ThePortForum.com

Out of curiosity this morning, I did a couple of searches of Yahoo. On a search using "Vintage Port", this site did not feature in the first 100 links suggested - most were retailers.

Using a search of +"Vintage Port" +forum, this site came up as links number 5 and 6!

Alex

Cool !!
Today Google , tommorow The Kingston whig standard !!

"Port Forum" still comes in second though.

KillerB wrote:"Port Forum" still comes in second though.

'Port Forum' Now has on First spot on Google...which is nice.


On the grim side. 'Vintage Port' doesn't show us in the first 50 pages. (I got bored then).
'VP' which we use more often, and wouldn't be a common search for a Port browser, brings back 70 million hits. God knows where we are on that one.

Alan

Yep, we are now first for Port Forum.

What's more is that we have a page rank... of one

This may seem a bit feeble but it means we're there now, it will improve.

KillerB wrote:Yep, we are now first for Port Forum.

What's more is that we have a page rank... of one

This may seem a bit feeble but it means we're there now, it will improve.

And now we have a page rank of... two.

This is very good in six months. Everybody pat themselves on the back

I was on Google today looking for a picture of a Warre's 1958 label. My google image search returned the following, which made me smile...

Very funny indeed.

Hahaha... that's pretty funny.

"Port Forum" returns a rather eclectic mix:

#1 is
#2 is a marina in Barcelona.
#3 is a tech forum about iPhone ports.
#4 is a Latin American port (marina) forum.
#5 is
#6 is a forum for the city of Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
#7 is a different forum for the city of Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
#8 is the official IUCN forum for #2.
#9 is an apartment complex near/at #2 and #8.

So really, not a whole lot of Port involved in seaching for a Port Forum.

Has anyone on the forum ever stated unequivicaly that Port is a red liquid ?

Luc wrote:unequivicaly

Well, unequivocally, yes.

It's also quite interesting to see which pages link to (I perfer to do this search by just typing in the URL, rather than the proper way of using link:theportforum.com):

1 & 2:
3 & 4: junk directories
5: sid_mac being assisted in registration by KillerB
6: KillerB falling in love with the Cruz 1989 at ("hint of cherries" and "caramel flavours")
7 & 8: More junk
9: SushiNorth berating Paul Levinson for describing blueberry "port" as Port*
10: jdaw1's site

[*

SushiNorth wrote: Well, it may be fortified, and some may call it "port" but it's certainly not Port, has little to do with Oporto or the book Rich Rare and Red, and I wouldn't recommend offering it under the name Port to anyone who's had the real stuff[...]

Paul Levinson wrote: You don't come across as snooty, so there's no need to apologize, but you do come across as a little wrong.

I've (obviously) tasted blueberry port, and red ports as well, and the blueberry certainly tastes like a port - only, better. That's why I made the point about about the difference between port from grapes and from blueberries.

]

It's those bloody google-cats again...

The cat is smiling in cat heaven after seeing this.

Now we have a Google rank of 4! This is the same as The Wine Spectator forum and the eBob forum - pretty cool, huh?

Using what search criteria?

I think Alex is referring to Google's Page Rank which is the internal algorithm used by Google to work out the general weighting to allocate to any given page.

The big difficulty is getting from 4 to 5 and beyond; that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

JacobH wrote:that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

Don't mention "exponential" here - KillerB will be off on one any time now!!

DRT wrote:

JacobH wrote:that seems to require an exponential increase in the number of links to the site.

Don't mention "exponential" here - KillerB will be off on one any time now!!

Jacob very carefully put "seems" thus removing all possibility that it could be validated by inspection. I will be much more grumpy if somebody says "Highly Significant" without statistical backup.