Discussion Page   Home     Help   Index     Login Rated #6 in World's Best Climbing Websites #1743
Back To Discussion List Written: 2007.01.02 by: Steve Grant

As of Dec. 31, is rated as #6 on the world's list of best climbing websites.

Violating Robin's wish to avoid posting links, see:

The sites were ranked by the number of links found to the site being ranked.

There has been a significant amount of disagreement with how this site is set up and runs, and whether it is viable. Including from me. I think this accomplishment largely vindicates Robin's decisions.



#824 - 2007.01.31 Robin Tivy - See Google under mountaineering
I am pleased that there is some appreciation by Bivouac contributors that this effort by us all for the past 11 years has had significant results. However, the business of "ranking" websites is much, much more complicated than simply counting links to the website. Google spends millions of dollars trying to perfect their methods of ranking. Like many website publishers, I have spent considerable time studying the subject, and Google makes sure there is no easy answer like getting a lot of links.

The statistic I keep an eye on is where we are ranked in Google under certain key words like "Mountaineering". We are currently #2 today, but I've seen it go to #1 all last year, and sometimes it will go down to #6 for a few days, then pop back up.

The other websites that are linked high on that page are our advertising customers, partially because a link from Bivouac to them increases their rank.

#823 - 2007.01.26 Scott Nelson - Why lilnks are bad reason d)
Search engines like google (and some website ranking pages like the one mentioned in this discussion) rank websites based on how many other sites link to them. So linking to other websites is helping the competition.

Personally I think this whole 'links are bad' thing is bogus. A broken link really isn't any worse than non-linked url text that you have to copy into your browser before you find out that it's a broken link.

I can buy the linked articles are not self contained argument, but perhaps some extrnal links could be allowed at the end of TR or article, but not within the text itself.

#822 - 2007.01.24 Mitch Sulkers
It's number five as of today (070124).

#821 - 2007.01.21 Ade Miller - Why are links bad.
Well that's a nice bit of news.

Out of interest why are links so bad? They always seemed to get removed from any content here. Most sites are going to opposite direction and trying to infer links in unlinked content not remove explicit links - for example most content engines would automatically hyperlink your raw URL above.



I found the answer in the authors section

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, although you should duely note that this is but one of many reasons much of the content I generate lives elsewhere.


#817 - 2007.01.03 Mike Guite - Bravo!
To both Robin and all the authors (inc. all those disgruntled who post comments that I read with a pinch of salt)!