We're on Google!

[DRT]

The following search puts us in slot number 1 on google...........

"vintage port"+"meaningless drivel"



derek

[Conky]

From small acorns...

[jdaw1]

"do you know the Bishop of Norwich" port has TPF at #4.

As does "apostrophe crimes".

[Conky]

So we'll catch all the surreal and unusual, but we could do with catching the masses. Suppose it'll be a long time before just 'Port' will do it.

Alan.

[DRT]

Oi Bug-a-lugs gets #1

[Conky]

I'm keeping this bloody Forum afloat!

[DRT]

OK - serious question

The above examples prove that google is registering these commonly occuring phrases when it crawls over the site. Our objective is to ensure google picks up "Vintage Port" and/or other phrases as many times as it takes to bump us up the pecking order.

Does anyone know whether or not the crawler would make a distinction between a phrase that occurs many times in a single post against a phrase that is used once in many posts or threads?

What I'm asking is - do we create a single post that has 1000 instances of the following block of text or would we have to create 1000 posts or threads with 1 block in each?

Vintage Port
Colhieta
Quinta
Aged Tawny
Reserve Port
Ruby Port
Tawny Port
Port Forum


Derek

[jdaw1]

do we create a single post that has 1000 instances of the following block of text or would we have to create 1000 posts or threads with 1 block in each?

Vintage Port
Colhieta
Quinta
Aged Tawny
Reserve Port
Ruby Port
Tawny Port
Port Forum

No. Google detects for ‘natural language’ use of things. Anything that google thinks is written for the search engine, and not so tagged† , rather than being written for a human, is penalised hard.

But we should use “vintage port† in sentences rather than “VP†. Emphasis: in natural sentences, where one might otherwise write “VP†.

†  Tagged? Start, say, at this page. View source, however you do that in your preferred browser. There is a line

Code: Select all

<meta name="description" content="Chapter 1 (Money Markets) of Pricing Money: A Beginner&rsquo;s Guide to Money, Bonds, Futures and Swaps.">

That line cannot be seen by an ordinary non-source-viewing user. Nonetheless, it is clearly tagged as being for the search engine: there is no deceit. Such content is not penalised (though is probably ignored).

[DRT]

Great stuff, these are the things we need to know.

So, should everyone put Vintage Port in their signature to ensure it appears at least once in every post?

Another question is - do you get a premium "hit" if these key words or phrases are found on the home page? If so, perhaps we need to look at the descriptions against each of the Forum areas and see if we can shoe-horn Vintage Port into as many of them as possible.

Derek

[jdaw1]

see if we can shoe-horn Vintage Port into as many of them as possible

Overdo it, and Mr. Google’s cunning algorithm asks itself what we are doing. That wouldn’t be good. Keep usage natural.

[DRT]

OK - but Mr Google seems to think Oi Bug-a-lugs is natural useage, so should we all have Vintage Port in signatures?

[jdaw1]

Well, there’s no harm in it being mentioned from time to time in posts.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I've put vintage port into my signature line to try and increase the number of times that Google spots the phrase (Vintage Port) on TPF.

I guess it won't do any harm for as many of us as possible to have Vintage Port in our signatures.

So, come on everyone, make sure Vintage Port appears at least once in your posts.

Alex

[jdaw1]

Google’s algorithm is secret. But it does attempt to spot over saturation: see, amongst many possibilities, this page.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I just did another search on (Yahoo this time) for "Vintage Port" and for +"Vintage Port" +forum.

Sad to say, The Port Forum did not feature in the first 100 hits. It wasn't until I did a search for "The Port Forum" that I got a hit for this site.

Alex

[jdaw1]

TPF is new. Allow google to parse it a few times. Its algorithm surely recognises phpBB, and will—over time—realise that this is an active forum.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I've just done a search on Google, searching the entire web, using as my search string

+"Vintage Port" +forum

and the site now appears on page 2 of the results at number 17. The link that was thrown up was this one:

The Port Forum.com :: View topic - 2003 Quinta do Crasto Vintage PortMy first Vintage Port in the Douro, EVER Cool Not decanted. ... You cannot post new topics in this forum ... You cannot delete your posts in this forum ...
viewtopic.php?t=232&sid=d2a05c8ff1be02e ... ab2042cb37 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

A similar search on Yahoo does not yet get the Port Forum high enough up the list for my limited patience to find it.

Alex

[Conky]

Using the words The, Port and Forum on Google. We come up as the second link. Thats good.

Using just Port and Forum, we again are the 2nd link.

So we are now Officially out there for anyone who wants to talk Port. Lets keep it going.

Alan

[uncle tom]

Using Port and Forum I got us in at third - some little upstart place called Ellesmere Port gets in the way...

..that's near you isn't it Conky?

- go sort 'em out - arrest them for something - would you??

Tom

[KillerB]

Typing "Port Forum" with or without quotes got us second on Google. This is utterly brilliant. We also now have a Google rank of 0/10. OK, not so good, but it is a rank, which we didn't have before.

All in all, pretty good.

[DRT]

Very Good - how do we get the rank up?

[KillerB]

Very Good - how do we get the rank up?

Keep posting and wait. There are a few things but an active site is better than most.

[DRT]

OK - will do

How do you see the rank on google?

[KillerB]

Now, that's asking. I saw it as 0/10 and when I went back to look it had gone. You need to download Google Toolbar and it will be there. Just sometimes it shows as "No page rank information available".

Such is life.

[Ghandih]

Changed my signature, too, given the Lugs success.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Out of curiosity this morning, I did a couple of searches of Yahoo. On a search using "Vintage Port", this site did not feature in the first 100 links suggested - most were retailers.

Using a search of +"Vintage Port" +forum, this site came up as links number 5 and 6!

Alex

[Luc]

Cool !!
Today Google , tommorow The Kingston whig standard !!

[KillerB]

"Port Forum" still comes in second though.

[Conky]

"Port Forum" still comes in second though.

'Port Forum' Now has on First spot on Google...which is nice.


On the grim side. 'Vintage Port' doesn't show us in the first 50 pages. (I got bored then).
'VP' which we use more often, and wouldn't be a common search for a Port browser, brings back 70 million hits. God knows where we are on that one.

Alan

[KillerB]

Yep, we are now first for Port Forum.

What's more is that we have a page rank... of one

This may seem a bit feeble but it means we're there now, it will improve.

[KillerB]

Yep, we are now first for Port Forum.

What's more is that we have a page rank... of one

This may seem a bit feeble but it means we're there now, it will improve.

And now we have a page rank of... two.

This is very good in six months. Everybody pat themselves on the back

[DRT]

I was on Google today looking for a picture of a Warre's 1958 label. My google image search returned the following, which made me smile...

[RonnieRoots]

Very funny indeed.

[Glenn E.]

Hahaha... that's pretty funny.

"Port Forum" returns a rather eclectic mix:

#1 is
#2 is a marina in Barcelona.
#3 is a tech forum about iPhone ports.
#4 is a Latin American port (marina) forum.
#5 is
#6 is a forum for the city of Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
#7 is a different forum for the city of Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
#8 is the official IUCN forum for #2.
#9 is an apartment complex near/at #2 and #8.

So really, not a whole lot of Port involved in seaching for a Port Forum.

[Luc]

Has anyone on the forum ever stated unequivicaly that Port is a red liquid ?

[jdaw1]

unequivicaly

Well, unequivocally, yes.

[JacobH]

It's also quite interesting to see which pages link to (I perfer to do this search by just typing in the URL, rather than the proper way of using link:theportforum.com):

1 & 2:
3 & 4: junk directories
5: sid_mac being assisted in registration by KillerB
6: KillerB falling in love with the Cruz 1989 at ("hint of cherries" and "caramel flavours")
7 & 8: More junk
9: SushiNorth berating Paul Levinson for describing blueberry "port" as Port*
10: jdaw1's site

[*

Well, it may be fortified, and some may call it "port" but it's certainly not Port, has little to do with Oporto or the book Rich Rare and Red, and I wouldn't recommend offering it under the name Port to anyone who's had the real stuff[...]

You don't come across as snooty, so there's no need to apologize, but you do come across as a little wrong.

I've (obviously) tasted blueberry port, and red ports as well, and the blueberry certainly tastes like a port - only, better. That's why I made the point about about the difference between port from grapes and from blueberries.

]

[DRT]

It's those bloody google-cats again...

QH.jpg (24.74 KiB) Viewed 15525 times

[RonnieRoots]

The cat is smiling in cat heaven after seeing this.

[KillerB]

Now we have a Google rank of 4! This is the same as The Wine Spectator forum and the eBob forum - pretty cool, huh?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Using what search criteria?

[JacobH]

I think Alex is referring to Google's Page Rank which is the internal algorithm used by Google to work out the general weighting to allocate to any given page.

The big difficulty is getting from 4 to 5 and beyond; that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

[DRT]

that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

Don't mention "exponential" here - KillerB will be off on one any time now!!

[KillerB]

that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

Don't mention "exponential" here - KillerB will be off on one any time now!!

Jacob very carefully put "seems" thus removing all possibility that it could be validated by inspection. I will be much more grumpy if somebody says "Highly Significant" without statistical backup.