Comments for SearchRocket - Leeds SEO Agency http://www.searchrocket.co.uk Just another WordPress site Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:29:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Some interesting facts about Google by John Lucifer http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/10/some-interesting-facts-about-google/#comment-231 John Lucifer Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:29:36 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=284#comment-231 I personally believe that information with this kind of a survey is totally appreciated by me and surly will like all the readers who read this for sure. Google is a giant search engine and will grow on and on. I think quality of information is brilliant in Google. Thanks for useful points. I personally believe that information with this kind of a survey is totally appreciated by me and surly will like all the readers who read this for sure. Google is a giant search engine and will grow on and on. I think quality of information is brilliant in Google. Thanks for useful points.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia Is King of Google, Now More Than Ever by Mou http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/12/wikipedia-king-of-google/#comment-191 Mou Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:00:29 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=293#comment-191 To me this makes sense. Some stub pages have very little content, but the trust rating of Wikipedia is so high that it's almost like it's being given the benefit of the doubt. If you have a site with a million pages, and 999,990 of them are well structured pages with quality backlinks, it's not unrealistic that the other 10 would be given a disproportial ranking based on the pagerank of the rest of the site. Plus there's always the point of internal linking. Those stubs may be getting internal backlinks from some pagerank 5-8 pages from within Wikipedia. I'm not saying it's *right*, but in the context of pagerank being assigned by an algorithm, this logic does seem to make sense. To me this makes sense. Some stub pages have very little content, but the trust rating of Wikipedia is so high that it’s almost like it’s being given the benefit of the doubt.

If you have a site with a million pages, and 999,990 of them are well structured pages with quality backlinks, it’s not unrealistic that the other 10 would be given a disproportial ranking based on the pagerank of the rest of the site.

Plus there’s always the point of internal linking. Those stubs may be getting internal backlinks from some pagerank 5-8 pages from within Wikipedia.

I’m not saying it’s *right*, but in the context of pagerank being assigned by an algorithm, this logic does seem to make sense.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia Is King of Google, Now More Than Ever by james http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/12/wikipedia-king-of-google/#comment-187 james Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:12:26 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=293#comment-187 Well maybe, but the big gripe here seems to be that lots of stub pages with almost no content are ranking far to high for what they are. Well maybe, but the big gripe here seems to be that lots of stub pages with almost no content are ranking far to high for what they are.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia Is King of Google, Now More Than Ever by Tony Griego http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/12/wikipedia-king-of-google/#comment-183 Tony Griego Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:07:14 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=293#comment-183 Guess that old saying "content is king" has never been more true huh? Guess that old saying “content is king” has never been more true huh?

]]> Comment on Wikipedia Is King of Google, Now More Than Ever by Gregory Kohs http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/12/wikipedia-king-of-google/#comment-182 Gregory Kohs Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:54:44 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=293#comment-182 I like that you mentioned a conspiracy theory. If you don't mind me semi-spamming your excellent post here (love the presentation of quantified data), there are a number of fishy things about how the Wikipedia machine is financed by insider connections: http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia I like that you mentioned a conspiracy theory. If you don’t mind me semi-spamming your excellent post here (love the presentation of quantified data), there are a number of fishy things about how the Wikipedia machine is financed by insider connections:

http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

]]> Comment on PageRank has not gone away, still not dead by Kris http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/2011/10/pagerank-has-not-gone-away-not-dead/#comment-57 Kris Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:57:36 +0000 http://www.searchrocket.co.uk/?p=264#comment-57 It's good to finally see someone use some numbers to show the relevance and use of pr instead of the usual speculation. It’s good to finally see someone use some numbers to show the relevance and use of pr instead of the usual speculation.

]]>