What factors affect search result ranking? which is biggest?

[onthink]

To my experience(5 months), factors include: keyword density, backlink relevancy, Pr, title, title number, Headline....what else factor affects into search result ranking? Which is the biggest factor you think?
I think it is Pr; title second .


B.T.W.: There are various kinds of keyword density, which one is most important? Keyword density in :Title
Meta_Description
Meta_Keywords
Visible_Text
Alt_Tags
Comment_Tags
Domain_Name
Image_tags
Linked_Text
Option Tags
Reference_Tags



thanks

[cbp]

Which is the biggest factor you think?

Anchor text of backlinks rule....I don't spend a lot of time on any other factor.

CBP

[onthink]

Thanks

Originally Posted by cbp

Anchor text of backlinks rule....I don't spend a lot of time on any other factor.

CBP

[onthink]

CBP:


btw: a stupid question, is it a anchor text of backlink? : Chinese Art

Originally Posted by cbp

Anchor text of backlinks rule....I don't spend a lot of time on any other factor.

CBP

[img][/img]

[google junky]

If you get linked to by a site with good PR then let it happen by chance. Meaning, get links from as many relevant sites as possible and then fret over PR later if you feel it's worth the time. I honestly pay no attention to PR.

If your backlink is on a relevant site and you have great anchor text then this is the #1 thing that helps. I'd also add that I think a good domain name in the anchor text with a keyword would be good as well. Might be just my opinion though.

[rlrouse]

For Google, the top five most important factors for climbing in the SERPS are:

1 - Lots of quality inbound links with good anchor text.

2 - More quality inbound links with good anchor text.

3 - Even more quality inbound links with good anchor text.

4 - A short, yet descriptive title that contains the page's (not site's) primary search term.

5 - A proper keyword density.

If you concentrate on the three first, you'll be well on your way to top rankings for your search terms.

[Pedro Rodriguez]

1 - Lots of quality inbound links with good anchor text.

2 - More quality inbound links with good anchor text.

3 - Even more quality inbound links with good anchor text.

Certainly. Inbounds is important but not much more that for example title or keyword density.
So why is possible to find sites in #1 for keywords in pages which have 0 external inbound links?

[cbp]

Inbounds is important but not much more that for example title or keyword density

Not true. Anchor text in backlinks is by far the most powful ranking factors.

So why is possible to find sites in #1 for keywords in pages which have 0 external inbound links?

It is impossible to even get listed in Google, let alone rank without backlinks. I just does not happen. Can you show us an example?

CBP

[jackson992]

I do disagree that the number of backlinks is more important. Anchor text however is very important, not just on backlinks but on links on your site too

[OBR]

Originally Posted by onthink

B.T.W.: There are various kinds of keyword density, which one is most important? Keyword density in :Title
Meta_Description
Meta_Keywords
Visible_Text
Alt_Tags
Comment_Tags
Domain_Name
Image_tags
Linked_Text
Option Tags
Reference_Tags

Does anyone else believe that these are given any significant weight?

[tcampione]

Originally Posted by rlrouse

Lots of quality inbound links with good anchor text.

I wonder if you (and cbp) might speak a bit more about quality links and relevant sites. I’m really struggling to understand what Google considers good quality, versus poor quality links. An example or two would help.

Then there’s the issue relevance. Google and I seem to disagree as to what in fact is relevant. So, is there a way to determine what Google feels is relevant? For example, if my site where dedicated to computer printers, would sites in a parent category (in this case computers) be considered relevant?

I’m not implying that Google is a directory. But, Google seems to like sites that are found in directories. My opinion is that if a site is categorized, Google has greater confidence in the keywords it has associated with that site, and relevancy is easier to determine because of the parent/child/sibling relationships amongst categories.

Back to my question though, have you found consistent methods for determining Google relevancy?

[rlrouse]

My personal definition of a high quality backlink is a link on a page (not site) that:

1 - has a decent Google Toolbar PageRank

2 - will be of interest to your visitors (this has NOTHING to do with relevency, more on that later)

3 - doesn't use hidden text or any other back hat SEO techniques

4 - isn't part of a link farm

5 - corollary to #4 - a page that wasn't generated by Zeus, Linksmanager, or any other automatic links page script

Google and I seem to disagree as to what in fact is relevant.

As of today, relevence is irrelevent when it comes to search engine rankings. You'll hear lots of talk saying that is relevent, but personal experience with hundreds of sites in widely diverse and many competitive categories proves otherwise.

A search engine robot simply cannot determine whether a link is relevent or not. Only a human can make that determination. If Google ever decides to attempt to make that determination with their algorithm they might as well close up shop because they'll go the way of Alta Vista.

[Manpasand]

Originally Posted by rlrouse

isn't part of a link farm

How can we know that we are going in link farm?

[Blackicicle]

1. Back Links With Keywords
2. Keywords One Said Page being Linked to

[randfish]

Maybe I should have posted this here instead, but I made a new thread just a couple hours ago trying to request ALL of the factors that we could measure.

Going back to onthink's original goal, I think this list might be informative (although some of it is speculation) - http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=29153

[tcampione]

Originally Posted by rlrouse

My personal definition of a high quality backlink is a link on a page (not site)

Got the disticntion between site vs page. Thanks for the clarification, especially on the issue of relevance.

/*tom*/