In addition to some of the mechanical things people have been pointing out, I think Google bases a lot of it's ranking on the ranks, and amount, of sites linking to you. Right or wrong, it seems to be how they do it. Do a search for "saltines", and you might expect a site for the brand of Saltine crackers to appear, as that might be the most relevant content, but the fact is, not too many people are linking to Nabisco's Saltine Crackers site. Also, try "horseradish". Within the first few results, the same strange rankings. I don't mind so much considering that stinkfactor.com is my site, but it's not what I'd consider "relevant" (except in the case of "horseradish", which used to list stinkfactor.com above horseradish.org). Also, to further support my "ranks/number of high ranked sites" theory, do a search for "coldfusion resume". Somewhere on stinkfactor.com, I link to my personal site, michaelbuffington.com. The site alone gets a worthy amount of traffic, but I know that the amount of links coming in is pretty low, and can almost guarantee that Google takes stinkfactor.com's popularity, along with the popularity of any other site that links to mine that Google knows about into account when determining my site's rank. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bennett [mailto:richard.bennett at skynet.be] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:30 PM To: thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: [thelist] why is my google rating so bad (sitecheck www.gritechnologies.com) Hi, Could you take a look at www.gritechnologies.com please. Any comments about the site in general are appreciated. I'm aware there's one error in the validating. The main thing I don't understand is why the Google listing is so bad. There are a few pages linking to the site, and it is listed, but no summary at all shows up, and it gets a page-rank of 0/10. I fear this might be because it is a dynamic site, using some htaccess redirecting to convert the dynamic URL into something more readable. I did however go to great lengths to ensure a 200 OK code was returned on each request, instead of a 302 or 400. Can anyone see something obvious? would adding meta tags make the difference? thanks, Richard. -- * * Please support the community that supports you. * * http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !