Pixelheadonline SERPs Results

Posted by Pixelhead

Thanks to Kashif’s comment this morning, I was reminded about a difference in the Google search link cache results, and I then updated the post that Kashif commented on and wrote the new blog post Link Building Update: Checking For Google Cache, which starts a new link building discussion.

Definition:I don’t know if I have ever explained it, but a cached link is a page that Google has visited, and Google has taken a snap shot. After you do a Google search, you get results that looks something like this:

Google Cache Snapshot

If you do a search with Google, you can click the “Cached” link to see the snap shot of the page as the page looked the last time Google visited it.

Pixelheadonline Cached Pages

Looking at the October 2,2007 link building post, I noticed that I had mentioned that there were 1,430 pages of Pixelheadonline.com in the SERPs(Search Engine Results Pages)when this post was written. Today I did a site:http://www.pixelheadonline.com search and it shows 1900 pages in the SERPs.

This is a 33% increase in the number of pages cached by Google since October.

Incidentally, I also did the above search with a trailing slash, and the results showed 2000 pages in the SERPs, but I wanted the results to compare to the October results which I did not use the trailing slash for at that time.

What do I attribute to this increase?

I have not been doing any link building for Pixelheadonline, so I am more prone to believe that there must have been a change in the algorithm which has caused the Google spiders to visit more pages of the site.

Also, the site is now getting a bit of age so perhaps that has something to do with the increase as well.

Have you seen an increase in the number of your pages that are being cached by Google?

Written by Pixelhead on February 13th, 2008 with 10 comments.
Read more articles on Pixelhead Updates and Uncategorized

Site Was Down (June 5th, 2009)
A Balloon In The Yard (May 16th, 2009)
Lack of Blogging for March 2009 (March 31st, 2009)
Adding Several Banner Ads (August 14th, 2008)
Social Media SEO for Hire (November 28th, 2007)

10 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

seocontest2008
#1. February 14th, 2008, at 6:34 AM.

No, there has been no increase yet for me
But my website are quite new.

Pixelhead
#2. February 14th, 2008, at 3:22 PM.

All in good time.

seocontest2008
#3. February 15th, 2008, at 6:55 AM.

I was wondering, did you take into consideration that Google may have also modified its algorithm from this time?
It is more difficult to get indexed now than it was one year ago.

Pixelhead
#4. February 15th, 2008, at 3:17 PM.

That may very well be the case. I am not so sure if it is more difficult, maybe they are just taking more time to index new pages…I guess the Google sandbox theory may still apply.

Rome
#5. February 17th, 2008, at 4:37 PM.

no luck here pixelhead.

Karlshamn
#6. February 17th, 2008, at 6:43 PM.

I agree more pages are indexed now compared to one year ago. However many of the indexed pages show decreased pagerank with the same amount of inbound links, compared to one year ago.

Forrest
#7. February 18th, 2008, at 8:22 AM.

I haven’t noticed this, myself. My pages using a site: search seem to have fallen by about 20, but I’ve nofollowed my tag cloud, and recently blocked a number of other pages ( login, internal search results, other unimportant, largely duplicate ones ) so I could have actually done better than the numbers suggest.

The cached link in the serps can help with sites that cloak. Experts Exchange is a good example: it’s a forum where people ask obscure IT questions, which are almost always answered correctly, and often by somebody from the company who wrote the software in question. Naturally, they rank fairly well, probably getting a lot of organic links. Trouble is, you need to pay for a membership to get the answer; click the normal serp link and you’ll be taken to a page with the question, but the answer(s) blanked out. But they give Google the answers for free … meaning anyone can get them through the cached page. The same used to be true of the New York Times, and probably any number of other sites.

Back to link building, there’s a perception that getting too many too quickly raises a red flag. But Google doesn’t know when you actually got the links; they know when they discovered them. Looking at when the cached date changes on some of the more important pages you might want a link from might help a person “time the lights.”

Congratulations, though! You have about 3x as many pages as I do, by Google’s count.

Pixelhead
#8. February 18th, 2008, at 5:48 PM.

Forrest, I may have 3X as many pages, but many of those pages are in the directory. I am sure if you added a directory to your site, you would have many more. Your pages are so much higher in quality though, and that is far more important. Thanks for the tip about sites that cloak, I had never heard that before.
Karlshamn, that does seem to be the case. Google really can’t give everyone a high PR, otherwise it would not be as valuable. The more scarce the more value.

Rome, keep at it, you’ll get there.

John
#9. February 22nd, 2008, at 5:51 PM.

There seems to be a tipping point for page addition with or without external linking. I have a site that is just short of the 800,000 pages for the site: command which was started last year and just keeps on growing. Now I wish I could say I have had the same success with every site but that would be untrue. It is not the site linked from here as it would be foolish to publish the URL but I can flash the URL to pixelhead if he wants to verify it. The real question is what marks this site out from the failures.

Pixelhead
#10. February 22nd, 2008, at 9:18 PM.

Wow 800,000, thats pretty nice…congrats…yea you just never know what Google is going to pick up or isn’t. You must be doing something right though.

Appropriate Comments Welcomed

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the form below. One link limit per comment and only if appropriate, and comments should be relevant. Please make sure you have read our Commentators guidelines.:

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .