One day: Backlinks from 226 to 106 - just not possible ...

[Ernst Erb]

I think we have many backlinks, internal links, good titles and for all: good content. Therefore we get daily about 4000 visits according to NEDSTAT. We have a rank on Alexa of 59,559 - alone!

Our page rank is only 5 – like some other pages with show practically no backlinks or inbound links with only some pages and nearly no traffic.

We do something very wrong – but what?

Very funny things happen with Google:
We had been given 60, 44, and on 16 March 164 links with PR=5 – on 7 April 214 links with PR=6 juheee- up to 20,000 read pages by Google for a month – but only for 20 days. 27th April 194 links, PR=5 again, 1 June 226 links still only PR=5 !!
23rd June only 106 links and PR=5 … How can backlinks drop so sharply in one month from 226 to 106 despite of the fact that we even did new links …?

Where lies the principal problem with our portal? It is still unique and has the most visitors for sites about old radios in the world, displaying 72,000 radio models with 52,000 pictures !!

Cordially,
Ernest (HB9RXQ)

PS:
Altavista show 336 backlinks and Yahoo 387 (here space after link: - otherwise only 2!)

[flood6]

Many people will tell you not to wory about PR, and I'll agree for the most part. I know how it is to want that green bar to MOVE.

Google will only show a sample of backlinks. This means that not all of the actual backlinks are displayed for a given page, but each valid link is still counted toward PR.

Also, some of the inbound (offsite) links may have been moved, pages deleted, pages banned, etc., so they won't show up any more.

Guessing your PR, or trying to discern the rhyme or reason for a PR shift can drive you crazy. If you are that concerned with it, just keep plugging away with developing more offsite inbound links and your PR will increase.

[Ernst Erb]

Thank you, flood6, for your very fast answer.

Yes, I’m concerned very much because I wrote every day to a few sites – more than 1000 and got also results. Now it has gone in one month. It’s true that you see only a fraction of the links but I refer to the number shown by using info:www.radiomuseum.org
Links to … = now 106 only (226 before).
Since then the “contain the term” comes down to 13,100 and also “Allinurl” drops constantly (now 12,800 / more = 17,400).

This may not affect much but the pages have lost their status of number one or page one in the search. And therefore: AWstats shows much less Google link entries to the pages (now 30,486 / 41,620 to before 40,680 / 68,064 a month).

I’m sure that a crack can tell what we do wrong to Google. For instance why have the most pages shown by a search PR ZERO – but we have cross links (my English is not good, the term maybe not correct) from page to page (internal links)?

I’m aware that somebody might have to spend an hour and I’m willing to pay a good price for a good (but short) investigation into the page. I think the error lies open but I just can’t figure it out. I’m stuck in the mud. I need somebody who is really good because I think I know most general answers - but not the solution here.
Cordially, Ernest (HB9RXQ, the working horse behind the page).

[cbp]

Ignore the backlinks sample shown by Google. Just because a link is not in the sample does not mean its not counted.

CBP

[greeneagle]

Ernst Erb:

"Our page rank is only 5 – like some other pages with show practically no backlinks or inbound links with only some pages and nearly no traffic.

We do something very wrong – but what?"
___

Ignore your PR right now, just like cbp mentioned. Quickly reviewing your Site, your keywords DO NOT SEEM TO BE SET UP IN A PYRAMIDAL HIERARCHAL ORDER! You have a PR5 most of the way thru, PAGE RANK IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM! – SERPS seem to be!

I know that is a mouthful of words, but imagine a 10 word pyramid with layers of 1,2,3,and 4 keywords deep. Your most important on top, the next 2 most important on the next layer and so on. This needs to be a structured hierarchy that applies uniformly to your ENTIRE SITE!, Titles, metatag descriptions, metatag keywords, Header tags, HTML Body - NO EXCLUSIONS!

Let me be more poignant if you really want help here:

I hope you don’t me taking a peek at your code:

<title>Old Radios and Antique Radios: 69.0000 in Radio Museum, Radio</title>

<meta name="description" content="Antique radios: Portal with 69.000 old radios, 25.000
printable schematics for antique radios, 20.000 pictures as antique radio catalogue and virtual
radio museum. Collectors home by uploading fotos.">

<meta name="keywords"
content="museum, electronic, radios, portable, audio, antique, amplifier, club, hobby, repair, ham
radio, valve, old, tube, amateur, restoration, schematic, old, time, antique, catalogue, home, for
free, members, collectors, lowboy,radiofrequency, vacuum, tube, transistors, makers, löwele, rca, bell, general electric, ge, atwater kent,crosley, ducretet, emerson, fada, firestone, ge,generalelectric, luxor, oceanic, philco, radiola, rca, sonora, thomson, zenith, aeg, nora, saba, telefunken, siemens,chat, online, internet, download, equipment, online, pictures, information ,manufacturers, console, philip, sony">

Your Title tag indicates “Old Radios” as your #1 keyword, Radios as #2, Antique as #3, 690,000
as number4 (type-o I believe and no one is going to search for that number) …

The Description Metatag indicates “Antique or “Antique Radios” as #1 and starts going into numbers no one is going to search for…

The “Keyword Metatag” Indicates “museum” as #1 (What where did that come from?), “electronic” as #2 (Again – Where did that come from?) and so on…

OK – Swallow your pride! – As long as we are picking on you for everyone’s sake since these issues seem 90% universal… Are you holding up there? – Let’s go forward!

You have 50-60 keywords/phrase, keyword metatag - WAY OVERBOARD!
You have forms at the top of the page instead of valuable Hierarchal Prioritized HTML first! Invite a visitor into your Site first, tell them what you are about in a relevant priority established hierarchal continuity!

This is just the beginning of “White Hat” SEO,
I hope you truly wanted help and don’t take offense or feel that you were being “picked” on, because this seems to be a very common problem at the root of many questions on GOOGLE and Search Engine Forums here.

I will be splitting this off to a separate thread soon so we can all discuss this approach.

I hope it helps

Best Regards,
Ken

[tcampione]

Ken is right on target with his description. So, I'd like to touch on your seeming obsession with links.

I believe that it is more the quality of links, than the quantity. Specifically, if 'old radios' is your number 1 keyphrase, then your links on other sites should appear as 'old radios' with a link to your site.

To Google it means: "someone on this web has recommended this other site as one about 'old radios' and so the other site must be relevant to the term 'old radios'.

After all, that is Google's objective... deliver relevant results.

/*tom*/

[Duncan Pollock]

I'd agree that linking for linking's sake is unlikely to do you much good. It can even do you some harm, and your "losses" could be just such a consequence.
As /*tom*/ says, you're better to get links that relate to "old radios" or the other products you specialize in. It's also possible (I haven't searched this) that there are some topnotch sites that deal with say "old radio shows" or "the history of radios". These may well be what Google calls "authority sites" and they'll probably do you far more good than a host of links that have very little if anything to do with what you are, what you do, and what you sell.

Duncan

[Dave Hawley]

I think we have many backlinks, internal links, good titles and for all: good content. Therefore we get daily about 4000 visits according to NEDSTAT. We have a rank on Alexa of 59,559 - alone!

Ignore Alexa. It's nothing more than a gimmick

Our page rank is only 5 – like some other pages with show practically no backlinks or inbound links with only some pages and nearly no traffic.

PR is based on the number and quality of links pointing to any give page.

Very funny things happen with Google:
We had been given 60, 44, and on 16 March 164 links with PR=5 – on 7 April 214 links with PR=6 juheee- up to 20,000 read pages by Google for a month – but only for 20 days. 27th April 194 links, PR=5 again, 1 June 226 links still only PR=5 !!
23rd June only 106 links and PR=5 … How can backlinks drop so sharply in one month from 226 to 106 despite of the fact that we even did new links …?

Google only shows a sample, it means little to nothing.

Where lies the principal problem with our portal? It is still unique and has the most visitors for sites about old radios in the world, displaying 72,000 radio models with 52,000 pictures !!

If you are getting the most visitors for your area of business, what is the problem?
[/quote]

[Ernst Erb]

I sincerely thank for your answers:

CBP:
Well, I will have to ignore the number of links given if it is only samples. But we have to work quality links. Why? Really as you see on my answer (post 3 here) the drop from PR6 to 5 meant a lot in users coming. We do not sell a single thing but are just doing on information (for free) on our hobby. We can only really grow “very big” so that this can be held on (by some payments because now I pay everything) when I die or get ill – or RM.org dies too like so many good hobby sites.

Ken (Greeneagle):
Thank you for this direct approach – that will help a lot. Believe me I will take it seriously. I printed your advice and get this straight bit for bit. I thought that the keywords should tell what the individual page is showing and not the homepage (here “search page”). Since we have a wide field from technical history, radios, amateur gear, transmitters, tubes, repair etc. I don’t know the answer yet which keywords we should implement if it is to be the same for all pages.
For the title tag/description: I thought I should do it for engines AND humans: Users should be able to choose from the different Google-results. Anyway I was told that Google does not consider keywords – but I will change this, clear.

Tom (tcampione), Duncan:
In praxis I don’t know how to proceed differently yet – because of our wide field. Anyway: the model search on our page is for collectors. For Google & co. we have
Old Radios: Total summary
But if we have PR5 Google can only get in two or three “steps”: Country, Maker – a list of radios etc. but not the radio model itself. With a PR6 it can. That is vital for us because some lists are too long and collectors look for a specific radio model.

Dave:
Alexa: I find the idea of having millions of users to show which sites they use a very good idea to be able to compare where we stand. Actually one can see it as the only true approach to get the relevance of a page to the users - an exact mirror. In reality maybe it has not (yet?) enough users?

Summary:
I will sort out title, description and keywords (first) then go on Header tags, HTML Body).
I have perhaps not yet understood if these words must also be on every page in the content, which is very difficult because our pages are so different: 72,000 dynamic Model pages, lists, some static some dynamic, forum, tubes etc.
I will go on with links but see that they are better related to our hobby – in fact most are …
It is really very relevant to have a good PR because otherwise we are not found by typing in a radio model, what most collectors do if they need advice or information about the model.
I think the top problem lies much more below:
I think we could have a problem with similar pages since we have many global layout elements, lots of the same attribute names and sometimes same values for specific radios.
And:
We have different languages according to the language flags.
Maybe our model lists are far too long. If we optimise for <100 (since they are links to the model) we molest the user and please Google.
Since some weeks I added a “public part” to allow non-collectors an easy insight – collectors know mostly to handle the page or read the blue info-buttons. Our traffic with the US is only 6,2 % and could be >50%.
There must still be a "real problem" with our portal which we have not yet found I believe.

[greeneagle]

Ernst Erb

You are absolutely right about each page having it's own title and set of metatags!

I didn't mean to give the impression otherwise.

Other pages should support your top hierarchy though. This is oversimplified but lets say your 5 most important keyword/phrase on your home Page was "radio museum". That would then move to the #1 spot for your "Radio Museum" Page, you might carry your primary few over below if relevant and introduce new relevant ones behind.

All I was trying to convey was that good placement in the SERPS for all SEs come about much easier when there is an ordered logic provided.

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

In reality maybe it has not (yet?) enough users?

Here are my reasons for having such little faith in Alexa.

After installing the Toolbar and browing my site all day every day, which I do anyway. I jumped over 10,000 positions within a week. My stats showed none to little increase in taffic.

I know of a site that gets no more than 100 hits per day that was (probably still is) ranked at 20,000.

From my understanding (from Alexa site) there are some 20 million toolbar users (not sure if that means they have simply downloaded, or they have the toolbar constantly running). However, with around some 605.60 million internet users (http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/) the amount is far too small to be representative.

I however do find it can be a nice Placebo effect going down up/down in rakings, be it Alexa or any other source.

[Ernst Erb]

Dear Dave
Now I like your answer better. I know that Alexa is a potential threat to other methods to evaluate the traffic of a site. Therefore there are people who just say NO or give funny stories. I could not think of a better way to reach this goal of transparency. Could you?

Can it be a gimmick as you wrote? 20 Million users would be a good sample out of 600 Million – most statistics for instance for medicinal (or political) matters have very much less samples. When I compared sites the sketch was about what I could see in Counters like “Nedstat” – so I can’t really believe the story about the 100 hits and getting ranked at 20,000. Sorry. But I can imagine that the accuracy of rather unknown sites is not there – and Alexa (is Amazon?) does state that above rank 100,000 it IS uncertain – perhaps a gimmick? I’m the only administrator on www.radiomuseum.org and when I was away (not touching the site) it did not matter much.

Would it not be very good that sites are ranked to their real popularity? How would you proceed to create a better system and really get the market? What would you consider to be the best system NOW? I can give you many examples compared to our site that PageRank is worse than Alexa. So I compare both – and if possible also Nedstat (which counts too many visits).
Cordially,
Ernest

[cbp]

Alexa ranking is total crap - ignore it. We have had numerous threads on this. Here is one:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=17660

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

Ernest, just beacuse we are not aware of anything better, does not automatically make what we do know reliable and/or accurate.

Can it be a gimmick as you wrote? 20 Million users would be a good sample out of 600 Million – most statistics for instance for medicinal (or political) matters have very much less samples

Yes, I believe so. You are also not comparing apples with apples here.

so I can’t really believe the story about the 100 hits and getting ranked at 20,000. Sorry

Believe what you like Ernest, I'm sure Alexa does too.

Would it not be very good that sites are ranked to their real popularity?

NO! not at all! I'll go with relevance anytime.

How would you proceed to create a better system and really get the market?

I wouldn't, it's not my area of business.

What would you consider to be the best system NOW?

System for what?

[greeneagle]

I am not sure Alexa can be disregarded as "total crap" when it is viewed with "general trend" spectacles!

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

"general trend" spectacles or rose colored glasses? :)

Let's just call it crap then :)

[Dave Hawley]

Here are;

Some Important Disclaimers
The traffic data are based on the set of Alexa users, which may not be a representative sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited to) the following:

Our users are disproportionately likely to visit alexa.com, amazon.com and archive.org, and traffic to these sites may be substantially overcounted.

The Alexa Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not supported, which means that Alexa collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample.

The Alexa Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the Internet population currently use Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted.

The rate of adoption of Alexa software in different parts of the world may vary widely due to advertising locality, language, and other geographic and cultural factors. For example, to some extent the prominence of Korean sites among our top-ranked sites reflects known high rates of general Internet usage in South Korea, but there may also be a dispropotionate number of Korean Alexa users.

In some cases traffic data may also be adversely affected by our "site" definitions. With tens of millions of hosts on the Internet, our automated procedures for determining which hosts are serving the "same" content may be incorrect and/or out-of-date.

Similarly, the determinations of domains and home pages may not always be accurate. When these determinations change (as they do periodically), there may be sudden artificial changes in the Alexa traffic rankings for some sites as a consequence.
The Alexa Toolbar turns itself off on secure pages (https:). Sites with more secure page views will be under-represented in the Alexa traffic data.

[greeneagle]

Dave,

Are you saying that the Alexa Representative Population Sample is not large enough to mean anything at all? Not in any way shape or form and they are completely wasting their time making it available?

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Are you saying that the Alexa Representative Population Sample is not large enough to mean anything at all?

Yes.

Not in any way shape or form and they are completely wasting their time making it available?

It can do no harm...I suppose. In fact, I have their chart on my About Us page: http://ozgrid.com/AboutOzGridUs.html But believe me, if it was accurate, I would not be sitting around 20,000.

I also encourage the download of the Toolbar as it can be used to shop at Amazon. This gives us Amazons generous < 5% on sales and I use this money to help pay my forum mods.

I also like the ability to have users leave a comment about our site. So far, so good :) 27 good comments and most with 5 stars.[/quote]

[Ernst Erb]

Dear Dave and Ken
I was amused how deep we can go about Alexa - and we could go on and on. For instance discussing what means popularity at the end compared to relevance.

We have two "religions" here I believe: PR versus Alexa. True, Alexa reaches only 90 % and in Korea it may even be different. But Alexa was only named in post 1 to give (some) proof that the site is not one of those very many private homepages. Well it is some sort of private because I invest a part of my savings (a big part) into it and it should survive and for ever be a non-profit-organisation.

We have to be found for 72,000 "articles" and perhaps some ten thousands of other pages - and Google will only index deeper if we get a higher PR. Ken was the only one who looked into the "thing" and gave something I will first have to analyse how to do - and then do it: good Description and Keywords. I will do so but I'm not convinced that it matters (much) for our PR. AND: Title tag and Description is also for the users.

Already in February my comparisons showed that we should have at least PR 6 in comparison to some other pages. I redo that survey. Since then I worked very hard to get related backlinks what we achieved but we did not move PR. I will still work on this also but we have to find an other reason for the "low" PR, not Desritpion/Keywords and not Backlinks. There are a few guessings like the model pages could be considered as SPAM bcause they are very much alike - but very necessary for the collectors.

I think I open a new thread when I have better wordings for possible reasons - and I will enter here the new URL for it. In any case thank you for the interesting discussion which I liked very much. Maybe somebody will really look into the structure/content: The link "Old Radios: Total summary" is meant for the Search Engines and the Simple Radio Search and the two other searches for collectors - "Generally interested" is (later) for the public. Help = info buttons.

Cordially,
Ernest

PS: If you click Radio collecotrs and pick up a name (in bold = to new) for Google (including first name) you will tell me - wov... why do you complain ... because mostly they are Nr. ONE - but the point is the too many radio models ... only small part listed and not in front.

[Dave Hawley]

Alexa reaches only 90 %

90% of what?

Sorry, no idea what the rest of your post was about.

[Ernst Erb]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

90% of what?

Sorry, no idea what the rest of your post was about.

Quote:
Alexa reaches only 90 % and in Korea it may even be different. But Alexa was only named in post 1 to give (some) proof that the site is not one of those very many private homepages.

Answer:
Dear Dave
You deducted the MAC's and some other browsers - and you are right (for about 10% being not included in the sample). But please let's forget Alexa. This is meaningless to the main question ...

Sorry, I don't even know how to get a Quote - as you do properly. With "quote" the whole text comes ...
Ernest (the beginner ... :-(( )

[Dave Hawley]

Ernst, are you thinking that Alexa uses data from 90% of all IE users? If so, the figure is likley MUCH closer to 3%.

Based on 600 million internet users and 20 million Alexa toolbar users.

[greeneagle]

Dave,

Most of the surveys you ever hear about aren't based on sample populations that large!

There are after all many people that engage their paid data services in this business and those have a good reputation. Guess they are might be letting just enough for free.

Not defending Alexa, just conveying fact.

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Most of the surveys you ever hear about aren't based on sample populations tha large!

The sample size doesn't matter, it's the percentage that it represents.

I know there are many surveys out there, however most are never done properly and are either, meaningless, or outright deceiving. Also, just because most do something one particular way does not mean it's the right way.

A 'good' survey will tell you exactly how/what the data is collected and the percentage that it represents.

[greeneagle]

Dave

Please explain the difference in population sample size and percentage!

The sample population size that we let the news agencies form our opinions on and jerk our strings by every day are less tham 3%.

Ken

[Ernst Erb]

With the thread named:
Where is the offence for Google?
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=23588

I try to come back to the basic question.
I hope to get some answers without the factor title/description/keywords and without external linkage (in and out). The word Alexa I will not mention ... ;-)

Well, Dave I just took the percentage of your exclusions like MAC and other browsers than MS_IE, later versions which is about 10 % - "rest" = 90%. But that this is only 3 % on the "market" I stated before with the answer that in other valuable statistics it is only a fraction of this - and it is still valid if done properly.

Anyway: If there is nocure you get many products or methods but if there is a cure you get only one procduct. For our problem there is "no cure". So a comparison of PR and Alexa and perhaps external Counters in a combination is not a bad thing for say a note between 1 and 6 or so.

I wonder if Nedstat is only used for hobby pages and if there exists an other service whith more comparisons between sites. But I know that something like Nedstat is mainly a gadget to please yourself and your users if the number is high. But it is better than nothing.

[Ernst Erb]

Dear Ken
You gave me some homework on title/description/keywords in Post 6 of this thread, thank you.

For the HP in English (for a start) which is used for many other pages (not model pages, nor forum) it is now done:

a)
title tag
Still the same (10 words, the max. of 60 characters) - because it does not harm at all if also made for humans ;-)

b)
"description"
Since it does not matter I printed the words in Capital letters whcih occur in "title". It is slightly stripped to 26/163 (max = 200 chr.possible).

c)
"keywords"
In capital letters if used also on "description" because all search words should be repeated in "keywords" and all keywords should be seen also on the page.
Now only 30 wordings with 313 characters (max would be 867 characters). They are all used in that HP.

What I did not unserstand:
"You have forms at the top of the page instead of valuable Hierarchal Prioritized HTML first!"
Do you say that our design is nuts or should we put something up whitch is now further down or so?

I tried another aproach with a private message but on the proposal I did not get an answer yet.

Cordially,
Ernest

PS:
I will show you that our problem is much deeper than on meta nemes ... and that our links are "well sufficient" for a PR6. But since you cared for it I wanted to be "clean" on that too ... ;-) Thank you.

[Ernst Erb]

I can't delete this?

[Dave Hawley]

Please explain the difference in population sample size and percentage

Well, let's say you are going to do a survey on how good/bad product "B" is. There are 5 million users of product "B". The survey sample size ends up being 10,000 users of product "B" and most feedback is good. From this it's concluded that product "B" is good.

IMO, such a survey is meaningless as the samle size (10,000 users) only represents 2% of total users (5 million).

[Ernst Erb]

AWstats shows us in June:

inks from an Internet Search Engine:
- Google 34323 46710
- Yahoo 734 840
- Google (Images) 325 448
- MSN 269 269
- AOL 268 268
- T-Online 253 253
- Virgilio 203 203
- AltaVista 121 225
- Netscape 92 92
- Other search engines 60 91
- Sonstige 372 407
This is our result with PR=5

The month before, after having PR=6 for 20 days:
- Google 40680 68064
in April it was:
- Google 36581 56240
we are about back to March now ... where we had half of the radio model pages ...

You can see that Google does 90 % of the total of Search Engines !! You can really "forget" the others ...

From "Direct Bookmarks" we had 460,917 pages and links from inside (other pages) 506,325 - all together 1 Mio pages or 3.58 Mio Hits. Yes, perhaps not bad but it could be much more because from the USA only 6.2 % ... They don't know our data base (for free) because the new American models do practically not index on Google.

[apsadmin]

Have you ever considered that your link partners are dropping your links? Perhaps scamming you for 1-way incoming links? I only checked two of them off your link page: Radiostationen deutscher Sprache & Interval Signals Archive, but neither one was linked up to you. I only read english so my "peek" is probably not very good on foreign languages, then again perhaps you should check it out.
It is not at all uncommon to get scammed for links since 1-way incoming links are more valuable on engines such as google. Usually they sign you up, and shortly thereafter drop you. They get the big points, you get squat.

[Ernst Erb]

Dear "apsadmin"
Thank you for the hint - and at all looking into the pages. You are right: In the category "Other" we listed some good sites for our members and visitors without prooving to get a backlink.

I will do the following since it is not a link exchange: I put a text "See "other links" ?" and a user has to click a small field to say YES (V) before he gets these links. I will see if we can program this.

The other categories we checked a few weeks before and only very few (less than a hand full) did in fact drop the link and we established it or dropped here too if negative answer came.

I think a bit there and a bit here can help. But the main question stays: Does one have some facts that our many pages can be a hindering for a good PR? I can think of many things which might be wrong for Google but I don't know how to really find out if yes or no.
Cordially,
Ernest

[Dave Hawley]

Does one have some facts that our many pages can be a hindering for a good PR?

Why do you say this? Generally, more pages = more content = more links = more PR.[/quote]

[Ernst Erb]

Dear Dave
Many pages: Yes, I agree with you but I think it can also work against you if the pages contain a lot of same information (headings, design etc.) = SPAM?
You see here
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=23588

what I mean - and the solution which I now try to establish. Not being sure if that is the right way.

Don't we face two obvious problems?: The repetition of the bottom links – about 100.000 times and many design and textual things on the model pages with often very little individual information. But this individual information is essential for the radio collector.

[Dave Hawley]

Don't we face two obvious problems?: The repetition of the bottom links – about 100.000 times and many design and textual things on the model pages with often very little individual information. But this individual information is essential for the radio collector.

I'm far from convinced that the repetition of links on many pages would cause any harm at all. It's good site design to have links repeated on many different pages. For example, one will often link to their Contacts page, Home pages etc on each page.

The header setction of a forum like this, will end up showing the exact same links on many thousands of pages.[/quote]

[Ernst Erb]

Dear Dave
Thank you for the answer.
I just can't figure out why the radio model pages have dropped so much - normally not even get PR 1. And our HP down to PR 5 - not much by around 100.000 pages incl. the forum - and hundreds of backlinks - and good traffic.

Can it be that they look to Google like SPAM? You find 15 such examples when you scroll down www.radiomuseum.org (the HP). It is all valuable stuff but packed into a nice "envelope" having always the same line titles etc.
Thanks for any answer with a clue.
Cordially,
Ernest