Can't Grasp Why Pages rank Higher?

[joemas99]

The first result

"Bankruptcy on IRS" is the search term.

Why does the first url rank higher in google. The second one, the IRS.gov page beats them in PA, DA root domains links. The title meta has bankruptcy near the front. unclefed does have the IRS keyword in the title, but an I missing something here?

What are the other factors, that are most obvious.

Sure one can have bad links, and other negative criteria, but these are pretty decent sites that probably don't engage in much in seo, let alone bad SEO. Sure link text and mix of links can help, but am I missing something here?

Actually what I think I really need IS A CHECKLIST OF WHAT TO CHECK IN WHAT ORDER WHEN COMPARING WHY ONE PAGE RANKS BETTER THAN ANOTHER. Appreciate all discussions. Thanks in advance.

http://www.unclefed.com/AuthorsRow/Daily/Fwdcsea.html

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98701,00.html

[AlanBleiweiss]

.edu sites and .gov sites are not necessarily more valued due to the extension, but rather the relevance they have to people looking for their specific content.  More people looking for what a particular .edu or .gov site offers will go than random people stumbling around for the kind of info a .com site might offer.  Not always, but generally speaking, that's an important concept.

Som of those people, in turn, tend to spend more time on those sites than people do on commercial sites.

Of course, this is only true of high quality .edu or .gov sites, not all just because they've got the TLD.  That's why .edu and .gov sites aren't necessarily given automatic higher value for having the TLD.  They do have to earn it.

[joemas99]

Thanks again. 2 things.

1. I thought I read on googles site or matt's page that edu and gov dosn't pass any extra rank because of the extension. In general they may be better but not because of the extension.

'The more links coming from each domain, the weaker the trust factor." I wasn't aware of that. I have some key pages on my site that have a lot of links , like 100's from the same social site. Should I make attempts to remove them? are they hurting my sites ranking?

[AlanBleiweiss]

One thing stands out to me. Link to Root Ratio.  UncleFed's got an average of 2.17 link for each root domain pointing to it.  The IRS's ratio is 5.14 links for each domain.  That's more domains pointing fewer links each.  The more links coming from each domain, the weaker the trust factor.  Sure, it may seem like a minor difference.  It's not like sites are sending 40 or 400 links to the IRS site.

Yet again, as in the other factors, it does count.  And head to head, it's a 2&1/2 times more refined profile.

Another consideration - among the highest quality sites that link to UncleFed, there are more .edu and more .gov links than compared to the IRS's top link sources.

So again, when looking at the total link profile of each, there's a higher ratio of non-commercial sites in the mix overall than compared to the IRS site.

So as in all the other issues mentioned, it's a David Vs. Goliath thing.

[usaccess608]

google works in mysterious ways.

[joemas99]

Thanks for clearing that up. However if you can explain a bit further, so i can understand, how is unclefed's inbound linking more refined? I'm not seeing it. It will help me keep mine more "refined" if needed. My site's an excellent example where tens of thousands of links didn't make much difference.Starting to rank much better now, and expect to keep ranking better with the help of SEOMOZ tools and forum.

[joemas99]

I appreciate the insight.  I was getting caught up in the technical parts, and forgetting the rest. I just ran report carts on both pages. Unclefed got a D, and the IRS got an F. So on the report card I can also see the things you bring up. great help!

[RyanKent]

I agree with Alan. There is no mix up.

IRS is the larger site. You feel that because they are the larger site, their page should rank first.

Unclefed is decent sized, but they are nothing compared to the IRS site.

Why does the first url rank higher in google. The second one, the IRS.gov page beats them in PA, DA root domains links.

The first url, the one belonging to unclefed, ranks higher because it is the better article for the search term. The domain rank is one important factor in the overall Google calculation, but so are the other factors mentioned.

[AlanBleiweiss]

Great focused reasoning Ryan.  A clear case where refined topical focus wins out over competitor size and perceived authority.  It's all about matching the search intent.  Which shows Google doesn't always get it wrong

[AlanBleiweiss]

Actually I don't have them mixed up.

Having authority for an entire site, and having a larger site itself are not always the issue.  It's specific search ranking factors for a specific search.  This is why it's deceiving to rely on ranking data from any tool, which should always only be used as a general guide.

The refined focus of a particular topic as evaluated by the several Google algorithms is what counts.  And this is where my evaluation was focused.

If I've got less pages, but the SEO for them is even a little better than that of a much bigger site, and if the inbound link profile is even a little more refined than for a site with vastly larger inbound link counts, I can definitely outrank the larger site.

Think of it this way.  Goliath gets lots of points because he's so big.  He gets lots of points because a lot of people think he'll win, so they root for him.

David comes along, and with refined skills in combat, he's able to overcome Goliath's perceived advantages.  So to it goes sometimes in SEO.

[RyanKent]

Take a look at both the pages involved.

The unclefed page is a very nice, long article with a lot of content. It has the term "bankruptcy on the IRS" in the content. That is about as close to an exact match as you can hope for with that phrase. The page also has the terms bankruptcy and IRS in the title.

The IRS page is very weak. The page does not mention "IRS" even once in the content, although it is mentioned in the URL and sidebar. The IRS page has less then 10% of the content when compared to the unclefed page.

It is a very good thing the unclefed page ranks higher on this particular search, as it should. It is a well organized page written by someone with authority and great subject knowledge. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any apparent effort from the IRS towards SEO at all. There isn't even a meta description for their page.

Bottom line, you are asking to investigate the lesser factors while ignoring the big one. CONTENT IS KING. It doesn't always work out that way, but it should. It did in this case. No reason to look any further.

[joemas99]

I might be wrong, but I think you have the two mixed up. Unclefed ranks first. The second one (irs.gov) has much more authority, and is the larger site.

[AlanBleiweiss]

My quick hit take is it's just the right kind of authority.  70,000 page site.  As for links, even though there's hardly any, it's a very tight link to root domain ratio.  Many of those are from very authoritative sites including .edu (not junk edu links, but real, valid links).

Of course, without a comprehensive audit, that's just an assumption, though it's pretty strong.  And shows the power of focusing on quality SEO vs. junk SEO.