pitchfork's googlability

here's how it works:
http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

PFork's pages rise to the top because their code is clean(ish) meaning the most important text is at/near the top of the code and (perhaps most importantly) - there are over 17,000 links back to PitchforkMedia.com (vs., for example, 53 [not a typo] for StylusMagazine.com). In Google's algorithmic eyes, the more heavily linked a page/URL/site, the more credible, and the more credible, the more relevant and thus the better ranking.

The more people that link to a webpage/website the higher the page rank.

Pitchfork is a popular / well linked in website, therefore you would expect to find their webpages appearing at the top of search engine results pages.

Also the artist/ album title is part of the META tag: Page Title along with the word review.

the page title appears at the top of your broswer: [Notice the Artist/ Album Title Pitchfork review]

therefore 4 key identifiers:
the artist
the album
the website name: pitchfork
and the keyword: review

for example take a look at this page of a review for twee wimps belle & sebastian

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/belle-and-sebastian/life-pursuit.shtml

Basically each of their page (either, and I've been curious about this for years now, intentionally or unintentionally) becomes a focused, definitive representation of an album (and sometimes artist) as far as textual presence on the Web is concerned (see Martian's descrip. above).

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=link:http://www.kindamuzik.net/

note: google only measures backlinks with a google page rank 4 and above

yahoo have a site explorer
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/

there are 118 Google Ranking Factors listed on this page:

Google Ranking Factors - SEO Checklist
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/internet/google-ranking-factors.htm

x-post
in reality ILM does appear well placed in google results e.g try searching for a forthcoming album that you know has a dedicated ILM thread and it often shows up.

Excellent point! Not only are PFork's URLs optimized in a text-algorithmic sense, for example: pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/arctic-monkeys/whatever-people-say-i-am-thats-what-im-not.shtml, but they're very efficient (i.e. short) and static, too.

Whereas, for example, stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3721 in an URL means a whole lot of nothing to a search engine.

Which explains why a relatively wide-open query on 'Arctic Monkeys' at Google puts PFork in the Top 10 results and keeps Stylus outside the Top 50. (Notice how Google bolds text that appears in an URL?)

Your site is not very keyword-rich and many of the keywords that you do use are in German. For better or worse, a large quantity of web readers read in English. You might want to consider adding more english to your meta title and meta description, and perhaps also consider offering english-language versions of your articles and reviews. If you'd like to become more of a resource for German readers, then I would suggest focusing in on German keywords in your titles and meta language.

Try: Dutch

I respectfully disagree (and the SEO Checklist [i.e. Search Engine Optimization, for the uninitiated] cited actually has "Keyword in URL" ranked #1 on its list of SEO factors).

Although I'll stipulate to keywords in an URL as one of many factors, it is hardly minor. When tied together with keyword-focused "invisible" and "visible" text, the effect combines to put PFork at the front of the line (and/or results).

Once upon a time reviews were in English. But Kindamuzik decided to go dutch only.

The coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

oh by the way; you still have my lowtones.blogspot.com linked on your page, it's changed to krommetonen.blogspot.com

That's only true of the meta keyword tag. The title [technically not meta data] and the meta description tag are still important provided they are tied together with the text on the page and in the URL. Google will ignore and/or ban a site if too many of its pages' titles and descriptions don't match its visible text.

blogs - i am in the slow process of sorting out music blogs using a social bookmarking system.

a social bookmarking, thats the new trend eh?

x-post: re social bookmarking systems i have been using http://del.icio.us/ since may 2004 and used a bookmarking website - backflip way back in 2000.

however i have just started using a different social bookmarking system, netvouz: http://www.netvouz.com/ specifically for music blogs that has number of smart functions.

category plus multi-tagging
checks dead links
sorts numerous ways: including a-z
has a rating system

http://www.google.com/searchcode.html