18 replies to this topic

[Mel]

This article is for some reason being widely copied and distributed. among other things it says:

"Well, there you have it. Those are what I consider the two most important ranking factors used by Google. Other factors are considered by Google, but their importance pales in comparison to the two I have discussed in this article.

Comments anyone??

[dimok]

Of cause, mentioned factors are very important to Google, but not sufficient. You cann't reach high rankings without optimizing the text on the site. PageRank and incoming links are the external factors for ranking, but keywords density and the same are internal factors. Combination of these two types of factors it the way to top.

[markymark]

For crying out loud, part of this is just wrong. There should be a test or something to stop people writing articles like this.

Take this quote : "The linked to page MUST have the text link keywords in the body of the page, otherwise Google will discount the page. " . That isn't true. A search on Google for 'click here', for example, shows that this bit, at least, is wrong.

As for the emphasis on PageRank above on-page factors - this too isn't right. PageRank is just a sorting mechanism for pages whose relevance has already been determined. The relevance is largely determined by on-page factors and link text.

[robwatts]

The linked to page MUST have the text link keywords in the body of the page, otherwise Google will discount the page.

Depends what he means by discount. Isn't he referring to google bombing here?

I think he might be trying to say that Google may reduce a pages relevance for those particular terms.

I always read these 'inside knowledge' type 'scoops' with a big chunk of scepticism. Far too many people out there claiming to have their fingers on the pulse.

Theres nothing inherently wong with making these claims, but, IMO if you do, then you should be prepared to back up your assertions with any associated evidence.

[markymark]

Reducing a page's relevance for particular terms is far cry from discounting it. Discounting it means it isn't counted - at all. Don't know how true the reducing relevancy thing is either. Victoria's Secret is still top ten for 'lingerie' for instance.

[qwerty]

Well, I simply don't believe it. The author doesn't provide any evidence to back up his claims, so I guess I don't have to either. IMO, the content on the page is more important than backlinks or PR. You need a link to get spidered, but after that it's what's on the page that matters most.

[ResIpsa]

For what it's worth, I think the author has it right. Virtually all of the content on my home page changes daily and Google visits about every two-three days to index it. The rank for my primary key phrase has stayed the same for over a year.

[awall19]

There are a ton of places to post articles on the web, and even forum replies may be a form of advertising. When a person writes an article as "the definitive source" they do not necissarily believe they are that. What they do believe is that the average person that reads on the given topic has obtained more ignorance than they have on the topic.

Many people want to get rich quick, all any article needs to do is convert one person to pay for itself. He probably did his job, and in some weird way even discussing his article is providing him with more free advertising.

[Jill]

I haven't read the article yet, but from the responses I'm reading, I'm reminded of the time at the SES conference in London when our forum-mate MarkyMark started talking gobble-dee-gook to a bunch of eager SEO wanna-be's! He was making stuff up off the top of his head, and they were eating it up as if he were a god.

Unfortunately, the same thing happens with many articles on the Web. It's published, it must be true.

If Mark says it, it must be true...

(Mark felt slightly bad...btw, but he got over it! )

J

[Mel]

IMO a load of crap, but when you publish it and then its picked up and repubished by a dozen or more sites it suddenly becomes the straight scoop (to the uniniformed).

A Google search on {most important google ranking factors} returns the top eleven results as links to this article.

No wonder people get confused. Good thing there are places like this where the straight scoop ranks better than notoriety

[Jill]

No wonder people get confused. Good thing there are places like this where the straight scoop ranks better than notoriety

Here, here!



J

[TBroadfoot3rd]

What they do believe is that the average person that reads on the given topic has obtained more ignorance than they have on the topic.

Well the old saying if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with .......


As always place you favorite Acronym here,

[deborah2002]

Unfortunately, whoever wrote that article WILL be believed by a whole slew of newbies who are going to stress over PageRank and link text to the exclusion of all else.

I think this guy took a look at 1 page of 1 set of results and said "wow--this must be the way it is ALL THE TIME", printed an article and will soon start the lecture circuit or something. Shame

deb

[deborah2002]

Hey Chris!
I understand the "disclaimers" in the article, yet it starts out by saying "There you have it......". This would lead me to believe, were I a newbie, that this article was the DEFINITIVE answere to the Google ranking.

Yeah, the "I believe" and "I think" statements are nice, but I BELIEVE this person is still trying to pass this off as absolute fact as opposed to belief--or even a hypothesis ( the definition of hypothesis being a theory based on fact).

deb

[qwerty]

I do note that the last update date of the article is today, so please tell me if there was anything prior that deserves the treatment it appears to have had. Because if there isn't I'd hate to have you judge anything I write.

I took a look at Google's cached copy of the page, which shows a last updated date of 5 August. I didn't see any differences.