Engineering a SE Algorithm

[OptWizard]

>>>No go back to IHY and whine about the big bad JohnScott, like you always do.) <<<<

FLAME FLAME FLAME I must laugh cause once someone does not agree with you they are wrong. Believe me I do very well in the SEO business and no matter what you think I do know a thing or even two about SEO.

And maybe if you were not so NARROW minded and would actually read posts you would see that I never said that links are not important and I also just stated that links can be manipulated as well. That is all

It amazes me how people act when others dont agree with them or if others bring out points that make sense. I recall as well MLRINGING has brought up several questions and NOT ONE ANSWER. Amazing.

I come to forums to further my knowledge and yes I do have knowledge about the SE world and what do I get FLAMED cause I bring up some points You got to love it.

Remember Google is not the be all end all. Other SE came and went so optimizing for just one engine is not very smart.

[RingingPHoneML]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

On that issue - how many webmasters own tons of working domains on different C classes? How many webmasters have a large number of clients on different C classes?

That's the point about links over content for ranking purposes - any schoolboy can overstuff their page with keywords, whilst far far fewer people actually have access to a network of domains across a high number of C class IPs.

Pedantic point over, though.

There is a shocker. Someone asks one question, and I,Brian responds to a different one. Wasn't the question asked about hosting companies and not webmasters? And if there is no difference, then according to what you are saying, anyone who is hosted on hosting company A wouldn't get much value out of having a link from another site that was with the same hosting company.

I am quite impressed with the vocabulary though.

[JayM]

So John... Is this one a keeper - or a seller to make your millions?

[John Scott]

SevenSeek, like v7n, is a keeper. My retirement project.

[JayM]

Nice to hear it - let me know when i can submit - If its a keeper i know it will do well.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by RingingPHoneML

There is a shocker. Someone asks one question, and I,Brian responds to a different one. Wasn't the question asked about hosting companies and not webmasters? And if there is no difference, then according to what you are saying, anyone who is hosted on hosting company A wouldn't get much value out of having a link from another site that was with the same hosting company.

I am quite impressed with the vocabulary though.

I'm not understanding the question to well, but as to link vs on-page. .... Answer me this - if I asked you to put the keyword "widgets" on your home page 100 times, how long would that take, and what cost?

And if I asked you to get 100 inbound links with the anchor text "widgets", from 100 unique domains/IP's, each with a moderate PR, how long would that take?

Answer that question, and then continue the debate as to which is more open to abuse.

[Dark_Matter]

Originally Posted by OptWizard

Say you own a hosting company you could just put your link at the bottom of all your clients pages, for example if i owned a 'concrete' co and owned a hosting co then i could put that at the bottom of all my hosted pages no?!

I wouldn't pay for a hosting company that forces me to put a link on my page. I don't know of any that do that except the free ones.

Some thoughts that come to mind for the search engine:

1. Authority sites for topics determined by reviewers
2. Links coming from authority or related sites should be worth more.
3. A porn filter so when my 10 year old cousin searches britney spears she doesnt get beastiality sites

Honestly to make the best ever search, you need to negate as many SEO tactics as you can. Ironic, huh?

[RingingPHoneML]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I'm not understanding the question to well, but as to link vs on-page. .... Answer me this - if I asked you to put the keyword "widgets" on your home page 100 times, how long would that take, and what cost?

And if I asked you to get 100 inbound links with the anchor text "widgets", from 100 unique domains/IP's, each with a moderate PR, how long would that take?

Answer that question, and then continue the debate as to which is more open to abuse.

I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability.

You own a hosting company, therefore you have a relationship with a lot of people who have websites that a lot of us do not. Therefore, you could ask them to put your keywords on their sites, etc...manipulation of links.

If links are the be all end all, please explain "miserable failure" and how that is not manipulation.

May we continue debating?

[Dark_Matter]

Miserable failure is the result of lots of people linking to GWB's site with that anchor text. Since the term obviously doesnt appear on the page, it seems to me that this proves links over onpage elements. Am I stupid or something?

Somehow I doubt John has built his success on asking his hosting clients to link to him, and that wouldn't make sense since it'd be a limited number of distinct IPs anyhow.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by RingingPHoneML

I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability.

You own a hosting company, therefore you have a relationship with a lot of people who have websites that a lot of us do not. Therefore, you could ask them to put your keywords on their sites, etc...manipulation of links.

If links are the be all end all, please explain "miserable failure" and how that is not manipulation.

May we continue debating?

Not quite yet. I do own a hosting company. But even with the thousands I spend each month, I don't have 100 unique IP ranges.

Really, I think if you answer the question it will be very enlightening.

How long to put "widgets" on a web page one hundred times? Are we talking 1 minute? Or maybe two minutes?

And how long would it takes, and how much would it cost to get 100 keyword anchor links from 100 unique domains/IPs each with moderate pagerank?

Seriously, how long and how much money?

Page elements are open to abuse, and so are anchor text links. But Google chose to rely heavily on anchor text and links because it's far less open to abuse. Links cost money. The top ranked sites for "web hosting" are paying thousands of dollars each month for those links. That keeps the jokers out of competition.

Now if it was just a matter of copy-and-pasting "web hosting" to your home page 100 times, any Jack, Dick and Harry could ruin Google's relevancy.

If links are the be all end all, please explain "miserable failure" and how that is not manipulation.

I think you might be confused here. That was perfect democracy in action. People linked to the Bush page with that anchor text, and voila, it was ranked for it. Just like people link to Monster.com with "jobs" in the anchor text. Google reles on people using descriptive anchor text, and it worked beautifully for them. Google is relevant because of its reliance on anchor text.

[John Scott]

And, I have to ask this.


Which one of these pages should rank #1 for the search term "Google Search Engine":

www.google.com

Or

http://www.v7n.com/google-branding-strategy.php


Because Google.com loses 1,000 times on keyword density - it doesn't even include the word "engine".

According to your algo, my page should outrank Google?

Think why I could NEVER outrank Google, and you'll understand the beauty of an algo that weights anchor text and links.

[OptWizard]

Does it take time to get links yes and it be manipulated yes whats your point

[RingingPHoneML]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Not quite yet. I do own a hosting company. But even with the thousands I spend each month, I don't have 100 unique IP ranges.

Really, I think if you answer the question it will be very enlightening.

How long to put "widgets" on a web page one hundred times? Are we talking 1 minute? Or maybe two minutes?

And how long would it takes, and how much would it cost to get 100 keyword anchor links from 100 unique domains/IPs each with moderate pagerank?

Seriously, how long and how much money?

Page elements are open to abuse, and so are anchor text links. But Google chose to rely heavily on anchor text and links because it's far less open to abuse. Links cost money. The top ranked sites for "web hosting" are paying thousands of dollars each month for those links. That keeps the jokers out of competition.

Now if it was just a matter of copy-and-pasting "web hosting" to your home page 100 times, any Jack, Dick and Harry could ruin Google's relevancy.

I will gladly answer your questions and have another for you as well.

How long to put "widgets" on a web page one hundred times? Are we talking 1 minute? Or maybe two minutes?

Seconds.

And how long would it takes, and how much would it cost to get 100 keyword anchor links from 100 unique domains/IPs each with moderate pagerank?

Seriously, how long and how much money?

Page elements are open to abuse, and so are anchor text links. But Google chose to rely heavily on anchor text and links because it's far less open to abuse. Links cost money. The top ranked sites for "web hosting" are paying thousands of dollars each month for those links. That keeps the jokers out of competition.

That makes perfect sense, as long as you have a huge budget you win. If you are a start up company, try to get a lot of people to invest money so that you can buy links.

Not quite yet. I do own a hosting company. But even with the thousands I spend each month, I don't have 100 unique IP ranges.

Here is my question, if that is the case, then people who have their sites hosted on V7inc wouldn't benefit from linking to each other even though their sites might be related and they have no relation to each other.

I think this is all making sense right now.

[bcombs]

One thing to realize is that it may not be possible to create an algo that is 100% resistant to manipulation. Some algos will be more resistant than others however.

In my opinion, links are much more difficult to manipulate than onpage factors.




Brian

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by OptWizard

Does it take time to get links yes and it be manipulated yes whats your point

OptWizard, please do not post if you aren't going to post intelligently. I'm not interested in your childish gibberish.

Here is my question, if that is the case, then people who have their sites hosted on V7inc wouldn't benefit from linking to each other even though their sites might be related and they have no relation to each other.

RingingPHoneML
I don't see a question there, but it seems you take issue with Google's devaluation of inter-IP links. Feel free to read more about the Google's theory behind that here:

http://www.v7n.com/archived/ftopic3993.html

It doesn't mean they are entirely devalued, just treated with a bit less respect.

[optycont]

That's the point about links over content for ranking purposes - any schoolboy can overstuff their page with keywords, whilst far far fewer people actually have access to a network of domains across a high number of C class IPs.

On that note I have to disaggree with the idea that links are harder to manipulate. Anyone can buy, trade, sell or write software to hustle links for sites that don't offer a user valid content. Any schoolboy can overstuff their page with keywords but it takes a great optimization staff to create create a process that can efficiently generate actual content that offers a fair helpful user experience and is simultaneoulsly targeting the keyphrase without stuffing the phrase into the reader face. This is necessary to retain a customer or earn a click through. So if "any schoolboy" can stuff keywords on a page anyone can buy links or point them from multiple domains then an alg that over-focuses on links will potentially validate keyword stuffed sites. Where does that put us?

If a algs are set to evaluate (and give high credit for) content based on keyphrase occurence within text in which a standard rate of repitition for a topical term I.E. (keyphrase) has been determined as well as a determination for minimimum content length etc... then the alg is actually serving to compel web designers and optimization companies to optimize but not at the expense of quality. The alg should encourage the quality development of sites. Too much focus on in-bound links encourages everyone to take the low content short cut and encourages a black market linking community

[awall19]

Originally Posted by optycont

On that note I have to disaggree with the idea that links are harder to manipulate. Anyone can buy, trade, sell or write software to hustle links for sites that don't offer a user valid content.

Its harder and more expensive to write page copy than to get links...interesting concept.

Perhaps the reason it is so interesting is that NONE OF THE SEARCH ENGINES USE THIS TECHNIQUE FOR COMPETITIVE PHRASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you saying you have this really simple obvious secret that all the search engines do not know??????????

Most copy optimization reads like garbage.

Write for people. Structure the documents so that they make sense to visitors and bots can easily understand them. The whole concept of crafting keyword rich content is more important than links is wrong.

The whole goal of good content is to:

• create content that converts
  create content that inspires links

heavily optimized content does not read well and thus does neither

[optycont]

Are you saying you have this really simple obvious secret that all the search engines do not know??????????

You mean the engines know about this?! Knowing smoething and making the right implementation judgements are another thing. Of course this isn't new, however I would prefer a new engine (as John mentioned) to consider de-emphasising links but not altogether. This is an opinion of course not a scientific breakthrough.

create content that converts
create content that inspires links

Agreed - and content that does the above is generally "good" content in one form or another depending on the vertical it serves.

heavily optimized content does not read well and thus does neither

ABSOLUTELY

[scisoft]

Your main advantage is SEO knowledge and marketing experience. On the other hand, it may be extremely difficult tho hire a team of people able to develop a really efficient search algorithm.

Why not team up with some already established smaller SE with great algorithm - buy them, joint venture ... anything and concentrate on
1. suplementing it with a really efficient antispam flitr?
2. marketing it efficiently