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

[Guest guest]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Guest guest]

That's precisely my point, yg (though I would disagree that most of those sites

relate to horror films).

And Duncan's site then? He presents himself as an expert in glutathione, yet his

site isn't chosen by Google as relevant in a glutathione search unless you

search for " glutathione references " - which are not really his. Of course he

talks about glutathione on that page as well, but apparently Google is

unimpressed by that relevancy/context or it would come up in the glutathione

(only) searches as well, would it not?

But if you still think the search has nothing to do with the source title of the

page, then google glutathione references again and open each link - then go to

View>View Source and check out NAME=DESCRIPTION of each. You will find that they

match the link title exactly and they all have the word " references " in their

NAME=DESCRIPTION. And they seem to be in an order of the simple to the more

complex titles. After all, an automated web crawler can only do so much without

a real brain :-)

Dee

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

The page ranking isn't the only method used by Google, although it is very

important. Looking at Google's page ranking site

http://www.googlerankings.com/prindex.php

members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/glutathione-references.html has a score of 2 out of

10, while en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton has a score of 7; amazon.com has a

score of 9.

And from

http://www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0512_01.html

" But we use many factors besides PageRank. For example, if a document contains

the words " civil " and " war " right next to each other, it might be more relevant

than a document discussing the Revolutionary War that happens to use the word

" civil " somewhere else on the page. Also, if a page includes the words " civil

war " in its title, that's a hint that it might be more relevant than a document

with the title " 19th Century American Clothing. " In the same way, if the words

" civil war " appear several times throughout the page, that page is more likely

to be about the civil war than if the words only appear once. "

Also, if one types in any of the following exact phrases pulled from Dunacan's

site 1. Glutathione is crucial to our survival 2. Prewritten queries into the

peer-reviewed 3. Undenatured Whey Reduces Pathogen Adhesion the #1 return is

members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/glutathione-references.html. When doing a Google

search for glutathione naturalnews.com/glutathione.html and

raysahelian.com/glutathione.html received page rank of 3.

The number 1 Google return for glutathione reference was

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/glutathione-synthetase-deficiency which

received a page rank of 0. I could not find a reference to

members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/glutathione-references.html among the 700 returns I

looked through. But when glutathione references is googled

members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/glutathione-references.html is #1. And when

" glutathione references " (using actual quotation marks) is googled there are 75

results (google omiitted some results to show the most relevant) with many

referring to Duncan's site or his postings on other sites.

In the instance of Google referring to

http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/glutathione-references.html as a #1 return, it

appears it has more to do with the title of the page and the exact word search

of glutathione references than other factors. Nonetheless, the site does

contain valuable links to PubMed studies.

thank you

elaine

> > >

> > > Dolores, see my previuos post about creating your own page with the same

> > > title and see how fast it reaches #1.

> >

> >

> >