Domain Authority

[John Scott]

I'm about to go to bed so I won't be writing much here. I just want to touch on this issue and get the thread started and see what kind of contributions members will make.

I see domain authority as a bigger part of Google's algorithm than at any time in the past. I think it's a logical step in the right direction. Before domain authority, Google was at the mercy of anchor text. With anchor text, you're relying on people to use descriptive anchor text in their links, and forced to pretty much disregard all links that do not use descriptive anchor text.

With a domain-authority based algorithm, they are able to improve the algorithm by allowing it to be determined by a much, much larger pool of links (descriptive link and non-descriptive links).

I also believe that domain authority is established topically using anchor text domain-wide. That is to say, if I link to v7n.com/widgets.html it will increase my ranking for other widget related pages on v7n. Domain theming via anchor text, instead of web page focused ranking.

[peter_d]

They certainly appear to be attaching a lot more credibility to domains.

The question is how?

Domain theming via anchor text, instead of web page focused ranking

Interesting...

[factoring]

How does your domain create authority?
From what I gather:
1. back links from other authority domains
Question- does anchor text matter? non keyword or keyword

2. non keyword anchor text
Question- In the same article with two anchor texts, (one keyword anchor and one non keyword anchor) will this still be as effective as an article with just one non keyword anchor text?

3. Domain visibility?

Well I'm out of answers. Anyone else have any?

[charlesgan]

agree that not only .gov and .edu is consider as authority site.
in common page with high PR, and within the same theme/topic/keyword is a good authority.

thats why i only buy links from directory category that is same as my website. hehe. try to match the keywords. yes, it ranked the site well.

[factoring]

From what I have read from Matt Cutts .gov and .edu sites do not matter to the algorithm.

Directory category match is an excellent point

Anyone else have any other ideas?

From what I have seen "domain authority" is the basis of SEO. I constantly see V7N in the top 5 listings, for topics that are very competitive, that do not have anything to do with this site (seo related, blog related, or directory related). Google is picking up on keywords and ranking them in the top 5 on that only.

I believe this shows how important domain authority really is.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by factoring

From what I have read from Matt Cutts .gov and .edu sites do not matter to the algorithm.

Directory category match is an excellent point

Anyone else have any other ideas?

From what I have seen "domain authority" is the basis of SEO. I constantly see V7N in the top 5 listings, for topics that are very competitive, that do not have anything to do with this site (seo related, blog related, or directory related). Google is picking up on keywords and ranking them in the top 5 on that only.

I believe this shows how important domain authority really is.

No .edu, .gov don't matter, but typically .edu, and .gov links a big majority of the times has more authority to it, and are typically better links to get due to the inbound links going to them, and typically the domain has been setting for awhile.

[Halfdeck]

I also believe that domain authority is established topically

There are different possible approaches to domain authority score calculation covered by several papapers:

Hilltop - where "good" expert pages are used to rank authority pages iteratively

Topical PageRank - where Google identifies several topics using sites like DMOZ and ranked pages according to PageRank within a topical group

PageRank - where authority score is calculated without regard to the query

Then there are bunch of other papers (e.g. CLEVER..too late for me, ready to nod off here)

As I posted before, I've already proven domain authority is overhyped. Peter credited v7n's authority for ranking 3rd for "free SEO course" and 7th for "seo course" but I outranked blog.v7n.com for both those terms with a TBPR 4 blog.

[John Scott]

As I posted before, I've already proven domain authority is overhyped. Peter credited v7n's authority for ranking 3rd for "free SEO course" and 7th for "seo course" but I outranked blog.v7n.com for both those terms with a TBPR 4 blog.

You tried for those rankings, and got those rankings, with SEO; Peter didn't even try for his rankings, and you also conveniently forget that your blog has some very impressive rankings. 2,566 links, a lot of those being from highly regarded SEO sites.

I dare say, you got the rankings you did due to domain authority.

[peter_d]

As I posted before, I've already proven domain authority is overhyped. Peter credited v7n's authority for ranking 3rd for "free SEO course" and 7th for "seo course" but I outranked blog.v7n.com for both those terms with a TBPR 4 blog.

If anything, you proved my point.

Why didn't you try it on a new domain, for example?

[factoring]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

As I posted before, I've already proven domain authority is overhyped. Peter credited v7n's authority for ranking 3rd for "free SEO course" and 7th for "seo course" but I outranked blog.v7n.com for both those terms with a TBPR 4 blog.

Halfdeck,
V7n showed up in google serps for the word "structured settlements". I had mentioned this word a while ago asking about a title tag in just one post.

V7n did not have one link from a structured settlement site. The only possible way this could happen is domain authority.

[Halfdeck]

Ok here comes a mini-novel. You've been warned

Peter didn't even try for his rankings

His initial ranking was due to domain authority. I never questioned that. Domain authority is a huge factor in ranking:

1. Authority sites have more potential for organic link growth. Authority sites are usually more visible. They are more trusted by the linkeratis. They have the potential to acquire organic links like wildfire (e.g. Matt Cutts' paid link post picked up 4,000 links in a day or two)

2. Authority sites have more total PageRank. Add up all the PageRank flowing into a high visibility domain and compare that to a new site with no IBLs. A huge difference. That difference in PageRank means:

- More pages indexed in Google
- More frequent crawling
- Quicker indexing
- Higher ranking (yes, PageRank is still a ranking factor)

A site with 100,000 pages in the main index has a huge advantage over a site with 10 pages indexed. Why? Internal link power.

3. Authority sites attract authority links. A site like seobook.com, for example, gets linked daily from other authority sites in the SEO space.

3a. Authortiy sites attract expert links. Expert pages often link to authority pages. When many expert pages in a given topic link to a page, it makes that page that much more authoritative.

4. An authoritative site can rank relatively high for thousands of queries without any optimization. Why? More trust. Higher authority score. Bigger PageRank. Higher pagecount. More internal link juice. It's like someone I respect talking. Whenever he opens his mouth, I listen. Same deal with authority sites. Even when v7n publishes a completely off topic post about britney spears, Google thinks hey, it's John Scott's site - he's probably saying something valuable, let's rank him up top.

Domain authority might be a king of spades. But guess what? Its no ace.

Domain authority can be trumped with authority, trusted links with targeted anchor text.

Domain authority can also be trumped with a ton of low value anchor text. Look at the first result for "free seo course." Do you consider that an authority site? I don't think so. Then how is it ranking #1? 1) keywords in the domain name (assuming that as the guy who ranks 5th for "seo book" claimed, Google parses domain urls) 2) A bunch of targeted anchor text from crap directories (small scale self-made Google bombing, except its not a bomb because the guy wants to rank for it).

Peter, you claim on-page SEO has very little to do with ranking. Prove it. Change the post title from "free seo course" to "expensive as hell golf course." See what happens to the post ranking. It's not like those keywords are high traffic so changing the title temporarily isn't going to hurt your traffic.

Are you also telling me that redcardinal's blog is more authoritative than v7n? He did no SEO whatsoever and he outranked v7n for "free seo course" right out of the gate.

2,566 links, a lot of those being from highly regarded SEO sites.

John, many of those links Site Explorer shows are nofollowed. True, I have a few editorial links from Bill Slawski, SEO theory, SEL, SER, digitalpoint, V7n (I remember you linked to me in a post about PageRank, thanks) But many of the links you see are comment links.

If anything, you proved my point.

Domain authority isn't what I used to outrank you, Peter.

As I said, links from xenite.org and Michael Martinez' other LOTR site are what gave my rankings a shot in the arm. He could have pointed those links almost anywhere and that page would have outranked you.

The only possible way this could happen is domain authority.

You forget keywords in the TITLE is a big ranking factor, especially for terms like "Structured settlements." True, domain authorty/PageRank is the other factor. Which is bigger? Peter can easily back up his claim by removing the words "Structured settlements" from the TITLE.

Have you read SEOmoz' top ranking factors? I don't agree with all the opinions posted there but here's what some of them say about keywords in the TITLE:

Aaron Wall: If it is overdone it can actually supress a site's rankings, but if the site is well mixed and the titles look more like descriptive newspaper titles than overt SEO it helps a lot.

Jill Whalen: Probably one of the most important factors in determining rankings.

Caveman: One of the single most important things a site owner can do to affect rankings.

Stuntdbl: Good titles assist clickthrough (which is likely a portion of current algorithms), and titles still play a very important role in identifying the content portions of a site, and thus the terms that they rank for.

Suggarrae: I still think the title tag is one of the most important on page elements from an algo perspective as well as a click through perspective.

The new anti-Googlebomb algo also demonstrates one way in which on-page text can discount 56,000 IBLs.

I've tested this myself and its clear as day keywords in TITLE is the most important on-page optimization, period. If you throw keywords in your title, you can just about forget everything else when it comes to on-page optimization (besides keyword spamming, which still works).

Bottom line: Domain authority is big, but I'm tired of every joe shmoe overhyping it, man. The word "authority" isn't even clearly defined. It's turning into another one of those SEO buzzwords like "trust." When people say "authority" many probably think of it in terms of big brand, high visibility sites like Wikipedia. Authority is a technical word thats tied to technical papers, not a vauge, marketing idea.

[peter_d]

Thanks Halfdeck.

You make many points with which I am in agreement. I'm not sure we're arguing much, if anything, different.

Peter, you claim on-page SEO has very little to do with ranking. Prove it. Change the post title from "free seo course" to "expensive as hell golf course." See what happens to the post ranking. It's not like those keywords are high traffic so changing the title temporarily isn't going to hurt your traffic.

I agree - it isn't true to say on-page has no effect. But I didn't say that.

On page, by itself, has little effect on ranking compared with other factors, like linking and established domain reputation. That's why new sites with on-page SEO can have a tough time competing with established domains that have little, if any, SEO work undertaken.

Have you read SEOmoz' top ranking factors?

Sure, but these people appear to have been quoted out of context. Going by what has been stated above, I'm in agreement with Aaron and Stuntdbl.

Bottom Line: The point I wished to make in my original article was that if you have an established, highly regarded domain, you barely need to do anything in terms of SEO, other than simply add on-topic content.

In contrast, if you don't have an established, highly regarded domain, you need to work quite deliberately on SEO in order to compete with that site.

So, ranking can have a lot to do with where you publish, not how. The reason for that is the existing value placed on the domain by Google.

See Wikipedia.

[John Scott]

Just one minor comment for now, and I'll be back later to comment further.

"Domain authority" and "authority site" are unrelated, yet seem to be used interchangeably.

Domain authority is the high ranking of web pages of a domain on the basis of that domain having a high number of inbound links.

Authority site should be used in reference to sites which are regarded as topical authorities, and are most often topical information or news sites.

[Halfdeck]

The difference appears to be in the degree these factors affect the outcome.

Exactly, Peter. I didn't say "domain authority doesn't matter"; I said it's overrated.

Domain authority is the high ranking of web pages of a domain on the basis of that domain having a high number of inbound links.

John, so in your opinion, the difference between "domain authority" and "authority site" is topical dependency. A strong domain has a potential of ranking high for every query under the sun, while an "authority site" refers to a site that's considered authoritative in a given niche.

Google doesn't make that distinction. An authority site is a domain with many pages with high authority scores. Domain authority is the combined authority scores of all pages belonging to a domain.

Authority score calculation pre-hilltop is query/topic independent (PageRank-based ranking). That's slightly problematic, as the Hilltop paper notes:

PageRank [Page et al 98] is an algorithm to rank pages based on assumption b.* It computes a query-independent authority score for every page on the Web and uses this score to rank the result set. Since PageRank is query-independent it cannot by itself distinguish between pages that are authoritative in general and pages that are authoritative on the query topic. In particular a web-site that is authoritative in general may contain a page that matches a certain query but is not an authority on the topic of the query.

* assumption (b): authoritative pages tend to point to other authoritative pages.

Authority score calculation post-hilltop is topic/query-dependent. Hilltop, for example, refines results based on PageRank but the refinement is based only on links from relevant, "expert" sources (btw, I'm not assuming or suggesting Google is actually using Hilltop).

Matt Cutts' reference to hub-like scores and authorities, which is probably a reference to the paper "Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment" (you can find the reference by Googling "googleguy hub authority") suggests Google calculates authority scores at least in part based on topic/query.

In response to a query, we first compute a list of the most relevant experts on the query topic. Then, we identify relevant links within the selected set of experts, and follow them to identify target web pages. The targets are then ranked according to the number and relevance of non-affiliated experts that point to them. Thus, the score of a target page reflects the collective opinion of the best independent experts on the query topic.

Now people put alot of emphasis on "relevance" when talking down links / PageRank / authority score. But they discount the abundance problem:

The number of pages that could reasonably be returned as relevant is far too large for a human user to digest. To provide effective search methods under these conditions, one needs a way to filter, from among a huge collection of relevant pages, a small set of the most "authoritative" or "definitive" ones.

- Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment

[John Scott]

John, so in your opinion, the difference between "domain authority" and "authority site" is topical dependency. A strong domain has a potential of ranking high for every query under the sun, while an "authority site" refers to a site that's considered authoritative in a given niche.

Correct. Such is the reason V7N, while having nothing to do with Britney Spears, Peter's post titled Britney Spears Naked ranked in the top five for that search term for several weeks.

Google doesn't make that distinction.

Google has not commented on domain authority as far as I know. Their patents do mention authority documents.

But that is all semantics. Domain authority is a phrase I use to refer to a domain-wide ranking strength. Call it PooChaCha if it helps.

And the difference in algo is web page based vs domain based. Google has in the past ranked web pages on the basis of links to that web page, anchor of links to that web page, and content of the web page. Now they are allowing the domain much more pull in the rankings. A single web page can rank on the basis of links to the domain, while the web page in question may not have any external IBL.

[mauiman]

Now I gotta worry about getting PooChaCha for my sites!!!???

Seriously, thanks for this thread and thoughtful discussion... better then a prize fight! And much more informative and valuable.

[peter_d]

It is a good thread

I have a question. I suspect I know the answer, but I haven't tested, so I'm not certain.

HalfDeck/John - your opinion on this?

Peter's post titled Britney Spears Naked ranked in the top five for that search term for several weeks.

My question is why that result a) entered so quickly and b) dropped out?

[John Scott]

The blog's internal linking format as we currently have it buries posts pretty quick, making them barely visible link-wise. But the post did rank very well for several weeks, even after it was buried.

[Halfdeck]

PooChaCha - that sounds like detarame

My question is why that result a) entered so quickly and b) dropped out?

PageRank. *gasp* That's how a domain with massive links to its home page can have a deep page with no external IBL rank relatively well.

When Google began, PageRank was google's authority metric. Britney Spears Naked post proves its still an authority metric, though now Google's approach to calculating authority is more complicated than just running PageRank iterations every few days.

Wait, before you run off to check all the TBPRs of pages that rank for "britney spears naked," or tell me the post's PageRank hasn't changed in the last 5 months, I'll add:

1) PageRank isn't the only ranking factor (yeah you knew that).
2) You can't see granular shifts in PageRank. Internal PageRank is a float less than 1. Theoretically, the sum of all webpages' PageRanks is 1. PageRank is a probability metric between 0% and 100%. So you can't see a shift from 0.00000391956793404 to 0.00000391956793405.

Like John said, a blog post gets maximum internal link juice when it's fresh (link from a TBPR 6-7 front page, "recent posts" on every page if you have that, links from archive front page, category front page, etc). As new posts are published, older posts get buried.

[John Scott]

PooChaCha - that sounds like detarame

You speak Japanese?