Anchor text devalued?

[John Scott]

http://www.google.com/search?&q=jobs

For as long as I can remember, Monster.com was #1 for "jobs". Anchor text, ya know.

Now Jobs.com is #1.

[Pimpen 2010]

probably because the domain name....

[Leigh]

.....

[John Scott]

But still, Jobs.com has only 619 IBL's whereas Monster.com shows 17,900. ...

[Pimpen 2010]

Wow Shows lole 1030 or something for jobs but still.... Maybe its something new with. But right now I don't have a clue. I still think it may be something to do with the domain...

[Leigh]

.....

[Mel]

allinanchor:jobs Monster is #1 followed by Jobs.com at #2
allintitle:jobs Jobs.com is #1 with Monster not on the first page
allintext:jobs Monster.com is #1 followed by Jobs at #2

Could be that the title is now playing a bigger part in rankings, and if as I suspect that internal links are not receiving as much credit as external IBLs the subdomain structure of Jobs.com may also be helping.

[Pimpen 2010]

Wow thanks for the allinanchor stuff, thats cool! I never knew that!

[Johan007]

well all link text for jobs.com is more likely to be "jobs.co.uk". It was only a matter of time before it had enough anchor links to beat Monster.

Can someone write a simple program to calculate the amount of times a word is used for inbound links? – I could ask some one in the office here actually!

[I, Brian]

Google devalued, more like.

I'm hoping we'll see a lot of this corrected very soon - if Google are devaluing IBLs, then they're devaluing PR. If they're devaluing PR, then they're devaluing their USP (Unique Selling Point) for their search engine. Which would make no sense.

[biginjapan]

It is all about weight, isn't it... Weighing IBL's and anchor text heavily makes sense only when few webmasters/SEO's realize it and the result used to be good and relevant SERP's. But it is also quite easy to manipulate and when a lot of people have realized the importance of those factors relevant SERP's will inevitably start going down (which we are clearly seeing happening) so weighing down those factors and introducing some sort of filter that recognizes heavy spamming makes sense. It is still their USP, just not AS important any longer it seems.

Google is still light years ahead of most other engines... (what I mean by this, of course, is that I don't do very well with other search engines for my most important keywords :wink

[Mel]

To me it looks more like an additional emphasis on the title. I have seen several sites that rank well on a three word phrase who only have two of the words in the title and the remaining word in the page text.

As to Google being light years ahead of the competition, I will agree that before the Florida Update they were the most relevant but that gap was closing. After Florida I can find more relvant results in Ink and Alltheweb for many searches.

As an example I was recently searching for some configuration information for a US made router and there was nothing on the first page of Google results that was at all helpful, especially the four sites that were in Russian or Japanese, whose serps displayed as a bunch of question marks with the notation that the content could not be displayed in English characters. Given that the search terms were all in English, these are not relevant results at all, especially when a search at alltheweb returned ten ten pages all of which had the information I needed.

Do a search for economical search engine optimization - the first result is a resume for a person who wants an SEO job posted on a two page tripod site.
The second is another free site this time from Earthlink. Review these serps and tell me how they are relevant to the search term. Note that I am not asking how they got that ranking, but why Google should return these as relevant results helpful to the searcher, when there are thousands of pages which offer more relevant pages for the user searching on this topic.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Johan007

well all link text for jobs.com is more likely to be "jobs.co.uk". It was only a matter of time before it had enough anchor links to beat Monster.

Can someone write a simple program to calculate the amount of times a word is used for inbound links? – I could ask some one in the office here actually!

Hi Johan
Note that monster beats jobs.com on both the allinanchor and allintitle, its the allintext: search where where they fell down, so I assume that is the reason that jobs.com got the number 1 ranking.

You can get all the pages that have a term in the anchortext with the allinanchor: search so all you would need to do is write a program that analyzes those results for IBLs which contain the desired term. Still there are more results in most searches than Google will display (normay not more than 1000 results are displayed) so I guess you would still have to spider the entire web to get the number of times a keyword is used, of course if all you want is the numberof times it is used from a particular site then you would only need to spider that site.

An interesting search related to monster.com and Jobs.com is to do a search like this:
first search site:monster.com jobs

Which shows that the term was used 87,000 times on Monster,com but the cache reveals that it was not used at all on the home page, but only in links pointing to the home page.

Whereas

site:jobs.com jobs shows that the term is only used on 38,000 pages at Jobs.com but that the term is used in both the title and URL in the Jobs.com home page.

It seems to me that the greater number of inbound links which Monster have seem to be more than balanced by Jobs greater use of the term in thier text.

[Blue Head]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=es&i...dkdjdkdjkd&lr=

Monster is number 1

It can be something like in florida topic people said.

[John Scott]

Hmm. That's interesting.