81 replies to this topic

[snipermilk]

How can a PR0 site like MattCutts.com jump all the way to PR7 in such a short time? A Whois.sc check shows that the domain was created in June of 2003, but the oldest WHOIS record shows June 6, 2004. Assuming it had zero backlinks then, the site now registers over 10,900 links in Altavista and 27,000 in Yahoo. Based on Altavista’s record, that’s like 22 links per day (06/2004 to 10/2005). The number of backlinks created and the period by which they were accumulated rival most overoptimization link building campaigns I’ve seen.

How did it pass the supposed overoptimization filter? Does getting 22 links a day hit the link building sweet spot? If a good percentage of your links come from “quality” sites, e.g. mainstream press, authority sites, high PR sites, etc., will it help pass the overoptimization test? Do Googlers have a special place in the index?

[qwerty]

Matt's a pretty popular guy.

MSN: 18,491 backlinks
Yahoo: 9,330 backlinks
Google: 915 backlinks

[Rajesh]

Hi
Surely it depends on how much popular you are. If i created any site on president of America then google is give the advantage to it They are not look the how much this site is old.

Thanks

[aalame]

i don't think Big G screens sites by popularity of topic. i think there is a big part of this over-optimization thing that we don't understand. If the link goes to your website from a related site i'm sure you are ok even if you get 1000 links per day. When you start shoving "my anchor text" linked to your site from random sites all over the place it's pretty obvious that you're overkilling it.

Amer Alame M.D.

[chompy]

As qwert said, Matt and his site is pretty popular.

I started blogging last July, but wasn't active till August and September. Surprise surprise, yesterday, after months of PR0, my main page now have a PR 3 (OT:I know it's not that much of a big deal but i still couldn't help feeling giddy and excited when I first saw it ).

My guess is, the several months between the last time G updated PR of sites (when Matt's Blog still has PR 0) and G was collecting info, Matt's Blog has really become very popular, informative, active, and that is why his PR soared, what with the many people linking to his blog and his articles.

[Jill]

Every SEO and his/her brother has linked to him, so it's no surprise at all. But he still should be affected by the aging delay (assuming he hasn't done anything special to remove his site from it).

[jam2005]

Every SEO and his/her brother has linked to him, so it's no surprise at all.  But he still should be affected by the aging delay (assuming he hasn't done anything special to remove his site from it).

Ranking #13 for "Google SEO" doesn't seem like much of an aging delay.

Personally, I think he deserves it since his site is one that I visit very frequently, but I sure wish I could get rankings like that for sites we've had around for years...

Edited by jam2005, 21 October 2005 - 09:56 AM.

[RyanBlank]

imo, any type of buzz marketing that gains large amounts of natural links in a short span of time should pop a site out of the aging delay.. Google wants those sites to rank well. the aging delay is real for average sites where obtaining thousands of natural links in a short span of time is just not possible.

[SearchRank]

Have you ever considered that PR on Google toolbar can be adjusted by Google engineers of which Matt is one?

If they can zero out someone's PR, don't you think they can make another's a 7 or whatever they want?

[snipermilk]

...he still should be affected by the aging delay (assuming he hasn't done anything special to remove his site from it).

Have you ever considered that PR on Google toolbar can be adjusted by Google engineers of which Matt is one?

If they can zero out someone's PR, don't you think they can make another's a 7 or whatever they want?

I just love conspiracy theories

imo, any type of buzz marketing that gains large amounts of natural links in a short span of time should pop a site out of the aging delay..  Google wants those sites to rank well.  the aging delay is real for average sites where obtaining thousands of natural links in a short span of time is just not possible.

if only Google would tell us their definition of "natural" and "average". As far as I know, every link building campaign I've undertaken and every site I've worked with are "natural" and "above average", respectively

[ewc21]

That goes to say not all web sites are created equal.

[nedguy]

I'm not really surprised. It's not just the links from 'traditional' sources - think of all those forum postings pointing to him (particularly in the last month), let alone the blogrolls and technorati & del.icio.us tags! His url must be appearing in every nook and cranny of the internet!

[Randy]

Natural links and above average are one thing. But are you a World-Reknowned Authority, immediately recognized as such by all in the same way that Matt Cutts is with regard to Google snipermilk?

I rather doubt any of us could say we're quite as readily accepted an Authority where Matt is about Google. Or Jeremy Zwodny is with regards to Yahoo. Heck, for that matter I doubt that even Einstein reincarnated would be be considered as much of an immediately authoritative physicist these days as those two are where search is concerned! He's missed out on a lot of recent developments after all.

[Michael Martinez]

if only Google would tell us their definition of "natural" and "average". As far as I know, every link building campaign I've undertaken and every site I've worked with are "natural" and "above average", respectively

You cannot seriously be suggesting that link building campaigns result in "natural" linkage, can you? Natural linkage is given without regard for search engine placement. Link building campaigns are conducted primarily for search engine placement.

A natural link is CNN providing a little background information on your industry and picking your site as authoritative (and they often pick some of the darnedest sites).

A link building campaign is people [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showforum=21]Submitting to Directories[/url] and exchanging links and writing articles in the hope of becoming "authorities" in the search engines' estimation. "Authority", "Hub", "Quality", "Relevant", and "Natural" are all SEO buzzwords. People use them almost like religious zealots invoking the powers of the gods.

There are good reasons to submit to directories, write articles, and even exchange links, but doing these things to improve your search rankings is not one of those good reasons. As more people engage in this kind of activity, it becomes more average, less exceptional, and in the long run less helpful.

The pressure doesn't increase simply as hyperoptimization sets in and forces you to compete on links for targeted expressions, it sets in as the number of sites you compete with establish a new mini-norm within the normal bands of Web relationships. The mini-norm reduces or cancels out the benefits you hope to gain by acquiring "quality, relevant links" which really fall into very narrow, easily (algorithmically) identified categories.

In other words, too much of a good thing ruins it for everyone. Soon enough, all those articles people write for free article submission services, and all the press releases, will be filtered out by Google, and there goes another useful resource.

[DataKeyJon]

I agree with many of the bogs here. It's like working at the lottery and knowing the winning lottery numbers, wouldn't you bet them. Being a Google engineer that working on the ranking process wouldn't you have a little bit of bias toward your own site.

Let’s say for a minute that you didn't have any bias toward your own site, but keep in mind that you still work for Google. You could easily know exactly what the requirements are for making your site the top site and follow those requirements to a T, when more competition came into the picture; you keep working and change the requirements, remembering to always keep ethical and correct coding practices in effect.