McDar Experiment

Yes, Dave, That is my hope as well !!!!


Many Thanks to all involved with this experiment. This includes both active participants as well as the daily followers.

Merry Christmas
or
Happy Holidays
to all ! ​

Caryl

 

Let me echo those sentiments:

Merry Christmas
or
Happy Holidays
to all !​

 

Merry Christmas Everybody.

McDar - thanks for the review, I appreciate it. I read the beginning of this thread (several pages, who knows how many) a while back, but I had forgotten some, so the review was nice.

The reason for my suggestions, is that a little on page optimization might help out a little bit, given that a consistent #2 allinanchor has been pretty stable for several posts. (I don't really know how long, but I definitely have that impression).

I don't have any evidence to support my suggestions, they are just the type of things that I would do, and I am no SEO expert. I make my money programming and SEO is just an interest of mine that I like to learn about and play with when I have the time or a keyword I start to care about.

I would offer some inbound links, but it seems like you are wanting to stick with what you have for now. Let me know if you would like me to add links - although my big indexed site is already part of the co-op network. I wonder if adding a sixth link - consistently sleeping bags to all of my pages might bring you closer to #1 allinanchor (in addition to my 5 coop links) (its about ~5k indexed pages, but the home page is only pr4)

This is certainly a great experiment, but I'm sure the time will come for you to soon try to climb the rankings to #1. What other suggestions would people have that would help to put this page at the top? Isn't the big sleeping bag season starting in the spring?

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update
**29 DCs are NOT responding**
***27 DCs are NOT responding**
****32 DCs are NOT responding**
*****36 DCs are NOT responding**

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_____________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #9 allinanchor: #2 -12/16/2004 [18 DCs #9, 6 DC #10] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/17/2004 [2 DCs #9, 22 DC #10] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/18/2004 [22 DCs #10, 2 DC #12] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/19/2004 [13 DCs #10, 6 DC #11, 5 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/20/2004 [15 DCs #10, 5 DC #11, 4 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/21/2004 [7 DCs #9, 10 DC #10, 4 DC #11, 3 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 3 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/22/2004 [9 DCs #9, 13 DCs #10, 2 DCs #11]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/23/2004 [18 DCs #10, 6 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/24/2004 [7 DCs #8, 13 DCs #10, 4 DCs #11, 2 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #9 allinanchor: #2 -12/25/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #9]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #8 allinanchor: #2 -12/26/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #8]Note: Allinanchor #2 on ALL DCs *****
_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:

105 - 11/05/2004
Unchanged from previous date
110 - 11/09/2004
109 - 11/10/2004
114 - 11/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
112 - 11/20/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date
2 - 6/17/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - highest links reported 6/12/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob replaced links in Signatures - 7/21/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

4280 - 12/16/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4270 - 12/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4260 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4240 - 12/26/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

742 - 12/01/2004
Unchanged from previous date
763 - 12/16/2004
Unchanged from previous date
774 - 12/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
764 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#22 - 08/22/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#14 - 08/24/2004
#19 - 08/26/2004
Defunct: This search no longer relevant
__________________

*August 18, 2004 - (10) Project Supporters donated Links from 13 different IP addresses to page. Additional info will be added as it comes in.

Total links found by using site:www.domainname.tld Researched daily by Foxy

Daily Totals Report (click to see full report)

747 - 12/04/2004
761 - 12/08/2004
797 - 12/10/2004
824 - 12/15/2004
838 - 12/17/2004
924 - 12/21/2004
__________________

Dec 17, 2004 - digitalpoint's "Patient" Added link to 116 different urls
(ALL located @ class 3 IP address Address - 217.36.188.*)

Number Indexed by Google
11 - 12/20/2004
30 - 12/21/2004
31 - 12/22/2004
40 - 12/23/2004
48 - 12/24/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ December 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
155 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 153 of 155)
19 for Caryl
16 for Bob
65 for Foxy
28 for Others
14 for Digitalpoint forums
9 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ November 25 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
3530 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 901 of 981)

170 for Digitalpoint forums
12 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ October 27 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
469 Backlinks
___________

~ September 11 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
566 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 549 of 566)
20 of Caryl's links
10 of Bob's Links
9 of "August 18th" Links
480 for Digitalpoint forums
30 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 30 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
457 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 449 of 457)
14 of Caryl's links
11 of Bob's Links
0 of Foxy's Links
401 for Digitalpoint forums
23 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 9 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
85 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ July 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
129 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ June 22 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
325 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
__________________

~ Highest Positions Attained ~

Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19] Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
(No signature links had been used at this point - may have been "honeymoon period")

Postion #14 allinanchor: #2 - 08/24/2004 [9 DCs #13, 21 DCs #14] ****

Postion #12 allinanchor: #2 - 10/04/2004 [10 DCs #11, 22 DCs #12] ****

Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 - 10/06/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #4 allinanchor: #2 - 10/21/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #2 allinanchor: #2 - 10/27/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

__________________
Note:Google API has page at #8

 

I have followed the discussion with Grumpy Old Man (GOM) with interest. In fact I asked a couple of specific questions in response to his first suggestions which have never been directly answered or responded to.

Let me make a number of comments.

1. I don't entirely agree with Caryl that no attempts where made to do on page optimization. At the beginning of the thread we specifically talked about using "sleeping bags" as the first term in the title. As an aside I can't believe, as I suggested in my earlier response to GOM, that the inclusion of the McDar name would delute the value of the term "sleeping bags" used in the title.

2. The term "sleeping bags" is use very frequently on the page itself, So while there in no conventional content in the form of several paragraphs of descriptive text, it is not accurate to say that there is no on the page optimization.

3. I just used the keyword analysis tool and the site also ranks at #8 for the term "sleeping bag" --singular. This should not be a huge surprise because Google uses stemming, and will frequently give a site good SERP placement for both the singular and plural versions of a keyword even when only one is used in anchortext.

So the given that the site places #8 for both these search terms does anyone really think it would have done better is we had used both terms in anchor text. Or would we simply have deluted the impact of both terms?

BTW this is where the coorelation between allinanchor: and SERP placement breaks down. The site is top ten for "sleeping bag" and doesn't even exist in the allinanchor: search for that term. So obviously while it may be accurate to say that if you have a high allinanchor: rating you have a good chance of have a high SERP placement, it is incorrect to say that you must have a high allinachor: rating to place well in ther SERPs.

4. Now back to GOM's first suggestion re: changing the URL for the page to either a higher level or to include the keyword more often. I don't think we ever considered this in the original design of the experiment. If the page appears to have stablized somewhere other than at #1 in the future and no other more interesting changes are being considered, then we could try changing the URL to one of GOM's suggestions and see what effect it has.

In the meantime has anybody got any idea why the page seem to be steadily creeping back up in the SERPs. Google still doesn't seem to have noticed the removal of the forum sigs -- Foxy's and mine. I guess we are all satisfied that the coop ads are no longer in place. And in the meantime nothing else has changed. So why is the page climbing again?

 

For what it is worth...

The experiment page ranks

#1 for allinurl:sleeping bags
#2 for allintext:sleeping bags
#2 for allintitle:sleeping bags
#2 for allinanchor:sleeping bags

The #1 site returned for the search sleeping bags is ranked nowhere for allinurl:sleeping bags.

Also - Although the experiment page comes up #8 for the search both singular and plural, the top ten sites returned for both searches is NOT the same.

I have other pages on my site that the singular vs plural search produce results where the singular search results in position #7 and the plural of the search results in position #61. (www.mcdar.com keywords: m65 jacket vs m65 jackets) So, while stemming seems to come into play, I believe Google will stem to singular because it is part of the anchortext used but my not stem "up" and add an "s" where none ever existed in the anchortext used. (only a theory).

A quick pass of the mouse over the main urls of the top ten sites returned for the search sleeping bags will reveal the actual page being returned in the results.

You will notice that only one other top ten has sleeping-bag in the page url. Some of the others have sleepingbag BUT Google is unable to recognize that as being the keywords.

The site at position #7 has this page being returned in the results [http:// mountainwarehouse.co.uk/shop/product_list/c_path/69/spd/sleeping-bags.html]

The #10 site's page has this path [http: //www.sportsmansguide.com/browse/browse.asp?c=81 the pages title - "<title>Sportsman's Guide - Sleeping Bags</title>"]

These are both typical urls of dynamic shopping carts.

The page title for the number one site returned is "<Title>Camping Supplies, Accessories, And Gear :</Title>". The keyword does not appear in the title of the page.

So, while others may not think that thought was not given to title and url, quick investigation into these factors seem to suggest that they played very little importance on the outcome of the results.

I agree with Bob, that page title was discussed in this thread early on and the page title was changed within the first week or so to have the keywords appear before McDar... rather than after.

just some quick FYI...

Caryl

 

I don't agree with that "theory" and here is why. I have an Internet Pharmacy heavily optimized for "online pharmacy". Its SERP placement for "online pharmacies" has always been higher than the phrase we have used as anchor text.

So in this case not only have they "stemmed up", they have stemmed to a version that does not simply add an "s" to the singular. And they have apparently given the stemmed version more relevancy than the optimized phrase.

This of course is another example of the fact that you don't have to rank well for allinanchor: to rank well in the SERPs.

 

Bob,

While the concept of stemming in Google has not been fully explored nor is it fully understood just how and when Google applies it, it is apparent that Google does use it.

But I think your last statement is a little misleading.

If you use the Keyword Analysis Tool to search for both Online Pharmacy and Online Pharmacies you will find that clearly the more optimized form of the search is for the singular Online Pharmacy.

For Online Pharmacy 7 of the top 10 sites are also in the top ten spots for allinanchor for the same keyword. Only one in the top ten is not in the top 100 for allinanchor for the keyword.

On the other hand the plural form (Online Pharmacies) only 4 of the top ten for that keyword are in the top 100 for allinanchor for the same.

While your site has better placement for the lesser optimized form of the keywords, do you really mean to suggest that it is not really neccessary to target specific keywords with specific anchor text to compete for highly competitve keywords?

Although high allinanchor placement does not ensure high placement in the serps, there continues to be a high correlation between high allinanchor ranking and high regular placement for highly competitve keywords and keyword phrases.

Caryl

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update
**29 DCs are NOT responding**
***27 DCs are NOT responding**
****32 DCs are NOT responding**
*****36 DCs are NOT responding**

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_____________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/17/2004 [2 DCs #9, 22 DC #10] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/18/2004 [22 DCs #10, 2 DC #12] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/19/2004 [13 DCs #10, 6 DC #11, 5 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/20/2004 [15 DCs #10, 5 DC #11, 4 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/21/2004 [7 DCs #9, 10 DC #10, 4 DC #11, 3 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 3 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/22/2004 [9 DCs #9, 13 DCs #10, 2 DCs #11]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/23/2004 [18 DCs #10, 6 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/24/2004 [7 DCs #8, 13 DCs #10, 4 DCs #11, 2 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #9 allinanchor: #2 -12/25/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #9]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #8 allinanchor: #2 -12/26/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #8]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #8 allinanchor: #2 -12/27/2004 [22 DCs #8, 2 DCs #9, 2 DCs #10]Note: Allinanchor #2 on ALL DCs *****
_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:

105 - 11/05/2004
Unchanged from previous date
110 - 11/09/2004
109 - 11/10/2004
114 - 11/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
112 - 11/20/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date
2 - 6/17/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - highest links reported 6/12/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob replaced links in Signatures - 7/21/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

4270 - 12/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4260 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4240 - 12/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

763 - 12/16/2004
Unchanged from previous date
774 - 12/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
764 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#22 - 08/22/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#14 - 08/24/2004
#19 - 08/26/2004
Defunct: This search no longer relevant
__________________

*August 18, 2004 - (10) Project Supporters donated Links from 13 different IP addresses to page. Additional info will be added as it comes in.

Total links found by using site:www.domainname.tld Researched daily by Foxy

Daily Totals Report (click to see full report)

797 - 12/10/2004
824 - 12/15/2004
838 - 12/17/2004
924 - 12/21/2004
__________________

Dec 17, 2004 - digitalpoint's "Patient" Added link to 116 different urls
(ALL located @ class 3 IP address Address - 217.36.188.*)

Number Indexed by Google
11 - 12/20/2004
30 - 12/21/2004
31 - 12/22/2004
40 - 12/23/2004
48 - 12/24/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ December 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
155 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 153 of 155)
19 for Caryl
16 for Bob
65 for Foxy
28 for Others
14 for Digitalpoint forums
9 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ November 25 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
3530 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 901 of 981)

170 for Digitalpoint forums
12 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ October 27 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
469 Backlinks
___________

~ September 11 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
566 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 549 of 566)
20 of Caryl's links
10 of Bob's Links
9 of "August 18th" Links
480 for Digitalpoint forums
30 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 30 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
457 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 449 of 457)
14 of Caryl's links
11 of Bob's Links
0 of Foxy's Links
401 for Digitalpoint forums
23 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 9 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
85 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ July 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
129 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ June 22 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
325 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
__________________

~ Highest Positions Attained ~

Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19] Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
(No signature links had been used at this point - may have been "honeymoon period")

Postion #14 allinanchor: #2 - 08/24/2004 [9 DCs #13, 21 DCs #14] ****

Postion #12 allinanchor: #2 - 10/04/2004 [10 DCs #11, 22 DCs #12] ****

Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 - 10/06/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #4 allinanchor: #2 - 10/21/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #2 allinanchor: #2 - 10/27/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

__________________
Note:Google API has page at #8

 

According to Wordtracker there are:

2967 searches per day on "online pharmacy"
1186 searches per day on "online pharmacies"

So while I agree that the plural is not as competitive as the singular I would still say that it is a reasonably competitive keyword phrase. And obviously you can rank well for it without ranking in the top 100 for allinanchor:.

In fact I don't think it is even necessary to optimize directly for the phrase because Google seems to do that for you via stemming.

The same applies to the suggestion that we should have optimized for both sleeping bag and sleeping bags. We have acheived identical SERP placement for both by only optimizing for the one version. The question in my mind, which I asked earlier, is if we had optimized for both and split our links -- anchor text -- 50/50 between the two phrases would we be better off or worse off. Would the split have diluted the value of both phrases, or would the fact that Google stemmed off both phrases have put us further ahead.

So here is all I'm trying to say. If you have a high allinanchor: ranking the chances are very good that you will place well in the SERPs. However you can also place well in the SERPs and not have a high allinanchor: ranking. So obviously Google's algorithm is not predominantly driven by allinanchor:. I think that many people on this forum, and following this thread, beleive that the two issues are inseparable. I just want to point out that that is not necessarily true.

 

this may be somewhat of a comparison...

The main index page to my website shows 103 links according to Google (experiment page now shows 155).

The main index page has a number of links with the anchor text being "Sleeping bags and tents". ALL of the links with that anchor text come from websites with the camping equipment theme.

Search results in Google show the index page at
position #5 for a search on sleeping bags and tents and at
position #373 for the search sleeping bags.

The same index page is
position #4 for allinanchor:sleeping bags and tents and at
position #85 for allinanchor:sleeping bags

This was discussed in post#40 of this thread...

The title of the main index page for the site is <title>Sleeping Bags Camping Equipment Clothing - McDar Outdoor Gear </title>

The keyword density for sleeping bags on this index page is 7.33%
This main index page has much better "on page" optimization for the keyword than does the experiment page.

So...
The major difference between the main page to my site and the experimental page is that the experimental page has a MUCH greater number of links with sleeping bags in the anchor text.

The question here is, would the experiment page be where it is today IF ALL of the anchor text was sleeping bags and tents? OR would the extra words have diluted it for the sleeping bags search?

Perhaps one way to test would be to add links to the original index page with the anchor text being sleeping bags and tents (to add to the original links) and see if it will climb higher in the search for sleeping bags. Perhaps links from the Ad Network since they seemed to have taken effect quickly.

Input highly requested as eggnog may be clouding my thinking these days

Caryl

 

Its my experience that even as Google has an operator called "allinanchor" wherein we can see the allinanchor results and relate them to serps ranking there is probably a factor in the google algo that could be called "allin stemmed versions of anchor text". We don't have a measure for the stemmed version but it impacts serps ranking according to many webmasters.

In my category I see lots of examples of both singular and plural versions of the main keyword phrase ranking high in serps for either category. My site has #1 allinanchor ranking for kyword1 kyword2 (singular) and ranks 5th for both plural and singular in the serps. I don't have a single backlink that reflects the plural and am currently 72 for allinanchor keyword1 keyword 2(plural) Likewise there are sites that have virtually all backlinks with plural versions and rank high in serps and both allinanchor for singular and plural.

I also see other stemmed versions of the first keyword which could end with -ing or -er and they will rank high in serps and allinanchor for one or both versions.

IMO there is a lot of stemming that is applied in rankings and it can often be seen in one or another version of allinanchor rankings (though not always)

I've actually manually tracked anchor text for some competitors. Even as one site ranks #1 for keyword 1 and #1 for allinanchor for keyword 1, through some premliminary checking of backlinks I don't see keyword 1 in ANY backlink. (I do see a variation on it.) I'm not sure that allinanchor is a precise measure of backlinks with specific keywords. I'd love to see what others experience is in this regard.

Clearly in the case of the experiment, a large number lf backlinks with the specific anchor text propelled the site for anchor text ranking and also propelled the site, though not as much in rankings.

Lastly its my experience and opinion that the length of anchor text in backlinks can somewhat reduce the impact of the anchor text. Its just my opinion but I suspect that in order to rank high for the phrase "sleeping bags" specific anchor text of "sleeping bags" is more effective than "sleeping bags and camping equipment". Now the source of the link may be more effective (themed versus non themed).

While my anchor text is focused on kywrd1 kyword 2 in many cases my backlink anchor text has been my official title; Professional kwrd1 kwrd2 followed by 4 location words - essentially 7 words in the anchor text. I sense my site moved higher and moved more quickly when Instead of the entire title or something close to that I simply focused on backlinks w/ kwrd1 kwrd2.

I would think that a measurement for anchor text impact between "sleeping bags" and "sleeping bags and camping equipment" might only be effectively seen if existing links for "sleeping bags" were replaced by an alternative anchor text. If you simply added new anchor text (diluted) my sense is that it would add to your anchor text "weight" but do so at a "slower rate" (total opinion). If you wanted to take a look at different anchor text I think it would show more if you substituted anchor text rather than add new anchor text.

happy holidays.

Dave

 

Caryl,

Is this supposed to be a continuation of the stemming/allinanchor: discussion?

I think you have answered the "question" with your own evidence. The position of the page for "sleeping bags" was surely as a result of the dilution of the phrase from being part of a longer phrase.

Based on your own evidence how could you possibly think that adding "and tents" to our present anchor text would help? I can only see it hurting. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it is the eggnog.

 

Thanks Bob,

No, I agree with you (and Dave) and think the addition of words to the original keywords in the anchor text would actually dilute the anchor text.

But then I started second guessing myself...

It was the EGGNOG, I believe. Ohhhhh - tis the season!

Maybe by tomorrow I'll be back to clearer thinking

Caryl

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update
**29 DCs are NOT responding**
***27 DCs are NOT responding**
****32 DCs are NOT responding**
*****36 DCs are NOT responding**

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_____________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/18/2004 [22 DCs #10, 2 DC #12] *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/19/2004 [13 DCs #10, 6 DC #11, 5 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/20/2004 [15 DCs #10, 5 DC #11, 4 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 4 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/21/2004 [7 DCs #9, 10 DC #10, 4 DC #11, 3 DC #22]Note: Allinanchor #4 on 3 DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/22/2004 [9 DCs #9, 13 DCs #10, 2 DCs #11]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/23/2004 [18 DCs #10, 6 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 -12/24/2004 [7 DCs #8, 13 DCs #10, 4 DCs #11, 2 DCs #12]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #9 allinanchor: #2 -12/25/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #9]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #8 allinanchor: #2 -12/26/2004 [7 DCs #6, 2 DCs #7, 17 DCs #8]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #8 allinanchor: #2 -12/27/2004 [22 DCs #8, 2 DCs #9, 2 DCs #10]Note: Allinanchor #2 on All DCs *****
Postion #7 allinanchor: #2 -12/28/2004 [8 DCs #5, 13 DCs #7, 4 DCs #8]Note: Allinanchor #2 on ALL DCs *****
_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:

105 - 11/05/2004
Unchanged from previous date
110 - 11/09/2004
109 - 11/10/2004
114 - 11/11/2004
Unchanged from previous date
112 - 11/20/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
Link removed / no longer pointing to page 6/2/2004
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date
2 - 6/17/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - highest links reported 6/12/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob replaced links in Signatures - 7/21/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

4270 - 12/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4260 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
4240 - 12/26/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

763 - 12/16/2004
Unchanged from previous date
774 - 12/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
764 - 12/24/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )

#22 - 08/22/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#14 - 08/24/2004
#19 - 08/26/2004
Defunct: This search no longer relevant
__________________

*August 18, 2004 - (10) Project Supporters donated Links from 13 different IP addresses to page. Additional info will be added as it comes in.

Total links found by using site:www.domainname.tld Researched daily by Foxy

Daily Totals Report (click to see full report)

797 - 12/10/2004
824 - 12/15/2004
838 - 12/17/2004
924 - 12/21/2004
__________________

Dec 17, 2004 - digitalpoint's "Patient" Added link to 116 different urls
(ALL located @ class 3 IP address Address - 217.36.188.*)

Number Indexed by Google
11 - 12/20/2004
30 - 12/21/2004
31 - 12/22/2004
40 - 12/23/2004
48 - 12/24/2004
__________________
PR/Backlink info

~ December 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
155 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 153 of 155)
19 for Caryl
16 for Bob
65 for Foxy
28 for Others
14 for Digitalpoint forums
9 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ November 25 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
3530 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 901 of 981)

170 for Digitalpoint forums
12 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ October 27 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
469 Backlinks
___________

~ September 11 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
566 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 549 of 566)
20 of Caryl's links
10 of Bob's Links
9 of "August 18th" Links
480 for Digitalpoint forums
30 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 30 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
457 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in 449 of 457)
14 of Caryl's links
11 of Bob's Links
0 of Foxy's Links
401 for Digitalpoint forums
23 for SEO Chat forums
___________

~ August 9 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
85 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ July 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
129 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ June 22 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
325 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ May 31 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
170 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
___________

~ April 23 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(Details can be found in Complete Report)
__________________

~ Highest Positions Attained ~

Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19] Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
(No signature links had been used at this point - may have been "honeymoon period")

Postion #14 allinanchor: #2 - 08/24/2004 [9 DCs #13, 21 DCs #14] ****

Postion #12 allinanchor: #2 - 10/04/2004 [10 DCs #11, 22 DCs #12] ****

Postion #10 allinanchor: #2 - 10/06/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #4 allinanchor: #2 - 10/21/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

Postion #2 allinanchor: #2 - 10/27/2004 [All Datacenters] ****

__________________
Note:Google API has page at #7

 

to address Bob's question of a 2 days ago...

Indeed, the Co-op Ads came down the same time you and Foxy removed you sig links.

Patient added the link to 116 different urls on Dec 17th all located on the same IP C Block. (217.36.188.*)

The last he checked in, Dec 24th, 48 of the links were showing in Google. (see daily Update).

What is significant about this contribution is that it is a commonly held belief around SEO Forums that links all coming from a single C-Block would NOT be given much weight by Google.

Caryl

 

Ok. Now the analysis becomes complicated. When we were languishing in the 300s we accredited that to principally two things:
a. The Sandbox Effect.
b. All our link where from a very few IP addresses.

So we did two things in rapid succession that seemed to change the SERP placement around radically.
a. We added a lot of new links from a wide diversity of IP addresses.
b. We added a ton of coop network links.

The diversified links seemed to be the most significant change in my view although the coop ads did appear to provide the final push to #2 position.

When the coop ads came off the site dropped back to #10. Now it seems to be slowly regaining ground. The only recent change was the addition of 116 links -- 48 indexed to date -- from a single IP. And Carly you seem ready to credit this with the slow but steady improvement. However, we had a hell of a lot more links than that from a few limited IPs when we were #300 in the SERP. So why didn't they work then?

So here is a new theory. Maybe Google has some threshold of a minimum number of different IP addresses before their algo will give full weight to IBLs. If in fact we satisfied that requirement by adding all the diversified IP links, then possibly the 48 links from a single IP would be given full weight and may be the reason for the current climb in the SERP.

 

Bob,

The new links added by Patient are not from the same IP addresses. The IP addresses are all different.

HOWEVER all of the IP addresses are from the same C-Block.
example:
site 1: 217.36.188.01
site 2: 217.36.188.02
site 3: 217.36.188.03
site 4: 217.36.188.04
and so on thru to...
site 116: 217.36.188.116

Many SEOs feel that urls that closely associated would be treated more like links all coming from the same IP Address by Google rather than links coming from different IP addresses like they really are.

There are several discussions regarding this at SEO Chat
http://forums.seochat.com/search.php?searchid=158758
or this one in particular...
http://forums.seochat.com/t8240/s.html&highlight=c-block

Caryl

 

Thanks for the clarification. I have always doubted that Google really looks at the entire C-block. I do a lot of linking and cross linking from a single C-block on my server, to sites we have designed and host, and I have always thought those link were very effective.

For instance -- and this is related to Smryl's post -- I add a link to all new sites we host, to a list on my company page entitled "sites we host". I never submit to SEs. But this link will usually get the new site crawled and indexed within a very few days.