An ‘Independent Web Advice’ Blog

On behalf of a client I was checking out the Google Page Rank for competitor sites that list more highly than my clients site. He has a site that is stuffed with useful information and is constantly being updated. It is user friendly, has hundreds of backlinks, a PR of 3 and lots of loyal users. SO what is up?

Under certain keywords, that the site should perform well by, the site is not to be seen anywhere in the Google listings. Plus competitor sites that are PR1, that are really really bad, that have either old or duplicated content, or worse even that that, stolen material, all rank in the top 20. ????

Why? How? Has Google finally gone Bananas? My own site went from a PR of 5 to a PR of 4 this morning, and has since returned to a PR of 5. This to me indicates that either a big change is on the way in terms of how Google calculates PR, or that PR is simply irrelevant to SE listings.

Take a look, sites with a pr of 1 often appear above sites with a pr of 3 or 4. I give up!

The golden rule has always been to make sites for users first, then for SEO or whatever other pressures there are. This rule is still no.1 of course. Content is still king. But if stolen content is not being monitored any more, then VOLUME will be king, not quality or originality. I hope this is not so, or the web will be destroyed in an avalanche of site scrapers and cloned sites.

Paul

Moaning on a Monday.

If anyone is unfortunate enough to be using the Fasthosts hosting service then please stop doing so. You are paying too much money.

However if you insist on using such a monolith of an organisation, then at least try to cancel your account (it is not as easy as you might think) because if you do they will offer you 3 months for FREE! Superb!

Paul

There has been a lot of criticism of the Wikipedia lately, suprisingly from some of the top management there. They claim that the wikipedia is broken beyond repair and full of inaccuracies. I would like to make a few points about this.

1) The Wikipedia is not a source of news and should not be considered ‘up to date’.

2) The wikipedia is not a commercial body, so relies on voluntary editors and members to add material. As in all big groups there are some rotten apples that want to spam or upload nonsense just for the fun of it. These people will always exist.

3) The wikipedia is STILL a fantastic resource for research. However every adult should realise that you cannot rely on one source of information. If the wikipedia says Chess began in the 11th Century, that is the opinion of the author, not a fact. Never rely on one source.

4) I read the wikipedia for fun, it is fascinating. If students, researchers or businesses want factual information that has been peer reviewed commercially, then you should buy a magazine, subscribe to a journal or read actual research papers as they are released by historians, scientists and journalists the world over. There are many fabulous resources, but none of which are free.

Finally, if the inaccuracies (minor or major) really are a problem for you, log in, join the relevant group and edit the bloody thing. That is the whole point of the wikipedia. We are all the authors. Us, the general public, anyone is welcome. Join, add your 2 penneth and correct any errors you spot. (The only way to beat spammers is together.)

To the complainers that bemoan the nature of the Wikipedia - I say you have failed to understand the nature of the beast. Stop criticising and help.

I suspect commercial interest is on the side of criticising the Wikipedia with the aim of bringing it into disrepute. Information is a commodity that is easily sold. The Wikipedia is about the FREE dissemination of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind. Good luck to it and it remains the single best example of the power of the web available anywhere today.

(In my humble opinion of course.)

Paul

Independent Web Advice

I have had a wonderful break but it is time to return to the world of the web. Having been offline for a while I suddenly feel all ‘out of date’, but my task lists are virtually empty, although milestones are looming large, and my RSS feeds are full of new material to read and digest.

I think I will start tonight! Speak soon -

Paul