From another webmaster type forum:"A link from DMOZ is counted greatly because Google likes web sites that are indexed in DMOZ. Google themselves uses DMOZ listings in their directory, which will count as another good link. Google sees DMOZ to be very important."How many times have you heard that? Do you believe it?Google does use the dmoz.org feed for their own directory, the rest is groundless rumor.Here's the fact: In my keywords, 82 of the top 100 sites arenot listed in dmoz.org.Why not research this for yourself and post the facts here?BompaOriginally posted on a different forum:"If there are more than 100 links on a page then Google will ingore the page because they have said that more than 100 links is too many. If you have 50 links on a page, it is unlikely that much pr will get passed. You want to try to keep it at a maximum of 25 outbound links a page."This sounds like good advice especially when read by newcomers.However, regarding the total number of links on a page, here's what Google actually says:"Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages. ""Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100). "http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.htmlAs usual, there is a grain of truth in the original poster's warning, in that, Google is suggesting that we keep the number of links to 100 total per page, but having 101 or 110 does not mean that the page will be ignored or penalized in any way.Please, let's try to keep the facts clear and without distortion.BompaMy site map has gotten way out of hand and has around 250 links and it has a page rank of 5, which is the same rank as my home page and all the main category pages (highest on the site). Many of my specific topic pages are only linked from their category page and from that site map, and a check of the backlinks from those pages shows the site map as being their second link, so I don't see it as being penalized or ignored (and it's been like this for quite some time now).I've read that section at Google regarding the number of links before, and it seemed more like sensible advice about not getting carried away (which unfortunately I have). It doesn't come under the section of "Quality Guidelines," which outline some of the illicit practices that may lead to a site being removed entirely from the Google index.I had a similar site map...way out of control...the most unruly thing you would ever want to see. Google thought it was cool. It ranked it as high as my entry page to my site PR5. Then I took some advice and broker it up into a more organized map consisting of three separate pages. The thought here was maybe I could have 3 pages with PR5 or even PR4 if I split my links. The main site map page dropped to a PR3 and the rest went to PR0. So I'm not sold on the 100 link limit. I wouldn't do anything to your site map until google tells you to....obviously by lowering your PR.Phaugh, thanks for your example.I think the 100 link suggesstion is more about plain simple eye appeal than anything else. Plus, the PR, (strength of the vote), is so small at that point that Google may see it as a waste of it's time to calculate, hehe. Remember, Google tells us what they want us to think and they will always act in their own best interest, not ours.On the other hand, down the road you will have 4 good pages rather than just one, which means, four votes back to your own site, so splitting your site map makes sense in that way. In fact, any page that requires a lot of scrolling down and has some PR could be split into two or more pages. Yes, they will start at PR0, but that PR will grown in time. This is exactly what the "Content is King" people are talking about. The more pages you have, (with links to your home page), the better off you are.BompaHere's a dandy:Quote:Hey Bompa...looks like you were right....after the recent update my 4 page site map has indeed gained some page rank...the top level page is back to a PR4 and the rest are at PR3.....thanksI'm interested in the DMOZ debate --- whether it makes a difference getting listed or not. I _feel_ like getting listed is a boost, because the source for the link is quite reliable and it would be pretty simple for Google to give additional weight to its anchor text. If I was a Google engineer, I would have certainly considered it.I have a particular question for Bompa:Quote
ompei wrote:man them phillipino girls are pretty hot i wouldn't mind orderin a few of those...!! Hello everyone,I started this thread in order to debunk some very common beliefs about Google's search engine results positioning, (SERP). It's not that I have any special knowledge, expertise, inside information, or otherwise relevant skills, it's just that I don't believe things simply because some one writes it. As Johnny Cochran said, "Saying it's so, doesn't make it so".Since mid November it's hard to ask a question about Google's SERPs without someone replying 'looks like a classic example of the Florida update effect". Google's November update caused a blizzard of speculations, superstitions, and rumors.However, so far, I have not seen one shred of evidence, (an article on http://www.my-super-duper-official-sear ... ournal.nut is not evidence, sorry), and not one publically documented research paper on the effects of the Florida update.Well, until I wrote one, that is.Luckily, I had documented the top 100 results for a 'mail order brides' search on October 15, 2003. Plus, I had researched every site on the list for several factors, most importantly, it's backlinks.Yesterday I completed my second research paper which compares the top 50 of October 15th with the current top 50 in order to determine the extent of the Florida update.As most of you won't choose to wade through the entie document, here is what happened to the top ten on the list:Two sites remained at the same position. Three sites went up two positions. One site dropped eight positions, from #9 to #17. Backlinks went from 52 to 46. One site dropped eleven positions, from #1 to #12. Backlinks went from 62 to 41. One site dropped seventeen positions, from #8 to #25. Backlinks went from 42 to 133, an increase of 91 links in 50 days. One site dropped thirty five positions, from #6 to #41. Backlinks went from 128 to 31, a decrease of 97 links in 50 days. One site dropped off the top 50 list. It was #7. Backlinks doubled from 97 to 181 during the 50 day interval.So, five of the top ten sites showed stability. With the other five, two of them dropped roughly ten positions and show a small decrease in backlinks. Three of them dropped drastically, (17, 35, and off the list), and show a huge change in the number of backlinks. Of these three that dropped drastically, two had a large increase in backlinks, and this makes me wonder if maybe they linked up with what Google calls a "bad neighborhood". The other one of the three, had a huge decrease in backlinks, he lost 97 of his 128 links. How could that happen in fifty days? Possibly, he was getting links from sites that Google decided to not count. #####################The whole smeal is at: Florida Update, The Real DealThanks,Bompa
ompei wrote:man them phillipino girls are pretty hot i wouldn't mind orderin a few of those...!! Hello everyone,I started this thread in order to debunk some very common beliefs about Google's search engine results positioning, (SERP). It's not that I have any special knowledge, expertise, inside information, or otherwise relevant skills, it's just that I don't believe things simply because some one writes it. As Johnny Cochran said, "Saying it's so, doesn't make it so".Since mid November it's hard to ask a question about Google's SERPs without someone replying 'looks like a classic example of the Florida update effect". Google's November update caused a blizzard of speculations, superstitions, and rumors.However, so far, I have not seen one shred of evidence, (an article on http://www.my-super-duper-official-sear ... ournal.nut is not evidence, sorry), and not one publically documented research paper on the effects of the Florida update.Well, until I wrote one, that is.Luckily, I had documented the top 100 results for a 'mail order brides' search on October 15, 2003. Plus, I had researched every site on the list for several factors, most importantly, it's backlinks.Yesterday I completed my second research paper which compares the top 50 of October 15th with the current top 50 in order to determine the extent of the Florida update.As most of you won't choose to wade through the entie document, here is what happened to the top ten on the list:Two sites remained at the same position. Three sites went up two positions. One site dropped eight positions, from #9 to #17. Backlinks went from 52 to 46. One site dropped eleven positions, from #1 to #12. Backlinks went from 62 to 41. One site dropped seventeen positions, from #8 to #25. Backlinks went from 42 to 133, an increase of 91 links in 50 days. One site dropped thirty five positions, from #6 to #41. Backlinks went from 128 to 31, a decrease of 97 links in 50 days. One site dropped off the top 50 list. It was #7. Backlinks doubled from 97 to 181 during the 50 day interval.So, five of the top ten sites showed stability. With the other five, two of them dropped roughly ten positions and show a small decrease in backlinks. Three of them dropped drastically, (17, 35, and off the list), and show a huge change in the number of backlinks. Of these three that dropped drastically, two had a large increase in backlinks, and this makes me wonder if maybe they linked up with what Google calls a "bad neighborhood". The other one of the three, had a huge decrease in backlinks, he lost 97 of his 128 links. How could that happen in fifty days? Possibly, he was getting links from sites that Google decided to not count. #####################The whole smeal is at: Florida Update, The Real DealThanks,Bompa