Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

SEORank article From Webmaster World

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]
  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #584737
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Here is a good article on Google:

    “SEORank article From Webmaster World”

    I’ll try to break it down into plain English,as best as I understand it.

    Remember I am a full time businessman and only a part time geek so I
    look to others for confirmation and possible furtther clarification of
    my Geek to English translation :)

    In the SEORank article 2 hypothesis are put forward.

    The old (pre Florida) G Ranking algo and the new (Post Forida) G ranking
    algo.

    The new is closely related to the old so I will detail the old first.

    Old Google Ranking Formula = {(1-d)+a (RS)} * {(1-e)+b (PR * fb)}

    There are damping factors in place but what the size of those factors
    are we don’t know so I haven’t included them in my plaimn English
    example, just leaving factors we can work with and can deliver and/or
    register.

    In plain English this means the Old Algo would be:

    RS (PR* PRLS)

    Where:
    RS = Relevance Score which is the relevancy of the page itself.
    PR = PageRank which is the Toolbar PageRank (as we can’t measure the
    REAL PR)
    and PRLS = PR Logarithmic Scale which is mentioned in the article as
    probably close to 8. (Though I personally believe that it is slightly
    lower.)

    In essence this means that making your page more relevant to search
    engines had a massive effect on your overall ranking when combined with
    PR accumulation.

    This was witnessed by many many people and an increase in (Almost all)
    inward links would mean that your page would rank well for the relevant
    keywords on the page as well as unrelated terms on the page.

    Once ineard links had come to a page this would increase PR which could
    be passed to other pages on site or run by the company which in turn
    meant that all pages SEO’s by the same company had the potential to all
    be high ranking.

    The upside for SEOers was that by delivering relevant content and
    ensuring PR increased they were pretty much guaranteed an increase in
    their SERP positions.

    The massive downside for Google (and probably searchers in general) was
    that onpage content and off page linking was relatively simple to fake
    and control and SEOers took advantage of this through linking campaigns
    (to increase PR) and tactics such as cloaking to gain high on page
    Relevancy scores.

    G (and many others) were aware of this and so it has been put forward by
    SEORank that the post Florida algo changes have incorporated a new
    factor, which is the Local Score

    New Google Ranking Formula = {(1-d)+a (RS)} * {(1-e)+b (PR * fb)} *
    {(1-f)+c (LS)}

    Like the old algo there are damping factors in place and again what we
    don’t know what they are so once again I haven’t included them in my
    plain English example, just leaving factors we can work with and can
    deliver and/or register.

    The Hilltop algo adds to the old Algo by giving a further multiplier,
    the LocalScore Rank (LS)

    LocalScore builds upon PageRank by building a score for a page based
    upon the inward links to a page that come from “on topic” “authority
    sites”

    I won’t go into details about how LS and Hilltop works (as there are far
    better resources out there at explaining it than I can muster) but in
    essence it means that LS has a massive effect on the previously SEO’d
    pages for Searched phrases that have marked as needing to be more
    relevant and therefore having the LS score applied.

    I say the “searched phrases that have been marked as needing to be more
    relevant” as it has been put forward that LocalScore only comes into
    play for a subset of searched terms. This is because of the massive
    computational overheads of working out a LS for a page and the
    impossibility (with G’s current architecture) to compute the LS on the
    fly for a search phrase.

    This makes sense as post Florida there were many phrases there seemeed
    to be heavily effected with little change in other phrases.

    Scroogle.org kept a list of the phrases they saw differences in and that
    info is still available at
    their archived site under hitlist.html

    It may or may not still be relevant today.

    In plain English the new algo is:

    RS(LS (PR* PRLS))

    Relevance Score multipled by Local Score multiplied by Real Page Rank.

    If this is the case then all onpage SEO factors will have a much smaller
    effect on overall SERP positions than prior to Florida.

    The way forward for SEOing has now become MUCH harder though there is
    still hope for an SEOer (white or black hat) it is just that the game
    rules have changed!

    I still believe it is good common sense ensure onpage relevancy with
    great content.

    Further PageRank is still extremely important and all your linking
    campaigns should continue, though it should be noted that types of links
    should be different from before.

    Look at links coming from commercially unrelated sites, (links from
    abcd.co.uk to abcd.com will help with PR but not with LS) links coming
    from distinctly different IP ranges (Get links from servers in different
    data centres) and the most important extra work is…..

    … a huge extra element of research time and effort should go in place,
    that being to find out who the authority sites are for your widget
    subject and get linked to by them.

    This can be accomplished by manually undertaking the same process that
    Hilltop does but for your specific widget area.

    Look at the top results for your widget phrases, your widget sub
    phrases, and (lets say..) 2 levels removed in the keyword pyramid and
    see who links to these pages.

    There will become a natural set of authority sites that are obviously
    important for a widget phrase and THIS is where your extra effects
    should go in building links and relationships with.

    But before you do any of the above I just want to refer to Brett’s
    excellent article on building for “15k per day in a year”

    If your content isn’t relevant then it isn’t gonna work and IMHO Brett’s
    advice is more important today than ever before!

    Hopefully I haven’t gotten too geeky and simplified the real world
    effects of Hilltop and Local Score, if indeed it is the new algo in
    place at G!? :)

    Regards everyone and good luck

    #645613
    vladcizsol
    Member

    Nice find Dennis!
    :thumbsup:

    Thanks
    :bigsmile:

    #645650
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Google is still blind as a bat.

    http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:fA0EmZgX3T0J:http://www.gambling.nm.ru/+online+gambling&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    This is Google’s cache of a site ranked #20 for “online gambling”. Look very closely at the bottom of the page, you will see all sorts of highlighted stuff in a font about 1 pixel in height LOL.

    Unbelievable.

    #645657
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Another very interesting point which shows that the two engines have a completely different idea of “relevance”.

    None – I repeat NONE – of Google’s top 12 for “online gambling” appear anywhere in the top 100 of Yahoo.

    And only 5 of Yahoo’s top 10 appear in Google’s top 100.

    It’s even worse when you search for “online casino”.

    Only 12 sites show up in both indexes. In Yahoo they are all top 50. Google’s top 6 are not represented in the Yahoo 100, and Yahoo’s top 2 are not represented in the Google 100.

    Summary – you probably won’t be able to build one page to work in both indexes – and if you do, it’s probably better optimized for Yahoo and only in Google because of off-page factors such as pagerank or inbound links.

    #645663
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hey Spear
    Yahoo is now a paid inclusion program using Inktomi results until the middle of next month
    http://www.positiontech.com/
    We won’t know how the real Yahoo results will turn out yet.

    Brad

    #645665
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yup, saw that… I used to do PFI with PT as well.

    Now I want to upgrade to trusted feed… and they want $1 PER CLICK for gambling sites.

    I don’t think so. That’s likely to be around $8-10K per month… minimum, that is. I don’t make that kind of moolah yet and I am certainly not about to risk it just yet.

    #645668
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The fact that the search results for top ranks in yahoo are different than in google represents the search analysis engines interpretation of relevance. Their algorithms are distinctly different in the way sites are cached and some of the factors that yahoo implements for search relevancy are not even taken into consideration by a google spyder. Which is way it is best for those that want favorable ranking in both yahoo and google to edit their page for that particular search engine. Do a top 10 search on yahoo see the results tweak your page to represent what those people are doing to be top 10 in yahoo and submit once you have made the proper changes then do the same thing for google and perform a seperate submission keep a mirror of both of the pages for future submissions. This is all explained in one of my ebooks and will be available as soon as the new Casino Hideout website is released. Expect the release to be within 4 days! I’d appreciate feedback from everybody once it is posted. Cheers!

    #645669
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Thanks for the input Ace
    May I add this will not work until the middle of next month

    So don’t go trying this now

    Yahoo will have their own algo soon
    Right now they are trying to get away from Google results by using Inktomi

    Brad

    #822716
    serj11
    Member

    That article that was posted nearly a decade ago wasn’t from SEORank but written me

    (I am primarily adding this so the records reflect it – thanks )

    #822737
    bosshoggs
    Member

    @JasonD 237608 wrote:

    That article that was posted nearly a decade ago wasn’t from SEORank but written me

    (I am primarily adding this so the records reflect it – thanks )

    Thanks for the update, Jason ;)

    #822740
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @JillO 237634 wrote:

    Thanks for the update, Jason ;)

    Are you actually saying that someone knows what the heck he’s talking about.

    Just call me cracker face from chesseheadland.

    :D

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)