|
mvandemar:
>>>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?
I think you are cherry picking by to many of my posts. I would suggest that you read again what I have posted on this thread.
>>>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).
It is my view that the principle that Rand was using (which I agree with) is that a good way to show sites authority is to see how well a site rankings for the key phrases in its titles. I put forth that the best way to do this is to put up new pages that are fully on-page SEOed and would have no off-page SEO. Further I suggested that you select terms that the site doesn't have topicial authority for so you are not getting the rankings from off-page SEO but solely based on site authority.
What attracted me to this thread in the beginning is that I have spend the last 2 months doing research on this very subject and have crafted a WP plugin based on this principle and have been going back over my blogs and renaming the titles to keyphrases that I think I can should be able to rank on the first page for.
>>>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?
No I don't totally disagree with Rands positions on most directories. I hold that after the top 10 or 20 directories very few have the link signature it takes to be an authority site or to have very strong site authority.
It takes won links to get strong site authority and very few directories have resources that win links. Most directories are just a link-sell under the guise of a directory. We all know that it isn't for click though traffic that people are submitting there sites to directories.
>>>Without getting into a point by point debate, you do recommend it?
Yes I stated this early on in the thread and I gave my reason why. You cherry picked by that post I guess.
>>>You don't think WHAT things can be proven, Bob?
I stated that "I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is". You stated "why don't you please show us how those values significantly differ... ...instead of just saying "Well, that method isn't the best"". Then I stated "I don't think these things can be proven."
So the "I don't think these things can be proven" appled to your asking me to "show" instead of "just saying".
>>>I was banking on the fact that you could do a more thorough eval and come to the same conclusions I did.
I don't have the will to do a more through eval. I stated my opinion take it for what it is worth.
>>>Bob, if your grammar weren't so damn atrocious you might have a case.
I am sorry about my grammer but my poor grammer doesn't make my case poor.
>>>believe it or not, when you try and correct that it could have several meanings.
I agree that the statement you quoted from me is not clear. I will try to do better.
|