Trustrank = Reverse Pagerank? Options

[Pascal]

Hello,

my first post here i think (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/clapping.gif)


I assume trustrank also has something to do with outgoing links. I'm aware that it is totally different from the PR system.(hopefully it's like i think (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/crossfingers.gif) )

But do i have to look at this system like it is some sort of reverse PR system.
I mean: PR spreads PR with outgoing links so TR spreads TR with incoming links ...

Is this a bit correct?

And if it is correct, does the nofollow tag only influences the PR system and not the TR system?

[Jill]

No, I don't believe that describes trustrank at all. It's my understanding that TrustRank is simply how trustworthy any given page is, based on how trustworthy the sites that link to it are, as well as a few other factors such as the age of the domain, etc.

I'm sure there's more to it than this, however.

[piskie]

For Trust, read credibility.

[jehochman]

If you link to bad sites, your trust rating will probably suffer. I believe Google is on the record saying that. If you host links to sites which you can't vouch for, presumably the nofollow value for the anchor tag's rel attribute would avoid any ding to your trust score.

It seems to be an open question whether linking to good sites can help your rankings. My feeling is that linking to good, relevant sites raises the value of your site, so that's what I do. Your results may vary.

[Pascal]

Thanks for the answers!

I'm not saying that trustrank = outgoing links
but i think it has something to do with it, i believe it's a rank based on several factors and outgoing links is 1 of them.
But that's only an assumption.

In dutch results there's a huge shift going on, is that also with other languages?

[projectphp]

Why speculate on what something that may not exist actually is?

Instead, what you need to do is understand what to do. Really, that hasn't changed: build solid content and get links from well known, reliable sources and link out as appropriate to sites you trust.

[jehochman]

Matt Cutts has explained that Google is now pushing new data daily, instead of every 3-4 weeks.

[redsonia!]

By the way, welcome to the forum, Pascal! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bye1.gif) (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/banana.gif)

[Michael Martinez]

Hello,

my first post here i think (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/clapping.gif)
I assume trustrank also has something to do with outgoing links. I'm aware that it is totally different from the PR system.(hopefully it's like i think (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/crossfingers.gif) )

TrustRank is an imperfect methodology for combatting Web spam that was developed by Jan Pedersen of Yahoo! with Hector Garcia-Molina and Zolt´an Gy¨ongyi of Stanford University. It is not a Google methodology, never was a Google methodology, and probably never will be a Google methodology.

Unfortunately, because Google (for a brief period of time) reportedly had mentioned a proposed trademark of "TrustRank" on their Web site, many people in the SEO community have wrongly identified the TrustRank algorithm with Google. TrustRank is a very rough methodology for assigning PageRank by crawling out from a core group of trusted domains and sub-domains, hopefully ignoring more spam sites. The TrustRank team actually developed a better methodology they called Link Spam Detection Based on Mass Estimation.

Google has openly admitted to using "trust filters" (which is a completely different approach from TrustRank), and the only information Google has disclosed (of which I am aware) with respect to trust is summarized thus:

• They look for large volumes of pages that may be spammy
• They look at the types of pages you link to (probably in terms of "do we trust most of the guys you link to, some of them, or none of them" -- but that is speculative)
• They look at natural linking patterns across the Web (and compare them to the linking footprints of sites that trip filters)
• They subject some sites to human review

But do i have to look at this system like it is some sort of reverse PR system.
I mean: PR spreads PR with outgoing links so TR spreads TR with incoming links ...

In the simplest terms, you are correct. Google calculates (internal, not Toolbar) PageRank on the basis of who links to whom. But first they strip many pages of their ability to confer value (link anchor text and internal PageRank). In essence, they are striving to limit the ability to pass value only to pages they feel can be trusted to pass value.

That in no way means there is any sort of "ranking" system based on trust. Maybe they have one, but they haven't mentioned one. Where Google and trust are concerned, they are just filtering as many untrustworthy links as they can before turning on the PageRank calculations.

The Toolbar PageRank does not in any way indicate which pages are trusted or passing value.

Put another way, Google's trust system could be boiled down to a 2-value "rank" system:

0 - Does not pass value
1 - Does pass value

[projectphp]

The above post may use language that implies more certainty than the poster can possibly have (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Buzzwords like "TrustRank" and even PageRank can sometimes blind people to the game going on. SEs that use links as part of their algo (and all the majors most likely do) want to distinguish between links that fit their paradigm (votes of confidence) and thsoe that do not (paid links, autogenerated links etc etc).

No matter what algorithm they use, the goal will always be the same: increase the power of "good" links, decrease the power of "bad" links.

If one is honest, one knows which links are good and which are crap, and all actions really come down to chasing the good ones more than the bad ones, and understanding that the bad ones, whilst they might help for a while, may not in the longer term.

[Pascal]

Ok! I'm aware Trustrank is invented by Yahoo but like many others i also use this word for the Google system (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

But if i understand it correct there is no advantage in linking (compared to not linking) to trusted sites for yourself?
The PR is still a system where you get the PR and not that you get PR(or another advantage) if you link to trusted sites.

Or your site will be able to gain/give more PR when you are higher in the trusted zone.

I'm very intrested in this new system ...

[Jill]

Or your site will be able to gain/give more PR when you are higher in the trusted zone.

No, PR is PR. You can only give the amount you can give based on the PR formula.

[Michael Martinez]

Ok! I'm aware Trustrank is invented by Yahoo but like many others i also use this word for the Google system (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

But if i understand it correct there is no advantage in linking (compared to not linking) to trusted sites for yourself?
The PR is still a system where you get the PR and not that you get PR(or another advantage) if you link to trusted sites.

Or your site will be able to gain/give more PR when you are higher in the trusted zone.

I'm very intrested in this new system ...

As Mike (projectphp) implied, there is no certainty in algorithm chasing, a practice Jill and her moderators discourage here at HighRankings.

I am indeed an algorithm chaser, so I cannot make 100% certain statements when speculating about an algorithm's makeup. And I've been doing this kind of analysis for almost 8 years.

That said, the power of outbound linkage is poorly understood in today's SEO world (even by algorithm chasers). It is clear, from many technical papers and statements made by search engine employees, that the search engines would like to reward sites that:

• Provide good content
• Link to other pages that provide good content
• Are in turn linked to by pages that provide good content
• Are generally "trusted" by their communities

In this very broad sense, "content" can include links, but it includes everything: text, links, images, embedded objects, etc.

Who you link to can certainly tell a search engine something about whom you're trying to associate with, but it's not the only indicator they use to determine whether your pages are worthwhile.

And "quality" to a search engine means something different from what "quality" usually means to you and me.

In my opinion, if you link to pages you honestly, truly would only recommend to people whose good opinion of you means something to you, you will be doing your visitors and your pages a great favor.

Being selective about whose pages you link to is its own reward, but it may help distinguish your page from many others.

[Pascal]

Actually Jill and HR are right that algoritm chasing isn't good or shouldn't be the thing that keeps SEO people going.

But i always find such discussions intresting when there is something changing. It could help people to better understand why they should follow the advices given before. I think a lot people take quicker notice of advice if they have a good idea why they have to follow the advice.

The latest days it keeps me busy (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

And i think they must have added something that reduces the PR in some cases.
There is the Googlebombing, the PR and the Trust system.
To avoid Googlebombing there must be something that reduces the strenght of the PR. That system is perhaps driven by the trust system which in that case has the ability to reduce the power of the backlinks.
If there wasn't such a system it would be very hard to avoid Googlebombing or it must be done manually which i don't think is the case.

But i'm only assuming this and i could be wrong.

[projectphp]

There are, IMHO, two types of SEO:
1. SEO as marketing tool.
2. SEO as business model.

The former is what this place is about: real businesses looking to market online.

The later is what some businesses totally are: that is, SEO that aims to hit the algo du jour, and make hay whilst the sun is shining, and repeat week after week.

Problem is, the later requires such constant and consistent work that it requires that the SEO also be the business. No one can sell that sort of SEO, and anyone that engages in such SEO is destined to avoid posting in forums because, well, it is their competitive advantage and complete business.

The biggest problem for many businesses that use the later is that the worst thing for many businesses, especially since the advent of Just In Time stocking (i.e. don't hold a lot of stock), is that the cost of fluctating traffic can be worse than lower levels of traffic. That makes this sort of activity only suited to businesses that have unlimitted supply (porn, with the ability to supply virtual products practically unlimitted, gambling and advertising / AdSense sites).

Businesses with a need to manage stock, heck, even people, are in grave danger of folding if their traffic and revenue unexpectedly and randomly spikes and falls.

It may sound wrong, couter-intuitive even, to want less business, but it makes sense if you have to manage stock, pay staff, rent etc etc, all of which require planning and predictable cashflow. SEO, as a big crap shoot, is very difficult to use as an indicator, and the damage from rankings can casue many businesses to suffer

There is nothing wrong with "Algo chasing", as long as you aren't a business with limitted supply, and there are plenty of ways to go about such a strategy. Thing is, most businesses don't belong in such a category, and need to realise the costs of such an approach.