110 replies to this topic

[Randy]

Welcome Dodito, Sim and all others who have jumped in. Good points made by all.

Edward, let me ask you a question that may help to illustrate the point I was trying to make a couple of pages back.

Would you rather have a link from Adobe's download page for Acrobat Reader that has ranked #1 for years now for the term Click Here based solely upon all of the links pointing to the page with this anchor text;

Or would you rather have a link from any .edu, .gov, .mil page that is buried several levels deep from root?

(The answer of course is both, but that's too easy. )

Any day I'd take the Adobe/Acrobat page link over any .edu sub-page. And not just because it gets more traffic. But because it's very well linked and is obviously a Trusted link. The same simply cannnot be said for any page on every .edu site. Some are trusted and some are not quite so trusted, just like with any other tld.

Here's one for ya if you want to test your theory about .edu TLDs getting an automatic override in Trust factor. Wrangle some way to get yourself one of these trusted tlds, then use every black hat technique you can find on the domain or somewhere on the domain. Something you know they're catching automatically already, like maybe the stuff that TP sites got busted for.

Watch it for a year or so to see if the domain or your sub-folder gets banned. If the domains are automatically whitelisted there should be no easy-to-see negative effect.

[sim]

Here's one for ya if you want to test your theory about .edu TLDs getting an automatic override in Trust factor.

.edu.au TLDs certainly don't have an automatic whitelist applied to them when it comes to email from that domain, so I'd be surprised if they did for websites, for the same reason. It is possible to host spammy content on a University website.

Our central University mail server gets blacklisted from time to time when insecure hosts on our network get hijacked and used to send out tons of spam. It's happened about twice in the past year.

So if email from .edu.au is not trusted more than email from any other domain I fail to see why likewise content on a .edu.au is definitely going to be considered more trusted than a different domain. The same no doubt goes for a .edu, but I'm speaking from my personal experience.

Universities and colleges are enormous entities. Likewise, their websites are often enormous. And in general, only a portion of the site (the top level(s)) are maintained centrally by professionals; faculty, school, centre, research group etc sites are usually left to each individual entity to maintain themselves, with varying results. With a CMS, at least they have a consistent look, more or less, but the quality and trustworthiness of the content...? Having actually looked in great detail at web pages from many Universities, including my own, I can confidently say that the information on a .edu site is no more up to date, correct, useful, or authoritative than any other type of site. Is the information therefore more trusted? I hope not!

[pageoneresults]

To say that an algorithm that maps all the links on the web would use a TLD ahead of the brazillians of links it knows about seems to me to be, well, a flawed argument.

I didn't say that. And, I don't think I ever implied that either.

Now, if anyone finds any evidence, please let me know, because I am willing to listen.

If anyone finds any evidence of anything, please do let us know.

Edited by pageoneresults, 20 April 2006 - 08:52 AM.

[Ron Carnell]

Hey, Edward, haven't seen much of you since the old SEF days.

Just take a look at the latest restrictions on the .edu TLD. It becomes more trusted each time they tighten their guidelines.

No, it just becomes more restrictive. That only equates to trust if you happen to trust the restrictions.

It's not easy to get into Harvard either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily trust all the undergrads with my daughter. From what the SE reps have said on numerous occasions, they apparently don't trust that the restrictions placed on TLDs will always result in quality, and just as I'll judge young men completely irrespective of their alma mater, current algorithms pay absolutely no attention to the TLD. None. Nada. Zip.

And I think you can really trust me on this one, Edward. Why? Because my wife was VERY restrictive ...

[projectphp]

I didn't say that. And, I don't think I ever implied that either.

Then Edward, what are you saying? Perhaps, as Dylan said,

We always did feel the same,
We just saw it from a different point of view,
Tangled up in blue.

Ok, well not the "Tangled up in Blue" bit, but the other bit. Perhaps we all actually agree on this, and the argument is truly over semantics, as in "we all missed the meaning". Otherwise, I don't now what your position is, cepting it disagrees with me somehow, and even that I aint real sure 'bout!

Matt's comments are evidence against such special boosts. You just arbitrarily dismissed them.

Ah Mr Martinez, how quickly we change sides, that you are now a cuttlet and subscribe to the Gospel according to Cutts!

http://dictionary.re...?q=arbitrarily:

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Chance? Nope, I didn't roll a dice on this one!
Whim? Hardly.
Impulse? I haven't had one of those in years.

To imply I disregard Matt Cutts statements on some sort of unfounded whim is untrue. I disregard 99% of what he says that isn't directly related to swordplay

Seriously, since when is what a vested interest says "evidence" of anything? It is evidence Matt Cutts said something, to be sure to be sure to be sure, but ascribing anything beyond that is down purely to personal preference.

Me, myself and this fella here, we all tend to take the view that Matt Cutts is a super duper nice guy, a real top fellow doing some good gear vis 'a vi Google webmaster relations, but he is not really the person we collectively look to for definitive answers, kinda like how we don't ask the taxman for advice on avoiding tax.

But you know, each to his, her or its own

[pageoneresults]

Then Edward, what are you saying?

The same thing I said when I first replied to this topic and then a select few jumped in to contradict that. I surely didn't think this would drag out this long. This was my initial response which I still stand with...

If someone gave me the choice of having a .com, .edu or .gov inbound link and all things were equal, I'd take the .edu and .gov over the .com anyday. From my understanding, they do have a different value in the overall scheme of things. They are trusted TLDs and not everyone can get one like the .com, .net, .org TLDs. A link from a .edu or .gov site is going to have more weight than one from a .com site in general. Now, if the .com is an authority site, then things get a little tricky in determining which would be better. But don't worry about it. If you can get legitimate .edu and .gov links, definitely get them.

After that point, the topic took off in many different directions and most everyone was digging up things to contradict my reply. That's fine. You know why? Because it forces people to do their homework before they come out and say yes or no to something without some explanation. And you know what, some of you may have contradicted yourselves and indirectly provided support for what I'm saying.

http://www.highranki...ndpost&p=197303

Because I have real world experience with these issues, I tend to think otherwise. I may not have the dataset to provide evidence on anything but, I do have the experience which shows me otherwise. And, until I see something (from my end) that leads me to think otherwise, I shall stand with my original statement.

[Flame deleted]

Edited by Jill, 21 April 2006 - 09:52 PM.

[pageoneresults]

But Edward, why does an SE need the TLD to decide something is trusted? What makes you think that the TLD matters more than anything else, or even at all?

I never said that the TLD matters more than anything else. Please stop putting a spin on my comments.

There is not any evidence that a link from crap-y-u is any better than a link from a page with a similar pagerank et al on another TLD. None whatsoever.

Oh, I might disagree in your particular example. You said crap-y-u. That sheds a completely different light on the subject.

To say that an algorithm that maps all the links on the web would use a TLD ahead of the brazillians of links it knows about seems to me to be, well, a flawed argument.

I'll reiterate again for those following along and who may have skimmed over the responses. I never once said what you are implying, not once.

Put practically, a link from that great bastion of fit news printers, The New York Times, is a better link than one from the vast majority of edu sites, because TLD isn't the only or most important factor.

Again, you are spinning this into something that I never implied. I never, ever said it was the only or most important factor, not once.

IMHO, the importance of most specific TLD sites can be explained without assumming it is the TLD that does anything at all.

That's an oxymoron.

But as I said, there is no evidence that Google do or do not give certain TLDs a helping hand, and lack of evidence should mean that the least complicated idea (TLD doesn't matter) wins, but that we keep an open mind because you never know!

There ya go, you never know until you've had experience working within that environment.

[snip unnecessary comment.]

Edited by Jill, 21 April 2006 - 09:52 PM.

[Michael Martinez]

Ah Mr Martinez, how quickly we change sides, that you are now a cuttlet and subscribe to teh Gospel according to Cutts!

Hm. Let me see.

Take the word of a search engineer who works for Google who has never been caught in a lie with respect to the SEO community, or take the guesses of SEOs who have no inside knowledge (or none they are willing/able to share) of what is going on at Google.

That's a tough choice, but I'm going to go with the only credible source of information on this subject: that's Matt.

Ain't no one shown him to be wrong yet. But I'm always willing to consider any actual evidence that comes to light.

[pageoneresults]

Take the word of a search engineer who works for Google who has never been caught in a lie with respect to the SEO community.

Do you actually think that Matt Cutts is going to expose the intricacies of their algo? I don't think so. What Matt says is all basic information that can be supported by a variety of authoritative resources online along with their own quality guidelines.

Or take the guesses of SEOs who have no inside knowledge (or none they are willing/able to share) of what is going on at Google.

I doubt there are many who have inside knowledge as to what is going on at Google in regards to their algo. Those who have read the patents and other technical documents published by Google have a deeper understanding of how things work. They then take that knowledge and incorporate it into their own knowledge-set knowing that certain things work and certain things don't and there is documentation to support most, if not all of it.

That's a tough choice, but I'm going to go with the only credible source of information on this subject: that's Matt.

We're you one of the guys I saw following in Matt's shadow at the last PubCon in Las Vegas? He's like the Mother Duck and when you see him, there are usually 12-15 little ducklings following along. Man, he get's more fanfare than Elvis probably did. It won't be long before the Paparazzi get involved.

Edited by pageoneresults, 20 April 2006 - 11:44 AM.

[Randy]

Edward, hush with the attempts at personal insults.

You're free to believe whatever you want to.

Those who believe MattC are free to believe what he's said.

Those who have a different experience with .edu's than yours are free to believe whatever they want.

Those who have actually tested the various theories are also free to believe what they see in the test data. Regardless of your or Matt's or anybody else's opinion.

Personally, I'm going with folks who have actually tested it.

[projectphp]

Edward, what are we achieving here? You lost me about three pages ago, and I am just going to bow out. I don't understand, fullstop, what your point is, and it aint getting any clearer, so I am just going to chalk this up to a difference that is unresolvable.

Take the word of a search engineer who works for Google who has never been caught in a lie with respect to the SEO community, or take the guesses of SEOs who have no inside knowledge (or none they are willing/able to share) of what is going on at Google.

Oh, oh oh, pick me, pick me, pick me! I know the fallacy committed here. Really I do, I swear, pick me, my hand is up straightest Teacher Ma'am!!!!!

It's a false dilemna.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma ... involves a situation in which two alternative points of view--often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum--are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered

So, whilst I respect your point of view, the fact remains that there aren't just the two choices you present, but many, many more, including mine which is (tada): none of it is really evidence at all, and I am neither taking Mr Cutts's word nor anyone elses, because, and lets be clear here, no one has provided evidence which was what the question page one asked.

I know it can be hard to accept, especially in a world that rewards careless certainty in the face of extreme doubt, but somethimes, ney, often, the right answer is "who knows", or "there is no reliable evidence".

And there endeth my view. There is no evidence that I find compelling that a link on an edu, mil, gov or another tld is better than any other page of similar strength, fullstop, end of my input.

[Michael Martinez]

Do you actually think that Matt Cutts is going to expose the intricacies of their algo?

He doesn't have to expose anything. All he has to do is be honest and truthful in what he says, and he only said that no such boosts are given.

Until someone can show that Matt is a liar (and no one has even come close to doing so), his word is far more convincing than all the SEO skepticism in the universe.

That is what credibility is all about. Matt isn't engaging in wild, unsubstantiated speculation and attempting to back it up by suggesting that anyone else is being deceptive.

[pageoneresults]

Matt isn't engaging in wild, unsubstantiated speculation and attempting to back it up by suggesting that anyone else is being deceptive.

And neither was I. [flame removed]

P.S. Matt says that paid links don't provide any value. I'm sure there are many who can attest to the exact opposite.

Matt says SEO is not Spam although I've seen many say the exact opposite.

I have respect for Matt and his position with Google, that was never in question and how you ended up turning this around to depict that is beyond me.

Matt is only going to share with you what he can. And, Matt is in a position to not have to engage in speculation. He's going to give you what you can get from their guidelines, nothing more, nothing less. It's a matter of reading between the lines and sometimes Matt will share a little from between the lines. You won't be privy to any secrets and/or any information that is not already public knowledge, you just need to know where to find some of that information.

So, we have two distinct groups. Those who feel one way, and those who feel the other. Oh wait, we have a third group, those who can't decide. This is like a Ping Pong Ball match. Yes. No. Maybe.

If I lost you pages ago, my apologies. I'm sure when I requoted what everyone was saying indirectly that the picture was clear to those who have been following along. This isn't an excuse to now go out and hunt .edu and .gov links, that probably won't happen anyway. So, until you are in the environment where you are receiving a high number of .edu and .gov links, you'll never really know.

Edited by Jill, 23 April 2006 - 09:46 AM.

[projectphp]

Until someone can show that Matt is a liar (and no one has even come close to doing so), his word is far more convincing than all the SEO skepticism in the universe.

Can someone give me an "IMHO", IMHO, Amen brothers and sisters

You need to be careful to premise your position as such, Michael. The desire to make a statement that is absolute is one that everyone should strive not to make, if possible ever.

I fully accept that you take Matt Cutts word, and I agree mostly he says good stuff, but to take his word as gospel is problematic, especially when your caveat is that he is yet to be caught in a lie, as being caught and lying are not one and the same.

Edited by projectphp, 20 April 2006 - 11:40 PM.

[Michael Martinez]

Can someone give me an "IMHO", IMHO, Amen brothers and sisters

You need to be careful to premise your position as such, Michael. The desire to make a statement that is absolute is one that everyone should strive not to make, if possible ever.

I'm not stating an opinion, and I'm not about to let it be characterized as an opinion.

It's a fact that no one has shown Matt to be a liar.

It's also a fact that a fair number of people on SEO forums have implied he is dishonest and misrepresenting facts without offering one shred of evidence to back up such implications.

And every time this subject comes up, people back off and say, "Well, I didn't say he was a liar". No, no one is accusing Matt of lying per se -- people are only implying that he is a liar.

And that's just as bad.

It's also equally misrepresentative for people to say that I "take his word as Gospel". That I don't assume Matt is lying or otherwise deceiving people doesn't mean I feel he is disclosing everything he knows. I have often stated that I don't feel he is and that he is under no obligation to do so.

These misrepresentative comments from you and others are poorly veiled attempts to discredit both what I say and what Matt says without directly challenging the facts with any contrary facts.

The point is, that's just unprofessional and this kind of inveigling should stop. It is apparent to me (and I am sure to many other people) that in many SEO's opinions Matt Cutts is not a reliable source of information.

However, as I have pointed out, he is more reliable than all the SEOs in the SEO community (and that includes me, in case anyone wants to nitpick and imply that I have somehow excluded myself).

Matt is an authority on Google. You and I are not.

Matt is a representative of Google. You and I are not.

Given a choice between what Matt says and what you or I say, I'll take what Matt says any day of the week.

Edited by Michael Martinez, 20 April 2006 - 11:54 PM.