rank based on a concept called " back links " . In other

words how many sites are linking back to your site. The theory goes that if

more people link to your site from theirs, it must have some worthy content

on it, which boosts the quality ranking of it. I don't think you can argue

against too much that if 1M people link to your site versus 10 people, there

must be something interesting on it.

Then they filter out things like content farms and link aggregators that are

trying to game the system.

Shear page visits has very little to do with rank or you'd have every

spammer in the world using their bots to methodically visit pages with

Viagra, or whatever topic they are interested in, to bring them to the top

of the ranking.

yg

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dolores <dgk@...> wrote:

>

>

> Duncan,

>

> In a search for 'glutathione' or 'glutathione benefits' your page doesn't

> come up at all. It only comes up if you search for 'glutathione REFERENCES'

> because that is the TITLE of your page. Most sites that deal with

> glutathione just list their references at the bottom of their info. And

> since the CONTENT of your page is simply references, that would cause it to

> come up.

>

> There is, however, no scientific panel on google deciding on the 'quality'

> of those references, not to mention their interpretation. Now, those

> references may be just fine, but it's their interpretation that provides

> true quality - and for that I'll rely on someone like Lew, not the rankings

> on google. To Google 'quality' means how many times a page is visited. If

> you belong to a number of groups with large memberships and you keep

> referencing your 'glutatione page' you will get lots of hits. But then you

> already knew that, didn't you :-)

>

> Dee

>

>

> >

> > Hi Lew, the page is ranked rather high in Google, #1 in a search on

> glutathione references. As you probably know, search engine optimisation

> helps doesn't pull rank in Google; content does. Here's major content:

> > http://tinyurl.com/glutathione-references

> > snip>

> >

> >

> > all good,

> >

> > Duncan

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dee, I count 17 back links to your site, that's a decent number, and then

you take into account those sources that are linking to your site and the

sources linking to those sites and all of sudden your rank shoots up because

of the overall quality of links surrounding that web. I would assume, based

on that ranking, that you have some quality knowledge to share about

" photographic transmutations " than as someone who just happened to throw a

page up on the web with that title. The title may have it's purpose as a

classification for the search but not to determine ranking, that practice

was abandon many years ago. The page content and back links to those terms

are what determines the rank, otherwise I could publish a page with the same

title as yours and presumably be ranking up near you. Maybe I'll try it for

a few weeks and report back.

I think we can all attest that this theory has worked well in practice given

the popularity of Google, Bing, , etc.

They all invest a ton to make sure their rankings are relevant or no one

would use them. Think about it, if you searched Google and even half of the

time the information that came back was erroneous or was faulty, you'd

probably learn to use another service. The crowd sourcing model works (more

backlinks = generally more relevant). Most people don't bother to link to

other sites unless the information is sound, now multiply that by the scale

of the web and you have something that is fairly reliable on the whole.

There's always outliers and due diligence is always necessary but for the

most part the model works.

yg

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Dolores <dgk@...> wrote:

>

>

> Lg, the TITLE of the page has a LOT to do with ranking. Just google

> " photographic transmutations " and see who ranks first. That's me. Now google

> " transmutations " only and see what comes up. Big difference.

>

> My main point, however, is that there is no scientific panel passing

> judgement on the " quality " of the information in terms of its' intrinsic

> value or the interpretation presented. As I'm sure you are aware, there is

> plenty of erroneous information that gets passed on from site to site so the

> " theory " that it must have worthy content because 1M people link to it from

> back links, is just that - a theory :-).

>

> Best,

> Dee

>

>

> > > >

> > > > Hi Lew, the page is ranked rather high in Google, #1 in a search on

> > > glutathione references. As you probably know, search engine

> optimisation

> > > helps doesn't pull rank in Google; content does. Here's major content:

> > > > http://tinyurl.com/glutathione-references

> > > > snip>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > all good,

> > > >

> > > > Duncan

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Unless you have copyright or trademark on that phrase, there's little

recourse for you if I create a similar page. Either way, trust me, title has

very little to do with ranking.

On quick search Duncan's page has over 50 back links that are used to

determine page rank and a score from a wide variety for sources from

alobar's blog, to some herbal sites, cancer cure, several ayurvedic

journals, etc. There are over 4100 links to his site from within the

groups domain, which represents all of the managed forums.

yg

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Dolores <dgk@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi yg,

>

> I'm pretty sure it came up #1 when I first initiated the site - the reason

> being that no one else had (has) that exact title - at least not to my

> knowledge. That's not to say that my info isn't also superb (just kidding,

> just kidding:) But if you want to try a test run, go right ahead. Of course

> I may then have to sue you for stealing my title (JUST KIDDING AGAIN).

>

> Yes, I'm sure the back links have some importance - especially when there

> are many sites with the same info (and related titles) to choose from. Btw,

> I invested nothing in my ranking and all the sites I'm linked to are sites

> that actually discuss my own work - not just related subject matter.

>

> So what are the back links to Duncan's glutathione references page? His

> references link to studies he found on the internet, but how do you know

> they point back to him? And why is it that a search for glutathione,

> glutathione supplement, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione benefits, etc.

> doesn't bring up his site (at least not on the first page or so of google) -

> while typing in glutathione REFERENCES brings it up? I can only deduce from

> that it is the title of the page that does it. Same thing holds true for the

> Budwig REVISION page. See if that page comes up by just typing in Budwig,

> Budwig protocol, Budwig diet, etc.

>

>

> Dee

>

>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi Lew, the page is ranked rather high in Google, #1 in a search

> on

> > > > > glutathione references. As you probably know, search engine

> > > optimisation

> > > > > helps doesn't pull rank in Google; content does. Here's major

> content:

> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/glutathione-references

> > > > > > snip>

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > all good,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Duncan

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

You don't show up on top for transmutations simply because the documents

that reference your site are in relation to photographic transmutations, not

transmutations in general, of which there are many other sites with links

related to transmutations, most of which relate to horror films.

Google/Bing are very good at determining relevancy/context based on the

webs they crawl.

yg

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Dolores <dgk@...> wrote:

>

>

> Ah, yes - alobar's blog and the domain - of which he belongs

> to a number and provides his link as often as possible. As far as the

> others, well I'd have to view those first before determining the worth of

> their references. But you still haven't dealt with the issue that his page

> doesn't come up in a search unless you put in his specific page titles - not

> just glutathione or Budwig. Sorry but that is the reality. Same with mine.

> If you only put 'transmutations' into google it won't come up - no matter

> how many back links I may have.

>

>

> Dee

>

>

> >snip>

>

> > On quick search Duncan's page has over 50 back links that are used to

> > determine page rank and a score from a wide variety for sources from

> > alobar's blog, to some herbal sites, cancer cure, several ayurvedic

> > journals, etc. There are over 4100 links to his site from within the

>

> > groups domain, which represents all of the managed forums.

> >

> > yg

>

>

>