Hey Randy - back from the dead am I...I guess...your post was so good that I had to come back, one more time.
That result you picked from "php" search, umm - yeah, it has more going for it than just links, as I found a myriad of yeah, well - *interesting* rank techniques and dude, I had to stop looking or I'd still be looking. I'm lazy as much as you, I gotta be...I'm the laziest person I know
That result is hacked for sure. How, holy hell - I dunno, some I get, but like I said, I had to give up!!
(I will be investigating further, and I suggest the same to you if you haven't already, that's amazing stuff there).
We do agree in that it is not relevant and needs some filtering, bravo to those guys for pulling that one off....why though, I'm not sure...perhaps for some reason I was about to find out before I gave up on the blackhole they've built to create this "anomoly"...
On that note - I think the creators of big ole G...well, they'd agree man, why not - that's not supposed to be there, even attempting to filter with -site: does not get rid of the url *entirely* (nice DNS work)...where it gets rid of others when applied to them...strange, and oh - that domain is registered and mirrored like crazy in all the bad places in Europe where Internet is FAST and CHEAP and well, usually used to FUBAR stuff and create havoc and anarchy. They would definitely want this removed, too bad I'm not saying boo about it besides, wow and congrats...
We agree on links, they carry some serious weight, sometimes too much - but what are ya gonna do...besides work harder at getting them, and better ones, not artificial, but - naturally - and I do believe in that more than a little. There's nothing wrong with relevant links giving you serious weight, argue if you're gonna - how can you?? Oh yeah, I can take the n number of networks I have and FORCE the engine to think about me as number 1-10...it's possible, done every damn day - and part of some of the solutions to some keywords, sorry - I didn't build the thing but I'll tell you there is billions of dollars for whoever fixes this sort of thing, and better still, a bit more of a level ground for us to promote our sites on (yeah RIGHT)...
I can't answer your question to me, though, not fully. There's trade secrets in there and we've already revealed a lot we can rightfully say we obtained through experience and understanding, not just reading or printing what someone else says....and in that, it's worth a lot - to me, and clients.
Theme is related to all the things your site has that a bot can understand differently from everything else. If I was to say a word too many times, or use it in ALL my links internally maybe that sets a filter off. What if I use the other word that means the same thing? Does that set the same filter off? I think not because of diversity and diversity related to a particular topic - themes. Not diversity despair though (there's hubs, as there are authorities and, just plain old sites too - which equation fits you, well...I dunno, you pick - they do all have their place). Anyway, what I mean and facilitate within my strategies is related diversity. If my site sold running shoes - talking about marathons probably gives me a better chance at ranking better all around because of this related diversity. What else is related to my topic/product/info? More content within those relationships makes my original content stronger because, well - opinion, it's just better. This is very hard to fake too, seriously - I've considered it at great length - cause I'm lazy, I'd rather automate than do it by hand...more
This is more difficult than any of the means currently available for rank "taintinig" to accomplish without actual human interaction. The funniest part of the idea here is that these things are not neccessarily natural relationships. What Google understands as related, might not be according to me, or you, or anyone....what if, and this is how I see it....the pages that live within Google make these paths and relationships - the content it had, is what it used to make the decision on how other pages stack up or below it, what is related to what - and forget not, Google is allowed to *trust* some sites more than others...and does...and is soon to have huge libraries of trusted published books to draw more relationships with...tell me, tell me they're not doing it now and just keeping it quiet....why would they publicly tell us there's a new way to do things...they won't...cause they know the good ones will find out, and probably already know. Anyway...I don't want to step on any MORE toes here, I've done enough damage with my ways of things....I felt it necessary to at least respond to your post Randy, being as it was really good and well inspired me during that look up at AVG AV...grisoft - LOL, wow!
Hey Jill....quoting someone else doesn't do a thing for me but show that you need others to justify yourself. I do not - and when I'm wrong I will admit it - it's too early to tell here and makes no sense to think negative about something so damn good for search, like themes. It just makes sense, cause they've been unable to do it to this point means nothing. So they failed, they'll try again and again - it's that good an idea IMO.
Anyway, I'll be taking my boat to the horizon, the edge you think is there - isn't there...and I'll keep on sailing to the new world and I will reach it whether you choose to acknowledge it exists or not, and the accomplishment in doing so. Sometimes, there is no proof to offer besides just "knowing" and "not falling off the edge when you get there"....lmao....don't read too much into that, it's just a joke based on your comment...sarcastic sob that I am...lmao.
Thanks again Randy - say hi to OWG every so often for me please...he rocks
PS, I edited this cause I screwed up some stuff...sorry...
Edited by TechnoCrow, 12 January 2005 - 11:30 PM.