I just read with interest the archived topic that claims that Links are King.
I can't deny that there are pages in the top ten that are there solely on the basis of their backlinks. My question is has this changed at all since Florida?
On another forum the moderators claim -- without offering any real evidence -- that the value given to links has changed since Florida. They suggest that links from not topically relevant pages have lost some of their value and at the same time links from topically similar or topically associated pages had been given more value.
This claim is based upon the belief that Google has started to employ Applied Semantics. The same tool that they are using to determine what AdSense ads to put on content sites or pages.
One of the other early claims after Florida was that sites who used the same anchor text in a significant portion of their backlinks had been punished or demoted. The suggestion was that this had tweaked Googles attention and lead them to treat these links as if they were part of a link farm.
I have not done any extensive research but on the few occasions when I have examined the backlinks of top ranking pages I cannot see any evidence of these changes.
What is the feeling of the"Link is King" group on this subject?
I would not be surprised to learn that sites that have a lot of backlinks all with the same link text (and few or no backlinks with other link text) are being penalized. I have suspected this for a while.
i've heard just about every theory, from sites that use <hx> getting dropped, to local rank theories. not one of them holds up to every site. if you ask me, no one knows whats going on. there's just been a lot of idiots thinking like this:
hmm... my site got dropped for a keyword. could it be its because of [blank]? it must be! i'm going to go post on a forum that google is dropping sites that [blank]!
I've certainly seen a lot of my own links devalued - notably from forums. I figure that some aspect of the LocalRank algo is responsible for this. All my sites held up by forums links lost significant PR after Florida.
I also believe I'm seeing a lot of Hilltop applied as well. This basically means that links pages and authority sites - .edu, .gov, and directories - have elvated importance for ranking other sites. This was very visible after Florida, when general searches would produce these results first without listing any actual on-topic pages. However, looking at my own site rankings, the Hilltop algo seems to have been watered down and now applies to a narrower base of searches.
As for Applied Semantics - immediately post-Florida there were all sorts of strange results - new stemming, punctuation counted, and the order of keyworsd became relevant. One of my first ideas was that part of the change must be because Google was now trying to read pages like a human user. I actually felt a little naive for making that statement, especially once I'd read the papers for Hilltop and LocalRank. However, to some degree it's certinaly appears that it is true in some way.
I've never actually used Adsense, so I didn't actually know about the Applied Semantics concept. However, in terms of ranking, my personal suggestion would be that the focus of this would be in assigning "theme" to pages. And that Google will now be taking "theme" as an important factor in weighting links value. It would also be an intelligent way to try and set a criteria for defining theme concepts of expert pages and authority sites in the first place.
<rant>
I just got through reading Dan Thies' report. One thing that's extremely important in SEO - in any industry really - is to know who other people are. For example, if Danny Sullivan says something, I'll pay more attention than if Jill Whalen says something. There are certain people in this industry who have opened their mouths when they shouldn't have. When they do that - and put their name on junk - they lose credibility in my eyes and I stop reading what they write.
</rant>
The first thing that should be stated is that there are many theories floating out there. Phil Craven has put on forward; Dan Thies has put his forward; Danny Sullivan put one forward very early after Nov 16; MakeMeTop has put one forward.
They are all theories, and frankly they are theories which are unsupported by proof. Keep this in mind.
I recently got a phone call from a search engine employee (not Google). A friend. He had a theory. It stated that Google was a "for profit corporation", and that the recent changes were targeting the type of sites that would use Adwords. Interesting theory - especially interesting when you note that Adwords spending has gone way up since Nov 16th.
But that, too, is a theory.
I don't have any theories. I have a hunch. Not even an edumacated hunch.
First off - Floirida didn't change everything. It changed some things. But let's take a look at a SERP it did change.
I'm thinking Google's Florida update filtered over optimized pages. For example, one page that was hit hard was www.internet-marketing-research.net - this site's index page. Right after Florida, the index page was nowhere to be seen for "Internet marketing". It was #26 - and dropped out of the SERP's altogether.
How did I remedy it? All those sites which linked to IMR, I changed the anchor text. On some sites, I changed it to "IMR", on others I changed it to "John Scott" and on another I changed it to "Blueberry Pancakes".
Voila - IMR index page is now #21 for "Internet marketing".
Is content King? I could never "content" my way to #1 for "Internet marketing". You cannot keyword density your way to #1 for a search term like that. You can not page title your way to #1 for a search term like that. There is no way to #1 for a search term like that except though links and anchor text.
I'm thinking Google's Florida update filtered over optimized pages. For example, one page that was hit hard was www.internet-marketing-research.net - this site's index page. Right after Florida, the index page was nowhere to be seen for "Internet marketing". It was #26 - and dropped out of the SERP's altogether.
How did I remedy it? All those sites which linked to IMR, I changed the anchor text. On some sites, I changed it to "IMR", on others I changed it to "John Scott" and on another I changed it to "Blueberry Pancakes".
Voila - IMR index page is now #21 for "Internet marketing".
Actually, I'm not sure whether there may have been a coincidental timing here.
After Florida, my (compliant) chronicles-network disappeared for the main anchor text "science fiction and fantasy forums", as well as sub-phrases such as "science fiction forums" and "fantasy forums". Instead the results were dominated by a handful of sites - the top of which doesn't even have a forum. Also a couple of dierctories riding high - Google and DMOZ.
Turns out the one thing all the winners had in common for those search terms were multiple directory links, especially DMOZ. The leader has over 40 backlinks rfom DMOZ listed on a search there. It looked as if Hilltop was at work.
However, the rankings have mellowed significantly since them - without changing anything, I'm now ranking top for "fantasy forums" and top 10 for "science fiction forums" - the sub-phrasing is back.
But still not there for the anchor text search - which remains pretty much as it was post-Florida (see here. The high listing of the directories - and the fact that a significant number of sites ranked beneath these are connected to .edu sites (either directly or indirectly) - tells me that it's more likely that Hilltop is involved in selecting results for this instance, rather than any other possibility (invisible tags, adwords revenue creation, over-optimisation) - as so far as I know, only Hilltop can significantly account for such listings.
Which means, as for the "internet marketing" ranking - I wonder whether this phrase has also experienced a mellowing from the immediate post-Florida results, as per my own sub-phrases?
I'm going to be updating all my signature links in about a week - I'll experiment to see if changing those has any effect on my rankings for the original ranking text (which, of course, was aimed as much towards sub-phrases).
Which means, as for the "internet marketing" ranking - I wonder whether this phrase has also experienced a mellowing from the immediate post-Florida results, as per my own sub-phrases?
Possibly.
Florida just re-inforced my belief in links. Many of the SERPs mentioned here stayed the same. Apple.com is still #1 for "Computers" due to anchor text and inbound links, so I shall be sticking with anchor text/IBL's.
I have just finished reading Phil Cravens article called Google's "Florida" Update.
I agree with him that I think the most probable explanation of what has happend with Google is that they have adopted some Hilltop or expert-system technology and are using it in their current algo.
The question I ask then is, are pages being devalued for links that do not met the Hilltop criteria? Should we systematically start deleting all outgoing links to non relevant or non thematic web sites?
The old dictum was that you should never link to a direct competitor, but I think that has been supplanted by the desire to get relevant links. So many reciprocal linking schemes today already include links that would comply with Hilltop or an expert-system.
The thing that Phil did not address is whether or not Florida did anything that would affect the words used in anchor text. From some very superficial reseach I have done I do not think that they have penalized the overuse of keyword phrases in anchor text. If they have gone to expert-system techology it seem to me that that would allow them to virtually ignore the anchor text because now the relevance of the link is going to be judged on the basis of the theme or information content of the page the link comes from.
Now having said that the question becomes is Google reading the page that the link is on, or attempting to determine the theme of the entire site. The reason I ask this is because there is usually no content on links pages upon which theme could be evaluated.
I suspect that Google is either already theming sites to some extent - or is about to. After all, if it can do something similar delivering adwords on pages, then why not for ranking pages as well? I think you've stated that already, though, compar, and I quite agree.
And I'm taking Florida as a warning. Maybe it will simply turn the screws on more slowly for 2004? I see Hilltop and LocalRank as very real concerns for SEO: iIt maybe takes a little bit more effort to cater for them specifically, but I figure doing so will create a solid SEO backbone for any client sites, that can weather further turns of the screw.
Of course, perhaps many SEO's are already doing that. I am merely thinking aloud.
I've certainly seen a lot of my own links devalued - notably from forums. I figure that some aspect of the LocalRank algo is responsible for this. All my sites held up by forums links lost significant PR after Florida.
If this is really happening it doesn't make any sense to me. Links from forums should count even more highly if local rank and expert-systems and thematic consideration are being used to evaluate links. Unless of course you are spending a lot of time on online dating forums
On the devaluing of forum links - my links are usually quite off-topic (look, I'm currently pointing to a sci-fi site and religion resource site on an Internet Marketing forum!).
I haven't been able to tell as yet if signature links, for example, have particular advantages being on theme (I'll be able to observe this very soon ).
I've simply seen a general drop in PR within, and PR movement from, most forums that I'm linked to.
As for LocalRank more implicitly - I've been warned before of this already being applied to some degree. I'm sure I've seen it at work already. For example:
1. EXTERNAL PAGES - If I cross-link my two main forums (on very different IPs) through my signature links, I can increase my number of PR4+ backlinks listed in Google - but will not significantly affect the PR or ranking of the linked pages. Of course, they are off-topic, but this was performed pre - Florida, before Hilltop was even an issue.
2. INTERNAL PAGES - There's a particular term I've had real trouble with getting the ranking it deserves through compliant means ("Apocrypha" - one of my sites hosts the largest collection of Christian Apocypha - the books that never made it into the New Testament). I tried to force an increase in ranking by linking to it from every single page of my comparative-religion.com site - that includes hundreds of PR4-6 pages, plus embedded the link into the forum template of the site, which cover thousands of pages. Yet none of this has had any significant affect on Google - the ranking for the page constantly floats around position 11-13 for "Apocrypha", the movement of which I place on background variations.
To myself, the devaluing of multiple on-site links to the same internal or external page, can only be attritbuted to something related to the LocalRank algo. Of particular note is that this issue applies both pre- and post- Florida. The distinction with post-Florida is that certain anchor text is now competing with a seeming Hilltop system, which is where perhaps theme in itself can help.
Although I used to be a firm believer in forum links, and signature links, my unfortuante conclusion nowadays is that they are effectively worth their cost - they are cheap to make, and weighted as cheap. Where there is no Hilltop competition for a particular term, they can be useful for working anchor text and sub-phrasing of anchor text. However, for PR distribution itself, I'm seeing devaluation.
A possible explicit reason - that I was warned about in August last year - is that vBulletin's and phpbb's have a habit of duplicating at least some part of their content. vBulletin 3 is a particular villain for this. This in itself is more than enough of a reason to trip LocalRank in particular, which I believe explicitly mentions devaluing duplicate content on the same IP subnet.
Of course, it remains for myself to personally observe how Hilltop plays into the whole forum link equation, where the links are very much on topic.
i have a site with a pr of 5 on the idex page and 4 on the other pages. at one point (not anymore though) the only links to that site where from my server (same ip). there goes the local rank theory.
compar, you're talking about your pr going down. i believe you are the only person i've heard mention pr going down being related to florida. most people i've talked to have been dropped in the serps for certain keywords, but their pr has been constant. maybe your pr dropped because of something else? like you lost a link from a high pr site?
i have a site with a pr of 5 on the idex page and 4 on the other pages. at one point (not anymore though) the only links to that site where from my server (same ip). there goes the local rank theory.
Whatever happened yesterday in SEO terms does not necessarily equate with it being relevant to today in SEO terms.
I'm specifically inferring LocalRank as being particularly screwed in since Florida.
yeah well i got my first link from an ip other than my own about 2 weeks ago. so before florida i had a pr of 5. after florida i had a pr of 5. no change at all.
yeah well i got my first link from an ip other than my own about 2 weeks ago. so before florida i had a pr of 5. after florida i had a pr of 5. no change at all.
My main observation is actually that LocalRank is being specifically applied to forums - quite possibly because of the duplication of content issue. So you would only be able to test this properly on sites resting particularly on forum sig links.
As for same IP - you do make quite a good point. It would be interesting if this means that same IP links are otherwise not yet devalued - so long as the root domain is indeed different. Most people would presume this situation anyway. However, it should be clearly pointed out that even if this is the case now, there's no reason to preume that this will always be the case. There's every danger of same IP subnet links becoming devalued at some future point.
My personal position is that SEO needs to prepare for possible changes, and take them into account for client sites. That is - presuming that people would want to use the same link networks to still help promote client sites, rather than ditch them and build new ones at the next big update.
maybe your pr dropped because of something else? like you lost a link from a high pr site?
I don't know how you understood me to say my PR was down. It isn't.
There is a lot of talk about the value being assigned to links by virtue of Hilltop, Local Rank, expert-systems and theme. I don't think these criteria are being reflected in the PR. If so all the PR calculators etc are out the window. I think PR is a straight mathematical calculation based on the sharing or distribution of PR among all the linking sites.
But I don't think PR is the only link related value that contributes to a site's ranking in the SERP. If it was you would never find PR4 pages ahead of PR6 pages in the SERPs. So I think the algo calculates a relevancy or importance factor in addition to the PR. And this is what will have changed with the possible use of all these new criteria in the algo.
This is not new. If the only value from a link is PR. And if PR is purely mathematical. Why have we been worried about anchor text? The answer of course is that this is how we understood Google to assess relevance.
There are those who suggest that PR has almost no impact on your SERP placement. That it is simply a measure of the number and the PR of the pages in your link community. I'm not sure about this, but I am convinced that it is not the only link related factor to effect ranking.
I don't know how you understood me to say my PR was down. It isn't.
I think he was actually referring to my own comments. And I am quite sure that I have been carefully watching these backlinks.
As for the whole issue of Hilltop, LocalRank, theme, etc - we can certainly watch and make our observations, and see how everything develops. I don't at all mind being proved wrong in how I interpret Google's current behaviour. I don't intend to make clear judgements, as much as attempt to examine the intracies of what is happening, to try and understand them better.
This is not least because I am about to go professional SEO. For myself that means I must factor in issues such as Hilltop, LocalRank, theme, etc when building my links networks for clients. I want to ensure that any further updates to the Google algo do not have the same calmitous effect on my own clients as it had on so many other SEO's clients.
