Comments on: Three Reasons Why a #1 Ranking in Google is Less Important http://newsletter.blizzardinternet.com/number-1-ranking-in-google-is-less-important/2006/09/08/ Hospitality Industry Internet Markting Blog from Blizzard Internet Marketing Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:42:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dane http://newsletter.blizzardinternet.com/number-1-ranking-in-google-is-less-important/2006/09/08/#comment-14652 Dane Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:05:40 +0000 http://newsletter.blizzardinternet.com/number-1-ranking-in-google-is-less-important/2006/09/08/#comment-14652 About a week ago, while scanning through my stats, I noticed a handful of searches from Google for a low competition phrase. After a few days I decided to see where I was ranked for the term and to my surprise I was listed on page 4. I fully expected a top 5 listing based on competition. It is possible that the term is breaking out and Wordtracker is displaying old information but I find that scenario somewhat unlikely. It is also somewhat unlikely that Google’s algorithm has determined that I don’t want to see this result so it pushed it from a top 5 position to somewhere in the 40s. I would assume initially the personalization aspect of their algorithm wouldn’t be so drastic. I could be overlooking something or the hits may be a result of a combination of the two scenarios above. About a week ago, while scanning through my stats, I noticed a handful of searches from Google for a low competition phrase. After a few days I decided to see where I was ranked for the term and to my surprise I was listed on page 4. I fully expected a top 5 listing based on competition.

It is possible that the term is breaking out and Wordtracker is displaying old information but I find that scenario somewhat unlikely. It is also somewhat unlikely that Google’s algorithm has determined that I don’t want to see this result so it pushed it from a top 5 position to somewhere in the 40s. I would assume initially the personalization aspect of their algorithm wouldn’t be so drastic. I could be overlooking something or the hits may be a result of a combination of the two scenarios above.

]]>