Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Truth, Lies, And Search Engines


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
50 replies to this topic

#46 lots0

lots0

    HR 3

  • Active Members.
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 11 October 2003 - 03:10 PM

Google has seemed to, for a long time, ordered backwards link searches by order of importance. There was a period where they did not, but now again it appears that they are.


I have to completely disagree with the above statement by ChrisB.

Chris while I agree with your findings (I hope I have this correct) That Meta description tags and Meta Keyword tags carry very little or no weight in the ranking algorithm. I do not agree that your so called "controlled tests" in any way proved this.

Just for the sake of argument, why did you include text on the page? Why not try this test with only the meta tag data and one link, with no anchor text, from a page that gets refreshed regularly? Would that not show if Google uses meta tag data as one of the factors in ranking?

I guess what I am saying is that you allowed too many variables in your test that may or may not have effected the out come. Why not eliminate the variables that are not required?

Because of some incessant complaints from the peanut gallery I switched all the pages. The previous meta tag pages have had their tags removed and put on the previous non-meta tag pages.


I moved the meta tags all around and ranks did not change.

I know I am just a little peanut, but shouldn't you wait until after google re-figures PageRank and back links before you go jumping to conclusions?

#47 ChrisB

ChrisB

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 11 October 2003 - 09:25 PM

What are you talking about? [Flame edited. Play nicely!]

Just for the sake of argument, why did you include text on the page? Why not try this test with only the meta tag data and one link, with no anchor text, from a page that gets refreshed regularly? Would that not show if Google uses meta tag data as one of the factors in ranking?


I included text on the page because real pages have text. However keyword density was controlled in this controlled experiment. All pages had equal keyword density. Anchor text was also irrelevant since anchor text was both similar and off topic for the target words.

I have a background in science and used to work in a genetic engineering lab so I know how to run a controlled experiment.

I know I am just a little peanut, but shouldn't you wait until after google re-figures PageRank and back links before you go jumping to conclusions?


What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? This wasn't a PageRank test, it was a meta tag test. PageRank is not a page's rank, PageRank is the value of a page's incoming links.

Its odd too... you quoted my line about the order of backwards links, and then proceeded to discuss my meta tag test. The two are completely unrelated.

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Edited by Jill, 12 October 2003 - 10:43 AM.


#48 lots0

lots0

    HR 3

  • Active Members.
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 October 2003 - 02:00 AM

[Flame edited. Play nicely!]


[quote name='"ChrisB"']I included text on the page because real pages have text.[/quote] Were you trying to produce a "real page" or were you testing meta tags? It seems to me you were just adding unneeded variables.

[quote name='"ChrisB"']I have a background in science and used to work in a genetic engineering lab so I know how to run a controlled experiment.[/quote] That is good to know if I ever want a two headed snake or a giant tomato. But what has that to do with the price of tea in China?? In other words, I fail see how that little tid bit of questionable information forwards the discussion.

[quote]Its odd too... you quoted my line about the order of backwards links, and then proceeded to discuss my meta tag test. The two are completely unrelated.[/quote] Hmmm, Well if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, before lashing out, you would understand a little better I think, err well maybe not...

[quote][quote] 

I know I am just a little peanut, but shouldn't you wait until after google re-figures PageRank and back links before you go jumping to conclusions?[/quote]


What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? This wasn't a PageRank test, it was a meta tag test...[/quote]

I thought it was obvious that what I meant was; should you not wait one full cycle before you start jumping to conclusions?

So, if your not willing to wait one full update cycle, you must believe that within just a few days after changing or adding this page all google's ranking calculations are complete??

****

ChrisB, I forgot we had this same discussion in another SEO form, until a friend pointed it out to me, where you lashed out and became very defensive when anyone questioned your methods. I would suggest that if you are going to make your "test" results public and invite public discussion on them, you might want to grow a thicker skin.

Here is a quote from that discussion
[quote name='"Lots0"']I should also like to point out that things are not always what they seem when you are doing SE testing.

I am going to steal the following story from Chris Ridings, I think it makes my point very well.
Quote:
A young school boy was walking home from school when he saw a cat on the wall. Just as he saw it a car drove through a big puddle and he got drenched.

The next day he was walking home from school when he saw the cat again. Just as he saw it a car drove through a big puddle and he got drenched again.

The next day he was walking home from school when he saw the cat again. Just as he saw it a car drove through a big puddle. Drenched, he let out a cry of "Damn cat".[/quote]

Edited by Jill, 12 October 2003 - 10:45 AM.


#49 braindead

braindead

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 October 2003 - 08:30 PM

Chris while I agree with your findings (I hope I have this correct) That Meta description tags and Meta Keyword tags carry very little or no weight in the ranking algorithm. I do not agree that your so called "controlled tests" in any way proved this.



Precisely. We all know that the earth is round, but the fact that Chris Beasley's sock is also round does not conclusively prove that the earth is round.

I find it impossible to reconcile your having a background in science with the statements you make; e.g., "this conclusively proves...".

It doesn't conclusively prove anything.

In another forum, there were some suggestions on how you could go about testing that might result in credible results. Why not follow up on those?

You created some mostly indentical pages. Google indexed them, and the page with meta description was ranked first. How in the world is this construed to be "conclusive proof" of Google not using meta description tags?

So you changed out the meta description tags, and immediately claimed that this proved your theory. It all goes back to the question of scientific standards. Yours seem a bit lower than most people.

Here's a suggestion:

Create 2 pages about a dog named Takeshi.
Create 2 pages about a dog named Suzume.
Create 2 pages about a dog named Natsumi.
Create 2 pages about a dog named Ahotare.
Create 2 pages about a dog named Shinebaka.

In each set, include one page which includes the keyword in the meta description. In the other, include a non-specific keyword in the meta description.

It's simple! And all you need is for a couple pages w/o the keyword in the meta description to outrank the pages with the keyword in the meta description. It may not be "conclusive proof", but it would be a lot closer to the ballpark than where you are playing now.

#50 ChrisB

ChrisB

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 14 October 2003 - 09:51 AM

[Edit. Play nicely. - Jill]

You say:

Precisely. We all know that the earth is round, but the fact that Chris Beasley's sock is also round does not conclusively prove that the earth is round.


And that thing about the cat and a car (which I don't remember so perhaps that was a dicussion with someone else).

In anycase your comments are pointless and not at all related to the discussion. How does your little sock analogy relate to anything? You're just trying to paint me in a light that makes you seem right.

In fact that cat one applies more to John here.

John saw that the two top ranked pages out of 10 had meta tags and used that to claim that meta tags helped. He is the one who witnessed a coincidence and drew a conclusion from it. My conclusions were drawn from the whole sample size of 10.

The addition or removal of variables is exactly what you're supposed to do in order to determine what affect they have. If you're running an experiment and want to know if the heat in the room is affecting your results, move to a different room that is cooler and see what happens.

I had 10 pages, they were ranked, I removed meta tags from some of them and added them to the others, their rankings did not change. Adding meta tags to pages that did not have, or removing them from pages that did have them, caused no changes in ranking.

How is that test invalid? Hmm? You're so concerned with trying to prove me wrong in order to save face that you've thrown all logic out the window. I could walk out and say "Look, the sky is blue" and you'd say "Ha, that proves nothing, it could be red."

I grow tired of endlessly educating you. [Edit. Play nicely. - Jill]
You started out claiming that meta tags (specifically the description one) helped with Google. Obviously my experiments must have meant something to you because now, while you attack the experiments, you've changed your tune and say that they probably don't help. Your intense dislike for me is not because you think my methods are poor, but because I forced you to contradict yourself, I proved you wrong, and you can't stand that.

should you not wait one full cycle before you start jumping to conclusions?


I have. Google has updated many times since I first started this test, and atleast once since I made the meta tag switch. Google's cache is now reflecting the new pages.

You know what guys? You can hate my experiments all you want -- do your own. The fact is you now say the same things I do, that meta tags don't help. You've changed your tune, I have not. Our advice is now the same. Its really just a waste of my energy to respond to you any longer.

Edited by Jill, 14 October 2003 - 10:03 AM.


#51 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,929 posts

Posted 14 October 2003 - 10:04 AM

And with that, I think all has been said that can be said so I'll close this thread.

If anyone feels the need to truly respond without flaming, I'll open back up. Just PM me.

Jill




SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!