Over Optimization Penalty?

[Mike]

I've done a few searches and found that the sites near the top are usaully the ones that only mention that keyword once. The other which are including it like 10+ times, are way way down.

Anyone else notice this with other searches? Could there be an over optimization penalty?

Mike

[incka]

It might just be PR. Tell us PR of the top ones, and then the bottom ones with have the keyword more...

[Mike]

1st: PR2
2nd: PR3
3rd: PR1

A load on page five have PR5, and there's sites with a higher PR than 4 after then.

It's not PR:)

[r2d2]

Link text?

[Mike]

Don't think so, most of the links near the top have one backward link.

[incka]

Google-****ing-around-for-laughs?

[Chris]

There is no over-optimization penalty.

[Mike]

What do you think is causing results like this then Chris?

[incka]

Proof of what Chris said: Search for 'Amazon Coupons' and click cached on the top few results.

[johnn]

After so many changes Google made, I think it takes time to figure out what we have to do.

[Percept]

There is no such thing as an SEO penalty. The main thing that has changed ( as far as I can tell ) is that an incoming link only really counts when the webpage linking to you is considdered an authority on the subject. ( that's why directory's have been sitting so high in the SERP's lately since these are considdered authority's on their subject ) So for example, linking from a webmaster site to a basketball site will have zero to no effect. Like I read somewhere, you're not getting penalised, you're simply not rewarded for "non-related" incoming links.

[Chris]

Though there isn't alot of statistical evidence yet to prove it. What Percept said is how I feel.

[Mike]

I thought that until a few weeks ago. At the moment I am doing link exchange with two msn emotion websites. All of us are nowhere to be seen.

[incka]

Google needs to update mike...

Chris - You should REALLY get SearchEngineLabs onto the local rank thing...

[rocky1]

Given the optimization of my site, I would disagree Mike. Not sure what else is triggering it but I use keywords substantially more than that in page content, and likewise in all <alt> text and titles.

Sites I've seen pulling this off in the past have often utilized the keywords in their URL, have utilized keywords in their <alt> very well, or they have a ton of links pointing back at them.

If you truly want to be confused, go to Google, do a search for "fishing" then scroll down and click on #7 and tell me how that got there! And, it's been sitting in that same spot since last August! }:8^)

[Mike]

The squirrel fishing one? It doesn't mention "fishing" that much though, does it?

[rocky1]

Yep that's the one. And, no... it doesn't say much of anything about fishing.

I never have figured out how that one got there to begin with, and it has remained seated in that spot when everyone under the sun was screaming at Google for the shakeups over the last few months! It has never even wiggled man!!! It's rock solid.

~~LOL~~~

[chromate]

The title is 50% keyword "fishing". All the links to the site are also 50% keyword "fishing". "Fishing" is in the URL. With all that, and a PR of 6 it doesn't need anything more beyond the couple of mentions of "fishing" on the front page to get it to #8.

[rocky1]

Good call Chromate! Yes, you're right, that would do it. Guess I've always been so astounded by them being there in the first place that it's just blown me away!

Of course, it could have been I was too busy laughing at the irony surrounding my attempts at gaining page rank (http://www.rtfi.us) against this site, as well. Bad enough to get beat up on the engines, but to get beat up by a site on Squirrel Fishing... now that hurts!

Then there's also the small matter that this is, if you read it, a serious college paper, done at Harvard University!

[chromate]

lol... yeah I know. It's quite amusing :)