ThePortForum.com

Posted: **17:21 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

"vintage port"+"meaningless drivel"

derek

Posted: **17:25 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

From small acorns...

Posted: **17:34 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

As does "apostrophe crimes".

Posted: **17:37 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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.

Posted: **17:40 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

Oi Bug-a-lugs gets #1

Posted: **17:46 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

I'm keeping this bloody Forum afloat!

Posted: **17:56 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **17:59 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

Derek T. wrote: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).

Posted: **18:06 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **18:08 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

Derek T. wrote: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.

Posted: **18:11 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **18:13 Fri 06 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **09:46 Sat 07 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **12:51 Sat 07 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **06:55 Fri 13 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **12:27 Fri 13 Jul 2007**

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.

Posted: **07:00 Sat 28 Jul 2007**

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

Posted: **21:25 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

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

Posted: **22:15 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

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

Posted: **23:42 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

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.

Posted: **23:46 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

Very Good - how do we get the rank up?

Posted: **23:48 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

Derek T. wrote: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.

Posted: **23:58 Fri 03 Aug 2007**

OK - will do

How do you see the rank on google?

Posted: **00:24 Sat 04 Aug 2007**

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.

Posted: **11:02 Sat 04 Aug 2007**

Changed my signature, too, given the Lugs success.

Posted: **07:57 Wed 10 Oct 2007**

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

Posted: **14:33 Wed 10 Oct 2007**

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

Posted: **18:35 Wed 10 Oct 2007**

"Port Forum" still comes in second though.

Posted: **14:27 Wed 31 Oct 2007**

KillerB wrote:"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

Posted: **18:55 Fri 02 Nov 2007**

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.

Posted: **14:49 Sat 12 Jan 2008**

KillerB wrote: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

Posted: **12:25 Tue 13 Jan 2009**

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...

Posted: **19:57 Tue 13 Jan 2009**

Very funny indeed.

Posted: **22:11 Tue 13 Jan 2009**

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.

Posted: **00:20 Wed 14 Jan 2009**

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

Posted: **03:33 Wed 14 Jan 2009**

Luc wrote:unequivicaly

Well, unequivocally, yes.

Posted: **13:28 Wed 14 Jan 2009**

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

[*

SushiNorth wrote: 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[...]

Paul Levinson wrote: 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.

]

Posted: **23:50 Tue 27 Jan 2009**

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

: QH.jpg (24.74 KiB) Viewed 15527 times

Posted: **09:40 Wed 28 Jan 2009**

The cat is smiling in cat heaven after seeing this.

Posted: **11:19 Wed 17 Jun 2009**

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

Posted: **20:35 Wed 17 Jun 2009**

Using what search criteria?

Posted: **10:38 Thu 18 Jun 2009**

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.

Posted: **22:35 Sun 21 Jun 2009**

JacobH wrote: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!!

Posted: **15:57 Wed 01 Jul 2009**

DRT wrote:
JacobH wrote: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.

ThePortForum.com

We're on Google!

Google: TPF at #4

Keep usage natural.

Well, there’s no harm in it being mentioned

Google’s algorithm is secret

Allow google to parse it a few times

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!

Re: We're on Google!