65 replies to this topic

[PatrickGer]

What do you meany by ..that Im trying to be way too literal here? no offense taken or anything, Im just not sure if I understand what it means (though I understand the words)? That Im being a bit too 'exacting' I guess?:-)

Im starting to wonder if this whole thread is a bit of a misunderstanding..with the only difference between all of us being that some think the backlinks seen in yahoo are a bit more useful, whereas others think they're a bit less useful...but nobody thinking they're the end all (nor that theyre completely useless)...I guess...

I think you are trying to be way too literal here.

Looking at backlinks in Yahoo (yours and competitors) can tell you some things, give you some ideas, and honestly, make you think a little. It is part of the overall picture. It cannot tell you what links count and don't count with Google.

If you are expecting your backlink research to somehow give you insight to how Google is/should/will be ranking your site, you are going to be confused and frustrated and draw incorrect conclusions

[Michael Martinez]

Ah, I guess, I misunderstood it a bit then...to me it really sounded like you & Michael Martinez pretty much said it was a complete waste of time to look at that data and try to draw conclusions from it to see whats happening in Google.

That's pretty much what I said. You might be able to get something else out of the data, but it won't shed any light for you on what Google knows, cares about, or is doing.

[Scottie]

By literal, I mean that you seem to want to be able to say x causes y or directly relate one thing to something that isn't quite the same thing.

Yahoo or any other link tool cannot tell you what counts or doesn't count in G's algo. It may be helpful to review this data, but you seem to want to think it means something more than it does.

[PatrickGer]

@Scottie: I must say Im truly confused now! :-). I dont think that seeing backlinks in yahoo or majestic will tell me which backlinks *count* in Google. But I believe that it shows me a bunch of the links that Google "knows of".

@Michael Martinez:

That's pretty much what I said. You might be able to get something else out of the data, but it won't shed any light for you on what Google knows, cares about, or is doing.

Good to see that I did not misunderstand you;-).

I believe the statement (in the quote) isnt really right, though, because if yahoo site explorer (yahoo being a directcompetitor) knew of links that Google isnt aware of and idsplays them to the public, then Google would probably just grab those links that yahoo discovered to complete their database of links.

..I really just mean the "know of" part, not the "cares about" or "is doing" part

That being said, I think we might all want to agree to sorta agree and/or disagree on the topic (some people believing it doesnt matter at all, others believing it matters some, others that it matters less but a bit,etc.....must admit I didnt think critically enough about it to begin with thoguh, so I did get something out of this thread)

[Jill]

..I really just mean the "know of" part, not the "cares about" or "is doing" part

Aha! I think I see where all the confusion lies.

I suggest to you that Google "knows of" pretty much ANY and EVERY link to your site that exists. Which is again why I don't see the need for tools.

It's what counts that matters.

[Michael Martinez]

I believe the statement (in the quote) isnt really right, though, because if yahoo site explorer (yahoo being a direct competitor) knew of links that Google isnt aware of and idsplays them to the public, then Google would probably just grab those links that yahoo discovered to complete their database of links.

Yahoo! and Google maintain separate, distinct databases. Neither has any knowledge of what the other has crawled, indexed, or assigned value to.

You can agree or disagree all you wish -- I'm not losing any sleep over this. But you're wasting your time trying to use Yahoo! or some other tool to analyze what Google is doing.

Only Google knows what Google knows; only Yahoo! knows what Yahoo! knows.

Their data sets are far from identical, not close to identical, and never will be.

But even if they did have identical data sets, they don't use the same exact criteria for valuing things.

The truth is that each search engine really does find stuff the other search engines don't know about. In any specific situation that will change over time but at any given moment there is always content in one search engine's database that is not in the others' databases.

Google's algorithm isn't link-centric anyway, so trying analyze what Google does on the basis of links is like trying to play scrabble with 1/10 of the alphabet.

[PatrickGer]

@Jill:

Aha! I think I see where all the confusion lies.

I suggest to you that Google "knows of" pretty much ANY and EVERY link to your site that exists. Which is again why I don't see the need for tools.

I think I brought that point up somewhere in this thread..wondering if that's why I was confused (if the point of the discussion had suddenly turned from "knows of" to "which links count"..or something like that). But it seemed like that wasn't really the case - interesting to see that you and Michael don't seem to have the same opinion when it comes to search engine's databases, if I understand it correctly (you believing what I believe that Google knows ofp retty much any link that points to your website).

@Michael:

I find your point about Google's algorithm not being link-centric interesting...checking out your [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499]Seo Myths[/url] section (if youre playing the contrarian angle its working on me )

[chrishirst]

I find your point about Google's algorithm not being link-centric interesting..

Actually Google's algo is NOT "link-centric" at all


it is the ANCHOR TEXT of the links that Google applies as weight to a page for the keyword/keyphrase contained in the anchor text.

[PatrickGer]

Actually Google's algo is NOT "link-centric" at all
it is the ANCHOR TEXT of the links that Google applies as weight to a page for the keyword/keyphrase contained in the anchor text.

What about the theory that a site with massive link authority to the overall domain has a much easier time ranking subpages (on the same domain), because Google 'trusts' that domain/website more?

I cannot prove the latter, but can you prove it wrong if you say it's all about the anchor text?

[Jill]

What about the theory that a site with massive link authority to the overall domain has a much easier time ranking subpages (on the same domain), because Google 'trusts' that domain/website more?

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that overall domain authority and being able to rank for whatever you want is as true as it once was.

[PatrickGer]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that overall domain authority and being able to rank for whatever you want is as true as it once was.

interesting - it not being as true as it once was probably means that it's not as extreme as it used to be (ranking for whatever you want as you put it), but that google still takes overall site authority of the website that a certain page belongs to into account rather than judging every page as a single entity (not sure if entity is the right expression)?

[qwerty]

From what I've read, the idea (or at least part of it) behind the "MayDay" update was to lessen the contribution of domain authority on giant sites that was helping them rank deep pages that had little or no useful, unique content.

[chrishirst]

I cannot prove the latter, but can you prove it wrong if you say it's all about the anchor text?

Ever heard of "Google Bombing"!?

[Michael Martinez]

....interesting to see that you and Michael don't seem to have the same opinion when it comes to search engine's databases, if I understand it correctly (you believing what I believe that Google knows ofp retty much any link that points to your website).

Think of Jill's points addressing the big picture and my points as digging into some of the finer details. We share many similar preferences in SEO, such as focusing on fundamentals rather than algorithmic details.

@Michael:

I find your point about Google's algorithm not being link-centric interesting...checking out your [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499]Seo Myths[/url] section (if youre playing the contrarian angle its working on me )

SEOs are obsessed with links. Search engines are not.

[PatrickGer]

@Michael Martinez:

I really do find your points about SEOs being way too obsessed with links and yahoo site explorer being useless for understanding what Google knows of/what google is doing very interesting.

Soemone I know once told me there are people with whose views he doesn't always agree with but that he does listen to them because they bring up interesting points..I must say you havent fully convinced me, but it has definitely made em think (and will probably continue to do so, maybe ill even fully agree one day).

I read your blog a bit yesterday and am wondering, now - when you say SEOs are (way) too obsessed with links, do you mean that they
a) are too obsessed with the importance of links when it comes to ranking for a certain (competitive) keyword
..or ..
b ) are too obsessed with it in general, because doing other things such as
- going after the long tail of search (by creating more content)
- watching trends to identify new queries for which you can create content to fill that need before anyone else does (which will automatically lead to links b/c of the queries --> content --> links cycle you mention) is just as good of a way to generate traffic & sales (as focussing on a limited set of keywords and doing nothing but building links to rank better for those)?

I had the impression it was b )...did I understand your points somewhat right? (just curious)

@chrishirst:

Yes, Ive heard of Google Bombing, but admittedly am not up to date when it comes to this. What I know is that pointing lots of anchor text links (from diff. websites) to a page can help that page rank for that term (the miserable failure / george bush example is the only one I know of admittedly). I have no idea, if nowadays the keyword has to be on the page so this works (I think Ive heard that, but then also heard that it still worked without it).

But my limited knowledge doesnt suggest that google's algorithm in general is all about anchor text...I'm sure I could find you a web page that ranks #1 without having any anchor text links to its page (okay I'm not really sure, but think Ive seen this in the past).

Are there any cases of google bombing where a web page was able to rank #1 for a highly competitive term where other websites with a few less anchor text links, but on a highly authoritative domain weren't able to outrank it? In that case I'd consider it strong evidence, but my (limited) knowledge of google bombing doesnt really suggest that google's algo in general is all about anchor text links.