Rand Fishkin vs Aviva

[tdd1984]

Crazy forum thread

[bobmutch]

tdd1984:
Oh my 935 posts. Thats a lot of posts. How did you get some many posts anyway? I have worked hard just to get over 100 : )

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

tdd1984:
Oh my 935 posts. Thats a lot of posts. How did you get some many posts anyway? I have worked hard just to get over 100 : )

you know how I am, I don't ever shut up.

[tantantin]

This thread is about Aviva and not self promotion right ? So someone must be crazy in this thread.

Please true posters continue with the topic and ignore the wannabes.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

I think I was just personally attacked.

Yes you were, and here's a warning to SiteTutor. Don't bring personal attacks in this forum. Here we are discussing a proposed method of evaluating web page authority, and personal attacks just devalue the thread.

[maldives]

Originally Posted by tdd1984

you know how I am, I don't ever shut up.

Does not necessarily mean all you talk is very usuful and informative.

[Manish Pandey]

>>>Well bob... Aviva being authority or not is the main issue of this thread

That doesn't change what I have stated nor does it mean that other related issues can't be discussed in the same thread.

Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain.... Now, if we look deep we find that you mean similar to rand! Or in other words rand uses your technique to classify a website is authority or not! Well if a domain is an authority then it could rank for any term what so ever until the competition is not high! Well we all know the power of domain authority...as i mentioned above my site only a year old shows quite a high competitive term for google trust i'm top 20!

You could discuss related terms not at the cost of suing Aviva again and again for it being authority or not .... which i know you are not doing rand is doing...LOL

>>>It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point.

Not at all. Completely missed it.

Now...now...if you don't mix things up for your anchor then you are in deep deep trouble! I guess you could find every good SEO like John, Mike, AaronW...talking about it... "mix your anchor texts with related terms"...if you don't know this factor then...ummm....what could i say!

The reason behind this is that you don't control the anchor text links...it is what people do! and if you control the links then sooner or later you would be penalized! So mixing things up makes thing look natural to the search engines! Now do you get the point...

>>>You are saying the same thing in different manner...dude!!! Re-read what i said!

I re-read it and we are for sure saying two different things.

You said...

>>>Now if we search for allinanchor:"quality business cards" this shows how many sites are competing for the exact the same keyword i.e. "quality business cards" and your site comes on page 2.

I totally disagreed with that statement and said...

<<<No. Searching for the phrase in quotes shows you how many pages are competing for the exact key phrase. Search for the key phrase with the allinanchor: search operator shows how many pages have inbound links with that exact phrase.

Well when i said sites it would normally mean pages...dude...come on! As index.php, seo-services.php are pages and not sites! A site is collection of pages! And all the pages could target any keyword! Now did you get the point!
and quoting to what you earlier said:

I don't think he is going to rank any better than any other site that has as much site authority, has as much topical authority, and gets equivalent off-page SEO for that key phrase. I do think it would be fair to say he would rank as well as a site that has the same site authority, same topical authority, and gets the equivalent off-page SEO.

Site is a collection of pages so you cant get authority on pages of your sites...it's domain which gets authority status!!!

>>>Disagree with some solid points I've the most solid points up here!!!

Your solid point was...

>>>So, a better competitive analysis could be done by allinanchor:quality business cards where we are asking google how many sites have quality business cards in their anchor .... again it may be in any order!

I fully disagree with that. Using the allinanchor: search operator is not a "better competitive analysis" in my view.

Looks like you have just come out here to disagree with us whatever we say!!! It doesn't matter what you think and what you don't...the thing which matters is that this free world of SEO and Internet contain good solid fundamentals and people, who do a proper research before suing anybody!

>>>Wow! Thanks for the compliment...

Er, I didn't give you one : ) In fact I have a hard time understanding your points at all.

Because you don't want to understand them!! LOL

>>>Well how do you achieve topical authority?

By having lots of won links from many sites of the same themed and those links having anchor text terms that are related to that theme and the content you have on your site and that those link point to being of the same theme.

Well this is what i said:

How to get topical authority? Simple by getting high quality inbounds from you topic concerned

And now i gotcha...

By having lots of won links from many sites of the same themed and those links having anchor text terms that are related to that theme and the content you have on your site and that those link point to being of the same theme.

Aviva has many inbounds just because of it being on the front page of digg for more than once! Well does that count for won links in your criteria!!! If i link to a site then definitely that site is concerned with my topic...and people who link to me would also be of similar topic to me.... now you also mention anchor text links well how would one know that seo expert is the keyword for www.manishpandey.com ... what people would do is just link with my domain name (which here happens to be my name) as an anchor text!
Similar things happened with www.avivadirectory.com as they are not targeting the term information web directory they never bothered to get ranked for that term! And well i've already mentioned the terms that they target.....

Now...i know you would disagree to me to the fullest!!!

I don't mind until we are having a good debate...keep em comin...

[Manish Pandey]

And one more thing that I happened to came across is that your page seocompany.ca/seo-expert-bob-mutch.html rank below to mine manishpandey.com for the term seo expert.

Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours...no it doesn't! What it means that I've anchor text links related to it not exactly that term...i go for seo expert india, seo expert service,seo blog or simply manish pandey!!! Just to mix things up! You see...i've those terms in my anchor text...

Now...your site is registered on 2004-07-13 and mine on 2006-07-14 you see! Yours is 3 years old and mine only 1 year! You have huge amount of links 28,800 from high quality sites and i've only few hand full only 641!

So, you see why i pointed out this. It is because this fact that Aviva is not ranking for the term Information Web Directory because they don't target that term. As your site is high authority your page should have come up to the top 10 or atleast ahead of my site!!!

So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Here we are discussing a proposed method of evaluating web page authority, and personal attacks just devalue the thread.

Is it permissible to discuss an issue related to the original post, having to do with whether an A-List blogger has any responsibility whatsoever to try and retain some semblance of journalistic integrity, even though it is generally understood that they aren't held to the same standards as other publications? This isn't meant as a personal attack per se, but there really is no nice way to spin what Rand did with that post, you know?

I think it was highly irresponsible for someone with the type of readership and following that Rand has to post what he did, and even more so when the slightest bit of research shows that he obviously was wrong.

I posted a portion of what I found in his comments. Here's an edited version:

Aviva itself appears to rank in the 900's for [web directory], out of 800,000,000 results. That phrase has an allinanchor: of 2,630,000. [search engine optimization] only has an allinanchor of 413,000.

Despite how you might want to spin it, for whatever reason, I think you have to give them some kind of credit, wouldn't you agree? They rank in the top 0.0001 percentile for an industry that is what appears to be 6 times more competitive than yours.
...
... they rank in the Top 200 for [real estate directory]... are you saying that they would be a waste of time for real estate webmasters to pursue that kind of relevancy? They are #202 for [shopping directory], in the 400's for [business directory], in the 200's for [insurance directory]...
...
"Good thing we checked"... please.

If you want to post some random theory, thought, or opinion, then fine, that is your right. But if you are going to take the status you have built up for yourself as somewhat of an authority in the field and use it to tear apart someones livelihood, then I would think that you had better make damn sure you have your facts straight.

-Michael

[Manish Pandey]

I guess bob might agree seeing this that allinanchor: is the tool to check competitiveness of a key phrase and not his so called "keword phrase"...

[bobmutch]

tdd1984:

>>>LOL

Hey I see how you got some many posts. You just post 3 letter responces and you get a post point for that : )

[bobmutch]

Manish Pandey:
>>>Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain

Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.

>>>"mix your anchor texts with related terms"...if you don't know this factor then...ummm....what could i say!

I agree with that but that was not what you stated before. You stated the following...

>>>It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point.

I responded by telling you I missed your point.

>>>The reason behind this is that you don't control the anchor text links...it is what people do! and if you control the links then sooner or later you would be penalized!

I don't think you would get penalized for having the same text in your anchor text. Perhaps the links could be devalued as they don't look natural but not penalized.

>>>Well when i said sites it would normally mean pages...dude...come on!

I understood you mean pages by sites but that was not what I disagreed with.

I disageed that with follow statement even when you exchange sites for pages.

>>>Now if we search for allinanchor:"quality business cards" this shows how many sites are competing for the exact the same keyword i.e. "quality business cards" and your site comes on page 2.

>>>Site is a collection of pages so you cant get authority on pages of your sites...it's domain which gets authority status!!!

I would basically agree with this and I don't see where I stated anything differnet.

>>>Looks like you have just come out here to disagree with us whatever we say!!!

No. But I do disagree with a lot that you are saying.

>>>who do a proper research before suing anybody!

Er, who is suing someone?

>>>Because you don't want to understand them!!

No I think it is more a language barrier perhaps.

>>>Aviva has many inbounds just because of it being on the front page of digg for more than once! Well does that count for won links in your criteria!

I havn't reviewed Aviva inbound links and I don't see the need to. I would rather stick to discussing principles.

>>>I don't mind until we are having a good debate...keep em comin

I am not interested in a debate. I am interested in sharing and learning. I feel no need to debate for the sake of debating.

>>>And one more thing that I happened to came across is that your page seocompany.ca/seo-expert-bob-mutch.html rank below to mine manishpandey.com for the term seo expert.

Good work, your site out ranks mine!

>>>Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours

Of course not.

>>>So, you see why i pointed out this.

I am not sure.

>>>So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!

I have never stated that. Please find a quote where I say that. I don't think Rand believes that either.

>>>I guess bob might agree seeing this that allinanchor: is the tool to check competitiveness of a key phrase and not his so called "keword phrase"

I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is. I look at a number of things, Overture searches, allintitle:, allinurl:, allinanchor:, term in quotes, site authority of the top 10 sites that rank for that keyword, and a number of other items.

[rankland]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

Manish Pandey:
>>>Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain

Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.

>>>"mix your anchor texts with related terms"...if you don't know this factor then...ummm....what could i say!

I agree with that but that was not what you stated before. You stated the following...

>>>It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point.

I responded by telling you I missed your point.

>>>The reason behind this is that you don't control the anchor text links...it is what people do! and if you control the links then sooner or later you would be penalized!

I don't think you would get penalized for having the same text in your anchor text. Perhaps the links could be devalued as they don't look natural but not penalized.

>>>Well when i said sites it would normally mean pages...dude...come on!

I understood you mean pages by sites but that was not what I disagreed with.

I disageed that with follow statement even when you exchange sites for pages.

>>>Now if we search for allinanchor:"quality business cards" this shows how many sites are competing for the exact the same keyword i.e. "quality business cards" and your site comes on page 2.

>>>Site is a collection of pages so you cant get authority on pages of your sites...it's domain which gets authority status!!!

I would basically agree with this and I don't see where I stated anything differnet.

>>>Looks like you have just come out here to disagree with us whatever we say!!!

No. But I do disagree with a lot that you are saying.

>>>who do a proper research before suing anybody!

Er, who is suing someone?

>>>Because you don't want to understand them!!

No I think it is more a language barrier perhaps.

>>>Aviva has many inbounds just because of it being on the front page of digg for more than once! Well does that count for won links in your criteria!

I havn't reviewed Aviva inbound links and I don't see the need to. I would rather stick to discussing principles.

>>>I don't mind until we are having a good debate...keep em comin

I am not interested in a debate. I am interested in sharing and learning. I feel no need to debate for the sake of debating.

>>>And one more thing that I happened to came across is that your page seocompany.ca/seo-expert-bob-mutch.html rank below to mine manishpandey.com for the term seo expert.

Good work, your site out ranks mine!

>>>Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours

Of course not.

>>>So, you see why i pointed out this.

I am not sure.

>>>So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!

I have never stated that. Please find a quote where I say that. I don't think Rand believes that either.

>>>I guess bob might agree seeing this that allinanchor: is the tool to check competitiveness of a key phrase and not his so called "keword phrase"

I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is. I look at a number of things, Overture searches, allintitle:, allinurl:, allinanchor:, term in quotes, site authority of the top 10 sites that rank for that keyword, and a number of other items.

If lets say my directory tital is (local and regional directory), and im #1 serp in that category as well as local and regional web directory, and other such key words would i be an authority directory? Ive never lost position in 1 1/2 yrs. in my tital key words.

[rankland]

Bob mutch why did you leave the board with out answering my question? My directory is starting to confuse me, because i never thought it would progress in key terms as well as it did so quickly. I started my directory Knowing nothing about computers, and only wanting a hobby i started watching some of my key phrases for some reasons all my key words moving to the top of the searches. At first i didn't think it was a big deal until i started reading forums on how hard it is to get #1 in search results. To this day im confused that after spiderers or bots i see more of my site key words at the top of searches. Its actually pretty scary, Because like i said this was just a hobby of mine. I did a test once , and one of my other local and regional directories that was never seen on the board in any search so i put it on the front page of my directory, and the first yahoo spider that accured this site hit first page in local and regional directory (linkunow.com) this is when i found out how important it was to be high serp.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain

Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.

I will:

Originally Posted by bobmutch

Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title.

Not verbatim, true, but surely you admit in that statement you were trying to imply that Rand's assessment of the quality of the Aviva directory, based on his title-ranking test, was sound and should be trusted. If it's not at the very least quality, then it's not authority, since we are talking strictly in terms of how the search engines see things.

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!

I have never stated that. Please find a quote where I say that. I don't think Rand believes that either.

Well, afaik you are in fact defending Rand and his methodologies in this thread... and this was his assertion:

Originally Posted by SEOMoz Blog

This week, Rand talks about directories and why so many of them have little to no value...

UPDATE from Rand: I wanted to provide a quick run-down process on how to determine if the directory you're submitting to is valuable.

1. Does the directory itself (the home page) rank for any of the mode