> Relevant to what ?

of course: relevant as judged by google. which (by rumours) is based on
links to your site. such links are generated by other sites (=people)
who think that your content is relevant. so in the end: relevant as
judged by public vote.

> Do you 
> compare the content of your site with that of Mouser, Newark, 
> National, etc ?

Don't tell them, but most of them go to extremes to make their sites
google-unfriendly. so they end low or do not appear at all.

> Having a unique name helps, however.

providing relevant search terms is of course important. AFAIK google
ranks on search terms and body text first, and 'google rank' (= roughly
the number of extrenal link to your site) kicks in only to break ties.

> 
> > > So, one can say that it costs money to get ranked
> > > unless one has some really desirable commodity.
> > 
> > Correct, and rightly so. That commodity is content.
> 
> Everyone has at least as much content as you have.

*relevant* content. Personaly I don't know that everyone guy, but I
doubt he has as much relevant PIC info on his site as I have.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist