psychobel2
Joined: May 17, 2005
# Posts: 10
|
Posted: 05/17/2005 02:06 am
We have a site that does pretty well in our area for traffic from Google. We're number one on Google.co.uk for certain key terms, and we are very UK oriented. However, on MSN we appear to be way down the rankings. The site is pretty well built with clean code. The text is a bit messy as it's over optimised by means of experimentation.
Before we rework it again, I'd really like to understand why MSN doesn't think as much of us as Google does.
|
 |
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 05/17/2005 09:26 am
Short answer: different algorithms.
Longer answer: Google places greater preference on links while MSN places greater preference on on-page optimization.
Really long answer: I'll leave that to someone with more time on their hands! ;-)
[ Message was edited by: St0n3y 05/17/2005 09:50 am ]
|
|
bhartzer
Administrator
Joined: Jun 08, 2000
# Posts: 7035
|
Posted: 05/17/2005 09:27 am
I'd really like to understand why MSN doesn't think as much of us as Google does.
How often do you update the pages on your site? MSN likes pages that are updated on a regular basis.
|
|
psychobel2
Joined: May 17, 2005
# Posts: 10
|
Posted: 05/17/2005 01:18 pm
We change the content regularly on occasion but the info doesn't really change. It's that kind of product. It is what it is and it's dificult to wax lyrical about it. However if needs must, then we must be inspired.
Does the same apply to Yahoo?
|
|
Logan
Moderator
Joined: Aug 14, 2002
# Posts: 3749
|
Posted: 05/17/2005 01:21 pm
I don't see any increased ranking in yahoo for pages that are updated on a regular basis. Definitely with MSN though.
|
|
bitbit
Joined: May 30, 2005
# Posts: 1
|
Posted: 05/30/2005 11:25 pm
asp or php pages?
i think tha msn doeasn't like the php page or better he's prefer asp and then... then... then read php anyway.
try to put a link to microsoft site in index page like this:
<a title="update your internet explorer" href="www.microsoft.com/page to download it">update your microsoft internet explorer</a>
|
|
psychobel2
Joined: May 17, 2005
# Posts: 10
|
Posted: 05/31/2005 03:04 am
We try and avoid usng anything but W3C compiant HTML. rarely PHP, never ASP. I would never put a link to download an updated browser either. I don't actually see the relevenace to this and I'm a Firefox user anyway
|
|
Logan
Moderator
Joined: Aug 14, 2002
# Posts: 3749
|
Posted: 05/31/2005 05:53 am
My pages mentioned are php, asp & htm. I don't see that the page extension has any relevance with msn. I wouldn't place a link to microsoft either - that's completely irrelevant.
|
|
psychobel2
Joined: May 17, 2005
# Posts: 10
|
Posted: 05/31/2005 05:56 am
Is there any section or resource that gives an overview of doing PHP "properly"? We just assisted making a PHP based site index properly but I'm not 100% certain what was wrong and how we sorted it out
|
|
ajonate
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
# Posts: 1
|
Posted: 09/29/2005 12:55 pm
I'm also ranked pretty well in Google but off the radar in MSN. I went for several years without updating the content, so that may be the reason.
With new domains MSN seems to pick up on them within a month or so and pretty good rankings are easy to get.
I radically upgraded and updated the content in my older domains a few months ago, but my domains still aren't in the MSN SERPS.
By the way, when I type my older domain names into MSN search I get all of the pages in the link structure displayed. However, those pages never appear in MSN SERPS. It is evident that MSN knows my older domains exist. Even new pages in those domains that are only a few days old are displayed when I search for the domain name.
Is there any hope to get picked back up by MSN any time soon? Is there anything I can do to encourage my return to SERPS?
[ Message was edited by: ajonate 09/29/2005 02:06 pm ]
[ Message was edited by: ajonate 09/29/2005 02:08 pm ]
|
|
dirty_shame
Joined: Aug 28, 2005
# Posts: 191
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 09:47 am
Our newer sites do better in MSN at first than Google, perhaps because of Google's sandbox. All of our sites are written in PHP/MySql and there aren't any problems or penalties with any of them.
Of course we avoid the simple pitfalls like queries in the URLs, but there isn't any advantage or disadvantage to any of the scripting languages other than your personal preference. They all throw out XML or HTML.
I can confirm that MSN appears to evaluate and reward the actual content of the page more quickly at first. Google's algorythm takes a while longer but you can always speed that up by using their Sitemap program to submit directly.
|
|
gericsb
Joined: Jan 16, 2001
# Posts: 299
|
Posted: 11/29/2005 11:50 am
Here's my 2 cents--
Google Sandbox-Encourages people to not put much effort into new sites since its difficult to see result of your work. Makes an index with stale sites and mostly outdated information. G does not like new content/freshly updated sites. My sites that have been sitting around gathering dust, do quite well in G--but most of these are somewhat/pretty useless to my visitors.
G has put so much effort on links--people were forced to spend all their time gathering links instead of developing content. This makes for 'thin' sites with nothing but lots of links and no real content/value.
G is so unstable, webmasters of existing sites are afraid to update/make changes/add new content for fear of tripping some filter and screwing themselves
Google's 'Algorithm' as far as i'm concerned is creating an index full of stale, outdated, crappy spam sites with millions of bogus links pointing to them.
Yeah, Google you really hit the nail on the head! This SE was so valid and relevant 1-2 years ago, its sick. In my area-slots/video poker 90 % of the Google results are spam from GoldenPalace and CasinoOnNet. Thats too bad because I have a detailed review/strategy site that I spend a lot of time updating, which no one will ever find unless they use something other than Google to find it.
Here's a novel idea--creata an algorithm that rewards frequently updated/expanding sites (easy to do by looking at the size of the site and comparing to previous size etc.) Frequency of updates should be key (like a freshness tag). Size of pages should also be looked at--most spam pages are short/autogenerated. Use some type of linguistics filter to compare words that do not belong together etc. I really dont think any of this stuff is too hard to do. 90% of the ranking should be based on on-page criteria to encourage content development instead of link spamming etc.
If I want current info, relevant results I use MSN all the way. Google sucks--lookout investors!
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1430
|
Posted: 12/07/2005 07:59 am
lol, that was pretty hash towards the Big G-ster. Google is only doing what it wants to do, provide quality searches, it doesn't just happen over night, you need to experiment when you reduce this here and up that there and get the right mix which is exactly what there trying to do
over and out - Dudibob
|
|
gede_mertayasa
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
# Posts: 6
|
Posted: 04/25/2006 10:30 pm
How can i get pageRange on MSN and Yahoo
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1430
|
Posted: 04/26/2006 02:08 pm
don't think MSN and Yahoo have a page rank system, they might have an internal page rank, but I'd guess won't publiclise it
|
|
andhrastudent
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
# Posts: 81
|
Posted: 07/04/2006 11:26 pm
yes what St0n3y said is right they both follow different ranking algorithms so they consider different factors for ranking but you can observe more sites having differnt positions in yahoo and google lets check it out.
|
|
