7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Really Bewildered On Google's Ranking

by strangebrew1961
6 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I'm really bewildered here. I am trying to place on the first page of google for low competition, long tailed keywords for a simple niche site that I just finished. I'm already indexed, and right out of the gate I'm on page 5, 6, 7 and 8 for my select keywords. Not too terribly bad I guess. Naturally I'm studying the site that is on the first page in the #1 spot. It too is a very simple Wordpress site. It's been around a couple of years, but no updates, no new posts, no comments, etc. It does has 50 or so backlinks, but they're pretty much all from orphan sites. I just don't get how the site is ranking at #1. It's beating out much better sites with much better content. Any ideas on what is driving such a week site to the #1 spot??
#bewildered #google #ranking
  • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
    Originally Posted by strangebrew1961 View Post

    I'm really bewildered here. I am trying to place on the first page of google for low competition, long tailed keywords for a simple niche site that I just finished. I'm already indexed, and right out of the gate I'm on page 5, 6, 7 and 8 for my select keywords. Not too terribly bad I guess. Naturally I'm studying the site that is on the first page in the #1 spot. It too is a very simple Wordpress site. It's been around a couple of years, but no updates, no new posts, no comments, etc. It does has 50 or so backlinks, but they're pretty much all from orphan sites. I just don't get how the site is ranking at #1. It's beating out much better sites with much better content. Any ideas on what is driving such a week site to the #1 spot??
    You must know by now if you've been in this game long enough about something known as RRF: Random Ranking Factor. This is Google's way of ensuring that people DO NOT have its algorithms figured out to an exact science. With Google's RRF, in some niches Google will rank sites at absolute random. Or some sites will rank with very little effort while others never rank at all and stuck on x position no matter what you do, lol. So having the best content or prettiest site has nothing to do with it.

    So when it comes to ranking in Google, it's really a numbers game in the beginning, you have to throw up as many sites as possible to see what ranks and doesn't... the sites that rank, you focus on those by adding content, etc and disregard the losers.

    Sometimes in the same niche, you have to throw up 3 - 4 sites competing against each other. Then you focus on whichever Google likes the most.

    Edit: feel free to PM me this site thats ranking on page 1 so I can take a look.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10017181].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author strangebrew1961
      Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

      You must know by now if you've been in this game long enough about something known as RRF: Random Ranking Factor. [B]This is Google's way of ensuring that people DO NOT have its algorithms figured out to an exact science.
      Yes, I am aware of the "Random Ranking Factor", and many say that it's just a myth. I'm not disputing it, and I actually may be witnessing it first hand.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10017198].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

      You must know by now if you've been in this game long enough about something known as RRF: Random Ranking Factor.
      Great, another piece of gobbledygook to the field that's already filled with nonsense. A quick Google search says that someone just came up with that phrase, and he's selling you something along with it. Maybe snake oil? I hear that it helps you to swallow all the bovine excrement.

      There's no need to come up with any more ludicrous ad hoc explanations. Just the fact that there's so many moving parts across the board should be enough. You can never fully reverse-engineer everything because you've seeing only a very small piece of the picture. It's really hard to run a properly controlled test. So many outside variables and external influence, huge black box, and if you were to run with the exact same content some of the sites would probably fall to the supplemental index.
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10017243].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author wedreamseo
        Banned
        What a nonsense indeed, Google ain't gonna randomly rank sites at the top, and especially not to offset marketers. Sure the algorithm has some randomness inside it but that's definitely not one of them.

        Things that help your competitor to rank is the fact that his site has been around for a wile and his links likely aged as well.

        Could also be that he has more links place that you can't see, like a PBN that blocks external crawling services and/or perhaps more likely a redirect from another domain, which is really not uncommon.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10017281].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
        Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

        Great, another piece of gobbledygook to the field that's already filled with nonsense. A quick Google search says that someone just came up with that phrase, and he's selling you something along with it. Maybe snake oil? I hear that it helps you to swallow all the bovine excrement.

        There's no need to come up with any more ludicrous ad hoc explanations. Just the fact that there's so many moving parts across the board should be enough. You can never fully reverse-engineer everything because you've seeing only a very small piece of the picture. It's really hard to run a properly controlled test. So many outside variables and external influence, huge black box, and if you were to run with the exact same content some of the sites would probably fall to the supplemental index.
        Heh... a bunch of rookies think they are smart or know it all while offering nothing to a thread. Sit on this forum all day offering "advice/correcting" and not doing any work. This reminds me of why I don't waste my time on here anymore. You guys are all talk and no substance. You are NOT doing, testing or anything. Things I do, and have been doing for years. Its undeniable that Google has elements of randomness and nothing is a perfect science.

        Good luck.

        OP: whether or not you believe in RRF really doesn't matter, but this is more important: when it comes to ranking, its a numbers game. Build more sites, until you have winners. Never sit around and bang your head against the wall over 1 site not ranking well. Not productive and waste of time.

        Good luck dude.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10018881].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

          Heh... a bunch of rookies think they are smart or know it all while offering nothing to a thread. Sit on this forum all day offering "advice/correcting" and not doing any work. This reminds me of why I don't waste my time on here anymore. You guys are all talk and no substance. You are NOT doing, testing or anything. Things I do, and have been doing for years. Its undeniable that Google has elements of randomness and nothing is a perfect science.
          Always the best idea to bring an attack against a person and not defend your claim at all. I don't count beating your chest and screaming about your supposed authority as arguments, but just another piece of nonsensical babble. It doesn't help that using terms that you or your pal came up with and that just a handful of people use is essentially self-promotion.

          Your behaviour just affirms that my comment was spot on. If it wasn't, you really should do something else. Say, explain and prove your hypothesis. I countered your "undeniable" claim with only a list of basic stuff about SEO. It's not undeniable, but the opposite. It's a hypothesis we've got no real reason to believe in unless you provide something concrete.

          Why exactly do you claim that Google randomizes something when it's evident that you're always randomizing everything? How do you measure this randomness that was brought by Google as opposed to other variables? How much randomness do you assign for content, hosting, link structures, etc? Does your claim cover something else than the initial ranking of a new site, ie. do you try to develop the sites after publishing them?


          Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

          when it comes to ranking, its a numbers game. Build more sites, until you have winners.
          That's not a bad piece of advice per se, but that approach only works if you're an internet marketer. Unfortunately most real businesses have to live with their only site.
          Signature
          Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
          Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

          What's your excuse?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10019125].message }}

Trending Topics