Data Feed Best Practices

[newbie]

With all this talk about backlinks, I am having difficulty trying to work this out and would appreciate your expert help.

If you search on Google for "Data Feed Best Practices" the page that comes up number one is a page from ShopSafe.com.au. It is ahead of about 13M other site pages. Some of them might even be regarded as "authorities".

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...tryAU&aq=f&oq=

Same on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi= although it is http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq= third on the UK.

Now, if you examine the inlinks to this page in Yahoo Site Explorer you will find that it only has one inlink, the home page of shopsafe.com.au. That would be correct because the only link to this page from anywhere in the world is a single link in the green menubar at the bottom of the home page.From memory it is just noted as DATA FEEDS.

Yahoo Site Explorer shows inlinks.

https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.co...m&bwm=i&bwmo=d

It is not surprising that nobody else has linked to this page yet as it was only written and published a week or so ago.

Would a bunch of UK links push it to number one in the UK? Maybe, who knows, who cares, it is not UK content so what would be the point?

Could the answer be as simple as that? The content is just a good match for the search term? Is it really that simple?

Say this particular page was not number one, say it was number five. Would it be smart to try to push it up to number one using artificial means?

If there is a better answer beneath you, isn't search quality going to push you back down again anyway? What would be the point of that? Isn't this all about just being the best answer for a given search term?

Do you think it is possible that if you continually do the right thing, eventually you become "trusted" and links are irrelevant?

Do you think it is safe for us to ignore links and just focus on quality publishing?

[Marlnet]

I think you're actually BCL and that you've just redirected all of your webpages to be identical under a inclusive porno name with 5,000 backlinks from Armand to increase your sales of dog food...

Did I get it?

Did I, did I?

Do I get a prize???

(Is Gayle going to sabotage my internet access - oh no, Vodafone already does that...)

[newbie]

Originally Posted by Marlnet

I think you're actually BCL and that you've just redirected all of your webpages to be identical under a inclusive porno name with 5,000 backlinks from Armand to increase your sales of dog food...

Did I get it?

Did I, did I?

Do I get a prize???

(Is Gayle going to sabotage my internet access - oh no, Vodafone already does that...)

Close, but no cigar, Paul.

====================

Edited - because someone had to ask if it really was a trick or not.

I thought it was obvious but again, let me say it clearly, we do not do tricks, everything is exactly what you see.

[newbie]

Interesting follow-up to this.

This forum topic now occupies the number one position and, as you know, this page was only created yesterday,

Same as in the first example, this topic page has only one inlink (from the forum home-page).

The page that was pushed down to number three (by the newcomers) for this search term on google,com.au appears to have been on the internet since 2006 and has 5 inlinks.

https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.co.../&bwm=i&bwmo=d

So, until somebody expounds a better theory, I am saying that relevance of content to this particular search term, (not the single inlinks), ranks these pages in positions one and two ahead of 13M other pages.

[ikonic]

It is matching based on the page title, page url and content publish date. nothing more.

'datafeed best practices' #1 - shopsafe #4 (add self refencing title so we aren't passing targetted anchor text off site)

'data feed best practices' #1 - shopsafe #2 (changed title so we aren't passing targetted anchor text off site)

'please solve this puzzle' #1 -

'think you're actually BCL and that you've just redirected all of your webpages' #1

'Suggestions for best practice in data feeds.' #1 shopsafe - #3 AF

You can also use the inurl query in Google to determine how many other people are targetting those terms in their url's (Google) - note how shopsafe does not appear (as you are using underscores as opposed to hypens). Therefore, even though you have more relevant content, AF will rank first as the url is the closest match to the query (since there are no backlinks to compare against the 2 sites with the closest pattern match in the url).

TBH - its really easy to rank for something no one is targetting. I mean lets, be honest, Google only returns 32000 results and Yahoo 28 million. If you really want to make a case against backlinking (in that all you need is good content) then I would prefer to see a link where the niche is saturated and you are #1 with no backlinks and only good content.

Finally, re the link you are saying we pushed out... the url is 'RSSAtomFeedsBestPractice' not 'Data-Feeds-Best-Practices' so therefore, we easily move above it, as programmatically... the search term is data feeds, not RSS atom feeds.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by ikonic

It is matching based on the page title, page url and content publish date. nothing more.

In the case of the page we are talking about, there are no matches.

Search Term: data feed best practices

Page Title: ShopSafe - Suggestions for best practice in data feeds
H1: Opinion: ShopSafe - Suggestions for best practice in data feeds.

There is no occurence of "data feed best practices" anywhere on the page.

"best practice" is not a match for "best practices"
"data feed" is not a match for "data feeds"

As you so rightly pointed out, we generally use underscores instead of hyphens (because we think that hyphens look spammy) but, you are right, using hyphens instead of underscores would have given a match if we had used them but this page ranks without them anyway. (We occasionally use hyphens but only in specific instances).

Here is what Google says about the use of hyphens in urls.

YouTube - GoogleWebmasterHelp's Channel

Until someone is able to prove otherwise, I maintain that this page, with zero backlinks, appears in the search result only because it's content "as a whole" matches the search term. There are no keyword matches.

Originally Posted by ikonic

TBH - its really easy to rank for something no one is targetting. I mean lets, be honest, Google only returns 32000 results and Yahoo 28 million. If you really want to make a case against backlinking (in that all you need is good content) then I would prefer to see a link where the niche is saturated and you are #1 with no backlinks and only good content.

Exactly.

"its really easy to rank for something no one is targetting"

Isn't that another way of saying that if you create original content, it is really easy to rank?

[ikonic]

Originally Posted by newbie

In the case of the page we are talking about, there are no matches.

shopsafe.com/opinion/data_feed_best_practices.htm

Originally Posted by newbie

Isn't that another way of saying that if you create original content, it is really easy to rank?

The term we are discussing here 'data feed best practices' , worldwide, gets less then 100 searches a month on Google. I would suggest anything with that little search volume (besides a rare disease) is easy to rank with.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by ikonic

shopsafe.com/opinion/data_feed_best_practices.htm


The term we are discussing here 'data feed best practices' , worldwide, gets less then 100 searches a month on Google. I would suggest anything with that little search volume (besides a rare disease) is easy to rank with.

BTW - where did the forum post go? It is not a trick question - I thought it would stay there but I seriously would like to hear what you think about it.

OK, although I thought we had already agreed that the use of underscores in the url prevented it from being a match.

OK, so if I concede that, and also concede that it only gets 100 queries a month, will you concede that it is possible to rank with zero backlinks providing the content "overall" is a good match for the search term and that the basic page design rules are followed?

That is all that I am asking. I am just trying to point out that it is possible to direct 100% of effort into developing content and still rank pages without spending any time on linking strategies.

Regardless of the low number of searches, I think this example does demonstrate this.

[ikonic]

Originally Posted by newbie

BTW - where did the forum post go? It is not a trick question - I thought it would stay there but I seriously would like to hear what you think about it.

It appears to have been dropped from the index. I will tweak the thread title (and some content) and see if we can't get this page reindexed and back to number 1 (social experiment)

Originally Posted by newbie

OK, although I thought we had already agreed that the use of underscores in the url prevented it from being a match.

It does prevent it from being an exact match but in the absence of this forum post, shopsafe comes up first (as this is the closet url match).

Originally Posted by newbie

OK, so if I concede that, and also concede that it only gets 100 queries a month, will you concede that it is possible to rank with zero backlinks providing the content "overall" is a good match for the search term and that the basic page design rules are followed?

I consider this statement to be true (in that you can rank on good content and structure alone) providing the environment is not saturated with multiple active competitors (whom are undertaking backlinking strategies).

EDIT: I have modified the page content slightly to narrow the url and title term along with removing off site links. I have also added a link to Data Feed Best Practices into my sig to see if this assists in getting the page reindexed.

[newbie]

Mate,

I am happy to have you remove anything or adjust things in any way you want - I am just as interested in the outcome as you are.

However you have added what I regard as a "trick" into one of my posts. This might mislead and I would prefer it was removed. Feel free to place as many as you like in your own posts.

The link on data feed best practices is the only one I noticed but if there are any others, please remove the links from them too.

"There is no occurence of "data feed best practices" anywhere on the page."

[ikonic]

I have removed the link from your post.

However as the point of the exercise is to attempt to move this page to #1 using backlinks (internal no less) I will add another to this post.

Best Practices for Data Feeds

[newbie]

Originally Posted by ikonic

I have removed the link from your post.

However as the point of the exercise is to attempt to move this page to #1 using backlinks (internal no less) I will add another to this post.

Best Practices for Data Feeds

Tim, I am not suggesting for a second that it was intentional, and of course, add one to your posts, (or one hundred if the mood takes you).

It is just that my whole point in this thread is that links are not a requirement for ranking so a link on one of my posts might be misread.

Nothing more than that.

[ikonic]

I think we have a com error.

You wish to demonstrate that good content alone will push a url to #1.

I wish to demonstrate that using backlinks with average content pushes a url higher then the good content url.

The reason being, that if I am able to achieve this, then it would demonstrate how easily it is to overtake anothers competitors position in the SE using backlinks (regardless of content).

EDIT: After 90 mins we are now back in google.com at #9. lets see if we can take that to #1
EDIT: If other users on this forum wish to participate in this "live" experiment then feel free to add the Data Feed Best Practices link into your sig.
EDIT: This topic ( Data Feed Best Practices ) is now #5 in google.com.au.

btw: ATM I am only employing onsite optimisation techniques to increase page visibility.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by ikonic

I think we have a com error.

You wish to demonstrate that good content alone will push a url to #1.

I wish to demonstrate that using backlinks with average content pushes a url higher then the good content url.

The reason being, that if I am able to achieve this, then it would demonstrate how easily it is to overtake anothers competitors position in the SE using backlinks (regardless of content).

EDIT: After 90 mins we are now back in google.com at #9. lets see if we can take that to #1
EDIT: If other users on this forum wish to participate in this "live" experiment then feel free to add the Data Feed Best Practices link into your sig.
EDIT: This topic ( Data Feed Best Practices ) is now #5 in google.com.au.

btw: ATM I am only employing onsite optimisation techniques to increase page visibility.

Feel free to deploy your entire arsenal whenever you are ready.

I am as interested to see what happens as anybody else.

[ikonic]

This is the entire point of my involvement in this thread "Best Practices for Datafeeds".

I hope to present a real life example so the community as a whole can gauge the results (either positive or negative).

As to what the results will be... well this is dependant on a variety of factors (content, links, frequency of updates etc).

btw: for those watching, always switch up the anchor text in backlinks. Only bots and newcomers use the same anchor text across multiple backlinks (i.e it does not appear to be a naturally created link but instead one focused towards targeting specific keywords)

EDIT: #1 for "Data Feed Best Practices" in Google.com.au and .com... however quotes required so we can really not count this as a valid result (though we outrank Jim's site )