How are sites with LESS backlinks and content outranking me?

[vtotheyouknow]

Since Panda I've had several of my sites take a hit. I have plenty of good content up on them and plenty (500+) backlinks, yet some dinky 10 page sites with 7 PR0 backlinks are sitting in #1! WTH is going on here guys?

Vic

[Alexa Smith]

"Numbers of backlinks", these days, sometimes have little to do with where your site ranks.

"Content" can be highly relevant, of course, but off-page SEO plays a bigger role in the overall picture than on-page SEO, according to most expert authors on the subject.

It's undeniably very common for pages with fewer backlinks and lower page ranks to outrank sites with more backlinks and higher page ranks.

I'm not suggesting that high-class, relevant backlinks don't help: of course they do - they help enormously. But one decent backlink from a relevant site can easily give you more link-juice than tens of thousands of non-context-relevant article directory or forum profile backlinks.

Numerical and quantitative approaches are more or less a thing of the past, and that tendency's becoming more marked, every time Google changes anything. SEO is about quality and relevance.

[dee4d]

Well said Alexa Smith. I believe in quality and relevance, and balancing good content with backlinks. Let's not be too anxious to push our sites up without putting work on them. If you work on the site carefully and later on, say after three months, then you will have no problem pushing it up. The principle of doing the right thing the right way will take you to the top and keep you there. Try some shortcuts and you may fall so fast, and get blacklisted by google. I still believe we need google to earn, although there are some other ways you could still earn without google.

[LoriwC]

I've had a similar experience to Vic. I've been trying analyse my sites which are still ranking well vs those which have dropped back and I really can't see any pattern. Also all my sites just seen to float around in their rankings. I figure google puts some randomisation into their algos just to confuse us.

[vtotheyouknow]

Indeed.... Just speculation on my part but mightn't have Google's new algorithm taken into account the typical affiliate or review site? Kind of like website profiling for the sake of keeping their internet "safe"?

Originally Posted by LoriwC

I've had a similar experience to Vic. I've been trying analyse my sites which are still ranking well vs those which have dropped back and I really can't see any pattern. Also all my sites just seen to float around in their rankings. I figure google puts some randomisation into their algos just to confuse us.

[imMindset]

Indeed.... Just speculation on my part but mightn't have Google's new algorithm taken into account the typical affiliate or review site? Kind of like website profiling for the sake of keeping their internet "safe"?

No, that's definitely not the case. I have several review type websites that never took a hit. They actually increased in rankings, PR and most are sitting at #1 for very competitive keywords. Remember, Panda isn't a page penalty, but a site-wide penalty. So check the content across your entire site, to see if there's something going on.

Keep building quality links to your site as well, and stay consistent. They should be back up in no time.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by vtotheyouknow

Since Panda I've had several of my sites take a hit. I have plenty of good content up on them and plenty (500+) backlinks, yet some dinky 10 page sites with 7 PR0 backlinks are sitting in #1! WTH is going on here guys?

Vic

PageRank, especially that shown in the Google toolbar, has very little to do with ranking these days. I wish they'd abandon it altogether.

If that dinky 10-page site is tightly focused, with quality, relevant content and those 7 PR0 backlinks are from trusted, relevant, tightly focused sites, it's no wonder they're eating your lunch.

Another thing to keep in mind is that any tool that says it's showing you all backlinks is lying. None of the search engines show all backlinks. So there may be more under the surface than your tool of choice is telling you.

[mrclean78]

I'm noticing it's ALL about trust post-panda. Load up on .edu and gov links. Also high PR links from trusted sites are always good.

[JRemington]

Originally Posted by vtotheyouknow

Since Panda I've had several of my sites take a hit. I have plenty of good content up on them and plenty (500+) backlinks, yet some dinky 10 page sites with 7 PR0 backlinks are sitting in #1! WTH is going on here guys?

Vic

I've seen this plenty of times too and there are some very good explanations given above.

What is still confusing is how some of these sites are clearly still short on content, badly written, poorly presented and with obvious affiliate links everywhere on them. I guess Google still has some way to go.

[jwmann2]

Originally Posted by mrclean78

I'm noticing it's ALL about trust post-panda. Load up on .edu and gov links. Also high PR links from trusted sites are always good.

.Edu and . Gov backlinks are so hard to come by. A lot of them cease to exist anymore because of spammers.

[Kierkegaard]

I am convinced that the best SEO work you can do (other than ensuring the basics are done) is to improve content. Tightening up an article can make a big difference.

[methew12]

It doesn't mean that any New Site which have less page rank and back links can't compete you. Actually all the Game is about originality of content and relevance as well. and might be those sites have 7 high quality relevant back links instead of 500 low quality links.

[RayW]

Originally Posted by vtotheyouknow

Since Panda I've had several of my sites take a hit. I have plenty of good content up on them and plenty (500+) backlinks, yet some dinky 10 page sites with 7 PR0 backlinks are sitting in #1! WTH is going on here guys?

Vic

Their on-page seo is probably better. On-page seo is extremely important and goes ignored for the most part by many IMers.

[jmccoyfl]

If the internal linking structure + the rest of the basic onsite optimization is good, a few pages with quality and relevant backlinks can blow past bigger but fundamentally less focused sites.

[owenlee]

Why dont you check where their links are and build it...you may overtake them anytime..

Try and let us know?

[ExploringInfinity]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

"Numbers of backlinks", these days, sometimes have little to do with where your site ranks.

"Content" can be highly relevant, of course, but off-page SEO plays a bigger role in the overall picture than on-page SEO, according to most expert authors on the subject.

It's undeniably very common for pages with fewer backlinks and lower page ranks to outrank sites with more backlinks and higher page ranks.

I'm not suggesting that high-class, relevant backlinks don't help: of course they do - they help enormously. But one decent backlink from a relevant site can easily give you more link-juice than tens of thousands of non-context-relevant article directory or forum profile backlinks.

Numerical and quantitative approaches are more or less a thing of the past, and that tendency's becoming more marked, every time Google changes anything. SEO is about quality and relevance.

2 points for winning!

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by JRemington

I guess Google still has some way to go.

Where? To even more record profits?

Get a grip people.

Getting over yourselves proves to be difficult. It means you have
some way to go.

Google does not have to love your site just because you think so.
And they don't have to hate your competition just because as well.

Paul