[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

You said that I said "if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs at least for their title terms" and I ask you for where I said that you and produce "a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title". Give me a break with you. There is no similarity in those two sentences at all...
... I stated that a valid way to check if a site has authority is to see if it has rankings for the titles of it pages...

So, just to be clear, you are now stating in no uncertain terms that a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a lack of authority, correct...? If it does rank, it is an authority, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't mean anything?

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>Well, afaik you are in fact defending Rand and his methodologies in this thread

I was agreeing with the principle that Rand was using as it is a true principle.

See, Bob, the principle Rand used was that the site was not an authority based on the lack of rankings for the title terms (despite the fact that he was, in fact, wrong about the rankings themselves).

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>So, Bob, if you could please...

I have stayed away from making judgements on the Aviva directory other than to say that I recommend it and submit my clients to it

So you do agree that Rand was completely wrong to lump Aviva in with the lot of worthless directories (of which, btw, I do agree there are many, jut so others know) out there then, correct? Without getting into a point by point debate, you do recommend it?

Originally Posted by bobmutch

<<<I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is.

>>>why don't you please show us how those values significantly differ from the stats I posted, and prove that the statement I made about which keyphrase was more competitive was actually incorrect, instead of just saying "Well, that method isn't the best".

I don't think these things can be proven.

You don't think WHAT things can be proven, Bob? I didn't ask you to show better methods for determining competitiveness, I stated that instead of merely calling my methods "not the best way", you show how my quickie evaluation lead to incorrect data, how those phrases were in fact not competitive. I was banking on the fact that you could do a more thorough eval and come to the same conclusions I did.

Originally Posted by bobmutch

I am going to be very frank here Manish. You are as blind as mvandemar. There is no simularity in your statement that you atributed to me...

Bob, if your grammar weren't so damn atrocious you might have a case:

"Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title."...

Believe it or not, when you try and correct that it could have several meanings. You made that hack job of a statement in a discussion about a sites authority, I had to assume that's what you intended to refer to. If I didn't assume that, then you would have to be saying something along the lines of, "I think that is a valid way to measure how a page ranks", which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the title. It has to do with whatever you type into the search box, and, well, where the site comes up. Saying "that is a valid way to measure a sites rankings by seeing how it ranks for it's title" is about as nonsensical. The only way your sentence makes any kind of sense really is if one takes it in context of the rest of the conversation, and tosses in the concept of "authority" in there and rearranges a few of the words.

-Michael