6 Adjustments We Thought Google Would Make to SEO But They Still Have not – Whiteboard Friday
Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /home/webpages/lima-city/booktips/wordpress_de-2022-03-17-33f52d/wp-content/themes/fast-press/single.php on line 26
Make Website positioning , 6 Modifications We Thought Google Would Make to search engine optimisation However They Nonetheless Haven't - Whiteboard Friday , , 4rru_rysznY , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rru_rysznY , https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4rru_rysznY/hqdefault.jpg , 39491 , 5.00 , From Google's interpretation of rel="canonical" to the specificity of anchor textual content inside a hyperlink, there are a number of areas where we ... , 1406666114 , 2014-07-29 22:35:14 , 00:11:26 , UCs26XZBwrSZLiTEH8wcoVXw , Moz , 155 , , [vid_tags] , https://www.youtubepp.com/watch?v=4rru_rysznY , [ad_2] , [ad_1] , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rru_rysznY, #Thought #Google #web optimization #Havent #Whiteboard #Friday [publish_date]
#Thought #Google #website positioning #Havent #Whiteboard #Friday
From Google's interpretation of rel="canonical" to the specificity of anchor textual content within a hyperlink, there are a number of areas where we ...
Quelle: [source_domain]
- Mehr zu SEO Mitte der 1990er Jahre fingen die allerersten Suchmaschinen im WWW an, das frühe Web zu ordnen. Die Seitenbesitzer erkannten rasch den Wert einer bevorzugten Listung in Ergebnissen und recht bald entstanden Behörde, die sich auf die Aufbesserung professionellen. In den Anfängen erfolgte der Antritt oft über die Übermittlung der URL der jeweiligen Seite an die divergenten Suchmaschinen. Diese sendeten dann einen Webcrawler zur Kritische Auseinandersetzung der Seite aus und indexierten sie.[1] Der Webcrawler lud die Homepage auf den Web Server der Recherche, wo ein weiteres Anwendung, der gern genutzte Indexer, Informationen herauslas und katalogisierte (genannte Ansprüche, Links zu diversen Seiten). Die frühen Versionen der Suchalgorithmen basierten auf Informationen, die mit den Webmaster eigenhändig vorliegen worden sind, wie Meta-Elemente, oder durch Indexdateien in Suchmaschinen im Internet wie ALIWEB. Meta-Elemente geben eine Übersicht per Inhalt einer Seite, doch stellte sich bald hervor, dass die Einsatz der Hinweise nicht zuverlässig war, da die Wahl der genutzten Schlagworte durch den Webmaster eine ungenaue Abbildung des Seiteninhalts widerspiegeln konnte. Ungenaue und unvollständige Daten in den Meta-Elementen vermochten so irrelevante Unterseiten bei einzigartigen Stöbern listen.[2] Auch versuchten Seitenersteller verschiedene Punkte in einem Zeitraum des HTML-Codes einer Seite so zu beeinflussen, dass die Seite stärker in den Resultaten aufgeführt wird.[3] Da die damaligen Suchmaschinen sehr auf Punkte angewiesen waren, die nur in den Händen der Webmaster lagen, waren sie auch sehr vulnerabel für Falscher Gebrauch und Manipulationen in der Positionierung. Um gehobenere und relevantere Vergleichsergebnisse in Resultaten zu bekommen, mussten sich die Anbieter der Search Engines an diese Voraussetzungen einstellen. Weil der Gewinn einer Suchseiten davon anhängig ist, wesentliche Suchresultate zu den gestellten Keywords anzuzeigen, vermochten ungeeignete Vergleichsergebnisse darin resultieren, dass sich die Anwender nach sonstigen Chancen wofür Suche im Web umblicken. Die Antwort der Suchmaschinen im Netz inventar in komplexeren Algorithmen für das Positionierung, die Kriterien beinhalteten, die von Webmastern nicht oder nur nicht gerade leicht kontrollierbar waren. Larry Page und Sergey Brin generierten mit „Backrub“ – dem Urahn von Suchmaschinen – eine Recherche, die auf einem mathematischen Algorithmus basierte, der anhand der Verlinkungsstruktur Kanten gewichtete und dies in den Rankingalgorithmus reingehen ließ. Auch alternative Suchmaschinen im WWW überzogen zu Gesprächsaufhänger der Folgezeit die Verlinkungsstruktur bspw. als der Linkpopularität in ihre Algorithmen mit ein. Bing
What about 2017 and these questions? What have happend?
Nice, video, thanks for share.
Great video! Thanks guys!!
What Ive found is that it's not so much the topical backlinks but the anchor texts to the websites that link to your site. EG. if the botany website has "garden resource" related anchors in it's backlinks, i've found it to send more juice as opposed to if the site so happened to have general backlinks. So basically, aged tier 2 anchors have a major effect.
Gracias por estos videos Moz!! Es una información importante y muchas veces difícil de encontrar!
I've been looking for the answer for those SEO Myths for a long time, finally had a definitive answer. #SEO #LinkBuilding
In the case of link building, google will send link juice to the related links from "on topics".
Very informative. Don't just listen to what Google says but look at what they do.
Pretty cool. Thanks
Re #1 I'm not sure google has got the whole relevance thing down yet!
Here is why, do a site:yourdomain search on pretty much any domain, look at the results, next to the green url is a green arrow click on that and you will see, cached and share on all pages and just occasionally "similar"
There is no logical reason why google adds the similar option to one page and not another where two pages from the same site are somewhat identical in structure and content, Imagine a site about motor vehicles, with a category page about cars and another page about buses, one would expect that either both pages have a similar link or both do not, their is no logic in one having it and the other not.
Would be interesting to see if anybody here has any idea why google is adding a similar link to some pages and not to others?
It could quite possibly be that googles "similar algorithm" just don't work too well and explains #1 in your video.
"Just for the record the the "similar link" on certain pages is constant, I monitor a few sites and the pages that have them are always the same" I also do not see pages without it suddenly getting them. It may be they are updated during some animal update uniquely.
You guys conducted an awesome MozCon 2014! Thank you!
In terms of casinos, I've noticed fewer organic results on the first page overall for some of the most competitive terms. I just searched for "sportsbook" on Google, signed in and not signed in, and both times got only 7 results on that first page. No knowledge graph or any type of vertical results.
And of the 7 results, one is an exact match sportsbook, one is Wikipedia, one is reddit, and the other 4 are for only 3 actual sportsbooks (1 site has 2 listings).
I've been watching this results page since 2010 and it's evolved from 10 links to its current 7, which it's been at since at least late 2012.
Maybe for the "dark PPC" SERPs, Google's approach is shortening these results pages drastically (at least in the US where sports betting is illegal). This used to be a hyper-competitive keyword with a lot of shifting results, but it's stagnated since 2012.
lol nice stash
Gotta say I love whiteboard Friday 🙂
You guys are awesome and I am pretty astonished by the fact that your audience is not that big (7k+ subscribers)… anyway this makes me feel somehow special, part of something.
Feels good to support you Rand… keep it up 🙂
Gotta say I love whiteboard Friday 🙂
You guys are awesome and I am pretty astonished by the fact that your audience is not that big (7k+ subscribers)… anyway this makes me feel somehow special, part of something.
Feels good to support you Rand… keep it up 🙂
Great stuff guys! Very helpful knowledge.
Always good info you and your team put together they have always helped us try and do the correct thing on our website, this industry moves at the speed of light, tough keeping up sometimes.
Barry also has a great post going on at the same time http://www.seroundtable.com/google-penguin-summer-release-18911.html both will be vey interesting reads