106 replies to this topic

[Ron Carnell]

LOL. I'm guessing, Peter, that your background isn't in a mathematical field? The United States produced on the order of 28 billion coins last year, each with a heads and a tails side. When you flip a coin, however, you generally don't bother to calculate 56 billion factors.

Interesting though is that you agree with that in order to get high rankings for a very competitive phrase (I mean a phrase with a high popularity) you would need a high PR. This has been categorically denied by most others.

The word "need" implies a cause and effect that doesn't exist. What I agreed with, Peter, is that if you have high rankings for a competitive phrase there is a statistical probability you will also have a high PR. If you are color blind, there is a statistical probability you are male. If you are retired, there is a statistical probability you won't grow any taller. The list of correlated effects in this world is nearly endless and, in isolation, meaningless. At best, they might tell us where to place out bets. But they can't accurately predict what will happen next. They can't, because effect correlations don't tell us WHY something happens.

There *are* fields, such as particle physics, where statistical analysis plays an important role in making predictions. The weather, generally, isn't one of those fields, however, as predictions are still based on cause and effect. Tell someone in Kansas their home will be hit by a tornado next Thursday because, statistically, a lot of tornado occur on that date and they'll either laugh at you or (knowing those mid-Westerners) introduce you to a load of buckshot. The only time weather prediction even marginally enter the realm of chaos theory is when they are long-term, when the causes are in as much question as the effects. And I think we all know how useful *those* forecasts are.

SEO has absolutely nothing to do with chaos theory. No algorithm invented by man, not even a man with a PhD or two, will ever be described chaotically. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that computer chaos is an oxymoron.

I commend your willingness to approach SEO scientifically, Peter, but would remind you that real scientists are as careful when publishing their results as ever they were in testing the results. No scientist, for example, would ever state you "need" to be male in order to be color blind, because that relationship just isn't true.

Which is pretty much what everyone here has been trying to tell you.

[Craig B]

ok guys... thanks for answering my question!

[glengara]

Having read through this, the main disagreement seems to come from Peter's use of "PR" instead of the more comprehensive "link pop score" or whatever.

Have to admit, it's such a handy term, I've probably also started to use "PR" in the wider sense... :-(

[Peter]

Well,. then we all just keep spreading the illusion that a web page targeting a keyword phrase with a popularity of 5000 searches per day can rank in the top10 with 3 backlinks and a PR of 2.

If you all want to believe that, then so be it. Though I can't understand how you can ignore the fact that the majority (close to 100%) of the first page SERPs for very competitive phrases (I mean phrases with a high Popularity) do not contain low PR pages.

Scientific research?.. all I ever said was that I did research. That scientific part was added by somebody, though I never stated I did scientific research.

SEO has absolutely nothing to do with chaos theory.

I agree 100%. I never said that SEO has anything to do with chaos theory. What I said was that the behaviour of the SERPs can be described by chaos theory. You can predict what a SERP looks like in the short term, but in the long term you can not. You know,.. Just like the weather.

When flipping a coin you use chance (not chaos) to predict the outcome, which can be either heads or tales. The posible outcomes are known upfront. The possibile outcomes for a SERP are limitless and unknown upfront. (unless you want to claim that you know all webpages, including new webpages that haven't been made yet)

ok guys... thanks for answering my question! 

That´s ok Craig,.. These are just fun and lively discussions.

Regards,

Peter

[Jill]

Well,. then we all just keep spreading the illusion that a web page targeting a keyword phrase with a popularity of 5000 searches per day can rank in the top10 with 3 backlinks and a PR of 2

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. First off, nobody is saying anything like that here. That's the main point I need to make.

The other, and this has to do with the mixing up of cause and effect again, but what does the number of searches per day that a keyword phrase have, have to do with its competitiveness in the SERP?

Yes, it's true that generally a phrase with 5000 searches a day will most likely be targeted by SEOs and Webmasters, but it doesn't have to be true. Of course, this is a whole 'nother thread now, but I think this is the type of disagreement that many of us are having with you, Peter.

We all pretty much agree on the true facts, what we disagree on is the way you state them. And perhaps that is a language thing, I don't know. But the thing is, if you state something that is not the right cause and effect, then many of us here will feel the need to correct it.

Once again I will state in case anyone things otherwise...

PageRank is not the measurement one should look at or attempt to increase in order to get high rankings in Google. You can if you want, but you'd be smarter to be looking at more important metrics.

Jill

[Peter]

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. First off, nobody is saying anything like that here. That's the main point I need to make.

Well Jill, I am sorry about that, but that is what has been happening to me all the time. Just read back and find how many times I said that I didn't say something.

But lets get back to basics. The arguement is about if something is 100% true or not. Since what I say is not true in 100% of the cases it is assumed that what I say is wrong.

That´s ok. I have no problem with that. Though I think it is funny. It´s like saying that even though the weather man said that tomorrow the sun will shine, you´re making a huge problem out of somebody saying that tomorrow he will go to the beach because the sun will shine. He shouldn't go to the beach because the weather man can not say with 100% accuracy that the sun will actually shine tomorrow.

I do again appologize for the confusion between competitivity and popularity. Lets be clear, I am talking about the number of searches per day as given by word tracker.

PageRank is not the measurement one should look at or attempt to increase in order to get high rankings in Google. You can if you want, but you'd be smarter to be looking at more important metrics.

Don't you think it is smart to look at all metrics instead of just some? Why would you ignore some of them?

Pagerank is not the most important part of the algorithm, I agree with that 100%. In my opinion there is not a single factor in the algorithms that is the most important. What is most important is to create a combination of all factors that together focus on 1 or a few keyword phrases. Pagerank is just one of those factors.

I still say: If your Toolbar PageRank score is low and you want to rank high for a phrase with a high popularity, you need to work on backlinks. If this work results in a higher PR your chances to get in the top10 are better. If the linkbuilding work results in more links, but not in a high enough PR, you pretty much have no chance on that high rank.

Also, I would like to say that I am not against anybody here. I wouldn't be in this forum if I didn't believe it was a good forum. Discussions and the things we learn from it are the purpose of forums like the highranking forum I believe. Even though we don't agree with each other, we can still benefit from each others opinions. I hope that this goal is also reached in this thread. From my point of view it certainly has.

Regards,

Peter

[Jill]

I do again appologize for the confusion between competitivity and popularity. Lets be clear, I am talking about the number of searches per day as given by word tracker.

Yes, I know that's what you're talking about. And the number of searches a phrase has doesn't have anything to do with it's competitiveness. Indirectly it causes people to optimize for it, but a high number of searches on a phrase doesn't necessarily mean it's competitive.

I still say: If your Toolbar PageRank score is low and you want to rank high for a phrase with a high popularity, you need to work on backlinks. If this work results in a higher PR your chances to get in the top10 are better. If the linkbuilding work results in more links, but not in a high enough PR, you pretty much have no chance on that high rank.

See, and this is where I completely disagree with you.

You need to work on your backlinks -- yes. But NOT to increase your PR which plays no part (or a very, very tiny part) in your rankings.

[Peter]

See, and this is where I completely disagree with you.

No Problem Jill, You´re still one of my favorite SEO colleagues.

Peter

[Randy]

And the funniest part of the whole discussion is that PR is becoming more and more of a non-factor every day! No matter what Google decides to do with it.

That's assuming they can get Stanford to let them continue using the patent.

Jill has her beef with PR, which frankly I agree with. PR != Link Popularity != Ranking in code-speak.

But my main gripe with all of the focus on PR is that it is a total non-factor where Yahoo!, MSN, Teoma, etc are concerned. They could care less what your perceived Google PR is. They each have --or in the case of the new MSN search that will soon debut-- their own way of measuring link popularity which has little or nothing to do with how Google measures it.

Those that want to concentrate totally on PR (and for the record I know from previous posts that you're not one of those Peter) and who happen to be a competitor are doing me a huge favor and I thank them! They'll keep on doing something close to the sales they've been doing since Yahoo! switched over several months ago, never realizing that they're missing the boat, and I'll continue to get the advantage of speaking to ALL of my potential customers instead of just the relatively small percentage Google can deliver.

When viewed in the grand scheme of things, as a webmaster, site owner and eMarketer, I sincerely hope that all of my competitors buy into the PR is Everything mantra.

It makes my job much easier.

[Peter]

But my main gripe with all of the focus on PR is that it is a total non-factor where Yahoo!, MSN, Teoma, etc are concerned.

That is true, I think,.. (I´m going to research that as well with Yahoo, just for the fun of it,. ) There is however a very specific reason for them not using links as the main factor for ranking and that is that their index is too small and in unballance due to paid inclusion. Google's index doesn't have that problem and is the most complete index (that does not mean it is complete, but it is more complete than the others).

I think that Google will always be using PageRank. It actually gives very strong indications to the popularity of a page. Their main concern is detecting the abuse of it, or better even, new algorithms that automatically reduce the posibility of abuse.

And yes indeed, to me SEO is a big picture and includes much more than PageRank. In my opinion the art of SEO is the capability to bring harmony in all factors so that they work together towards the same goal. PageRank is just one of those factors.

Discussions about anchor text, or alt atributes, title atributes, etc. are always calm, but for some strange reason when it is about PageRank, hearts start beating twice as fast, the blood starts flowing faster. There are people that love PageRank and there are people that believe it has no (or very little) value.

Actually I don't love PageRank, but I do believe it has more value than some people believe. After all,.. it is what created Google. (Yes, PageRank is older than Google )

Peter

[spikedo55]

Jeez, this thread is getting long. Quick follow-up question: Ok, I want to swap links among my sites becasue they are complimentary. Do I just swap links on the home page, or on every page? To me, it makes sense to do every page because that would catch more people who might leave the site. I worry that Google would penalize however for this. Thoughts?

[Peter]

Spikedo55,

It is better not to set up a maze of links between your websites like that. It may trigger a red flag at Google. A network of websites like you describe with links on all pages is considered to be an artificial way of increasing PR. Not a good practice and it can get you penalized.

You´re better of linking to pages in your other sites only there where it makes sense, preferably from within the copy.

Regards,

Peter

[OldWelshGuy]

I am with Peter here. I like to see a page on one site linking to another from a different site purely because it is relevant. Often when I request links I say that this page on my site is a spot on match for 'this page' on your site, and this other page on your site is a spot on match for this other page on my site so lets arrange some links and share clients.

Pages linking to other logical pages can do way more good than simply dumping the visitor at the home page of the other site, and expecting them to find the relevant info on the other site. Deep link to where the info is, and get them to do the same back.

[spyder]

Hi everyone,

Peter wrote (way back on Page 3 - sorry!),
<<<<<<<<<<
........ but a simple text link in your copy works very good. (use target="_blank")
<<<<<<<<<<
Could somebody please explain what is the significance of including target="_blank" in the link code?

Thanks.

Edited by spyder, 02 August 2004 - 06:36 PM.

[Randy]

Welcome Spyder !

target="_blank" in the A HREF tag simply opens a new browser window for the linked page to appear in.