Rand Fishkin vs Aviva

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Why? Aren't you being a bit dramatic? We are having a friendly discussion of how to evaluate web directories, not a fight.

I think you should ask your self that . No offense

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by tdd1984

I think you should ask your self that . No offense

Ask myself what?

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Ask myself what?

John whats your IQ level?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by tdd1984

John whats your IQ level?

Answer the question and keep your childish remarks off my forum, kapish?

[bobmutch]

>>>In itself, I don't believe it tells you it has authority. I believe it tells you that you have good optimization. Does your site have authority? Yes, but that and ranking for words in your page titles is two very different things.

What makes a site rank high for competitive keywords based on just on-page optimiztion is site authority.

For example if you take a site that is been up for 2 years has 500 average quality inbound links it can't rank for competitive terms with out link building.

Perhaps I show note what I feel like site authority means.

Web sites are deemed as having authorize based on the following items (I am not getting all of them here just some of the main ones.

--domain age
--site age
--number of pages in the index
--age of pages
--number of inbound links
--quality of inbound links
--won edu/gov links
--age of inbound links
--number of DMOZ links
--links from other authority sites in your space
--outbound links to other authority sites in your space

One of the main ways to rate a sites authority is how well it can rank for competitive keywords based on on-page optimization alone.

[John Scott]

What makes a site rank high for competitive keywords based on just on-page optimiztion is site authority.

LOL. Bob, you are trying to say the opposite. You are attempting to say that because authority gives you rankings, that if a site doesn't rank for something it doesn't have authority. That would be a conclusion not supported by logic.

There are plenty of sites with authority that do not have high rankings for random keywords in their page titles.

[John Scott]

One of the main ways to rate a sites authority is how well it can rank for competitive keywords based on on-page optimization alone.

A better way would be to link to an off-site page with unique anchor text and see how it affects that page's ranking.

And why would you use ranking as a metric? It's entirely unscientific. Those rankings could be due to a number of different factors.

[bobmutch]

dup

[bobmutch]

>>>I did not say the method was dishonest. I said their conclusion was dishonest.

I think you said there article was very dishonest. But whether it is the method or conclusion I think it is a bit much to make a charge of the article being dishonest. You should feel free to say you disagree and that the premise is not valid, but to say it is dishonest is a bit much.

>>>And Bob, you think referring to Aviva's work as "funny" isn't a personal attack?

It appears that Rand as commenting about the large number of inbound links and the ranking ability for the keywords in the home page title and that some thing was not adding up.

So no I won't see that as a personal attack.

[John Scott]

I think you said there article was very dishonest. But whether it is the method or conclusion I think it is a bit much to make a charge of the article being dishonest. You should feel free to say you disagree and then the premise is not valid but dishonest?

If they took the page title, did not alter it, and searched it would be honest. When they alter the keywords and then incorrectly say that Aviva is not ranking for it, then I have to wonder why. I would characterize that as dishonest.

And by the way, Bob, you have referred to Aviva as mine several times. It isn't mine. I have no ownership interest in it.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

LOL. Bob, you are trying to say the opposite. You are attempting to say that because authority gives you rankings, that if a site doesn't rank for something it doesn't have authority. That would be a conclusion not supported by logic.

There are plenty of sites with authority that do not have high rankings for random keywords in their page titles.

If you ask me, quite honestly I focus on the inbound links, thats how I gained my rankings which every one knows that seo is about links, I don't think onsite optimization has much to do with it, I mean it does, but not like links from my opinion I'd say that 90-95 percent of rankings comes from good quality links and domain age. (domain age is a plus plus if you ask me).

Which we all know our rankings are based on whats in your anchor text in the back links, and I think page rank is very good for the content, pickings up the words more, which I guess this would be a common sense theory to anyone thats experienced with seo, stating that towards my self, not you.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

If they took the page title, did not alter it, and searched it would be honest. When they alter the keywords and then incorrectly say that Aviva is not ranking for it, then I have to wonder why. I would characterize that as dishonest.

And by the way, Bob, you have referred to Aviva as mine several times. It isn't mine. I have no ownership interest in it.

at least aviva is ranking for the brand name

[tdd1984]

Tell you one thing I like about aviva is that there directory

http://www.avivadirectory.com/detail/link-16149.html

look at that and the, the detail pages is carry page rank, so its a good link setting on there, which it has some outbound links on the side panel over there so that taking a little juice out of it, but its not ridiculous like some web directories where you go to the details page and it has 50 outbound link down the side panel, and you hardly get no juice to your site.

Plus I know Aviva directory is a well maintained directory, so I'd have to say for a yearly placement its well worth it, with the owner charging a yearly fee hes bound to make more of an investment into the directory its self, so typically the directory will carry some good weight in the future.

Which it be lot better if the details page was a pr6 with no other outbounds, but you know

[bobmutch]

>>>You are attempting to say that because authority gives you rankings, that if a site doesn't rank for something it doesn't have authority.

No I am not trying to say that at all. Let me be clearer.

I am saying how well you rank for a competitive keyword based on on-page optimization shows the amount of authority a site has.

So if you put up a properly optimized page for a competitive keyword and you rank high with out pointing any inbound links to that page you are ranking based on your site authority.

The opposite would hold that if you put up a properly optimized page for a competitive keyword with out pointing any inbound links to that page and you don't rank well this indicates the level of authority your site has.

Even better, in general the level of competitive keywords you can rank on the first page of the SERP, with out getting inbound links to that page shows the level for authority your site has.

>>>That would be a conclusion not supported by logic.

I find that my conclusion is very logical.

Perhaps you should tell me what you think site authority is and what it does for a site?

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>You are attempting to say that because authority gives you rankings, that if a site doesn't rank for something it doesn't have authority.

No I am not trying to say that at all. Let me be clearer.

I am saying how well you rank for a competitive keyword based on on-page optimization shows the amount of authority a site has.

So if you put up a properly optimized page for a competitive keyword and you rank high with out pointing any inbound links to that page you are ranking based on your site authority.

The opposite would hold that if you put up a properly optimized page for a competitive keyword with out pointing any inbound links to that page and you don't rank well this indicates the level of authority your site has.

Even better, in general the level of competitive keywords you can rank on the first page of the SERP, with out getting inbound links to that page shows the level for authority your site has.

>>>That would be a conclusion not supported by logic.

I find that my conclusion is very logical.

Perhaps you should tell me what you think site authority is and what it does for a site?

Bob that falls back under that category that I was stating earlier about page rank giving content optimization more weight. Authoirty , or page rank whatever anybody wants to call it, I think page rank gives your documents more value by far, for example you could have inbound links with no words matching for a term that was searched for, but if you had enough authority and page rank I believe that the site could rank for that keyword, matter fact I know so.

When a site has higher page rank it values the titles, content, header tags, and etc more.

[John Scott]

Perhaps you should tell me what you think site authority is and what it does for a site?

Same as you are summed up. I just do not agree with the statement that, failure of a page to rank for random keywords in its page title indicates absence of authority.

[bobmutch]

>>>If they took the page title, did not alter it, and searched it would be honest. When they alter the keywords and then incorrectly say that Aviva is not ranking for it, then I have to wonder why. I would characterize that as dishonest.

Well I have no problem with Rand taking the Aviva out of the title and seeing how well that ranked. I think that is a good idea.

I did the same with the title tag of www.seomoz.org and I would be shocked if I was told my post was dishonest.

Nor do I have a problem with the datacenter he looked at not ranking the page in the top 500 and the datacenter I looked at ranking it for 232.

I couldn't characterize that as dishonest either.

I think it is best to give room for error, misunderstanding, and lack of good SEO understanding instead of pointing the finger at an article we don't like and crying very dishonest.

>>>And by the way, Bob, you have referred to Aviva as mine several times. It isn't mine. I have no ownership interest in it.

Yes I am confused on that point. But not on my others : )