McDar Experiment

[compar]

Have a look at this Keyword Analysis Tool.

You have to study the result for a few minutes -- at least I did -- to figure out exactly what is being shown, but it does present an interesting analysis.

What would be interesting is another column showing the PR of each page.

[Foxy]

Not sure what it does for me personally!!

Interesting analysis though and I agree could have a PR column

Think I'll go and have an odd glass of wine to mull this one over

[compar]

The wine sound like a good idea. What is your favourite type and vintner at the moment?

Oh! back to the analysis. It gives you a quick look at the specs of your top ten competitors. You can see what you need to do about the number of backlinks to compete.

[mcdar]

Hello Bob and Foxy,

Thank you Bob for the email and invite to this forum! I just signed up.

Bob suggested in his email that I add a column for PR as well as making a function that would allow for some way to export or save the results.

Actually, I have to admit that I originally was going to make the last column PR not the anchor text results. There are two reasons why I did not.

First and foremost, I was struggling with calculating the new checksum. To get the PR rating for a particular page, you must supply a number (checksum) to Google. The checksum number is found by applying a mathmatical equation and using a table to convert the alphanumeric values of a domain name into a numeric value. Anyway, I don't have it figured out yet.

In the meantime, I added the anchor text rating. Once I saw that that value seemed to tell a much bigger story, I decided to save myself some time and forget about the PR.

Believe me when I tell you that I did a great many searches that resulted in sites in the top ten results with relatively low PR. The number one position in our own main keyword is PR5, 1800 pages, 119 backlinks, BUT number 1 for anchor text! They beat out other sites that had them beat in all the other fields EXCEPT anchor text.

I have found that the anchor text ranking plays a much stronger role as the keywords become much more competitve.

ANYWAY... I will certainly add the PR column if and when I can figure out the calculations.

As far as having some sort of export or save feature, I think that is an excellent idea! I will ponder this and see what I can come up with.

Thanks again - Great forum!
Caryl

It gives you a quick look at the specs of your top ten competitors. You can see what you need to do about the number of backlinks to compete.

Bob, Here are the results for one minor keyword that I have not yet really targeted...
Position:
6. 1page, 6Backlinks, Anchor2
(us)
301. 244pages, 124Backlinks, Anchor79

It wasn't the number of backlinks that got this page a number 6 position in the results. It was the anchor text.

Oh, and by the way, I did look up their PR and found they are PR5. We are PR6.

Caryl

[Foxy]

Hiya

I got real pissed with the other forum when it changed from the Irish to the other team and I was only convinced to stay by many [but some people thought I was carping which I wasn't] - this is well before Shawn came along - but when Shawn started with his email forum indicating that he might consider the full thing I was there giving support.

Due credit to Shawn, and you, we have some wonderful tools and, here, a more technical and useful forum than the other and so I keep supporting .

So thankyou for joining here too!

The idea of the PR would be really interesting as well as the anchor - only because I was gobsmacked by the results I saw:

1. Backlinks are nearly non existent [or far less than I was believing they were]!!!!!!!
2. Anchor sometimes is a higher position than actual
3. which means that the allinurl must carry a higher weight
4. which coincides with the recent reporting of words in runtogethers being hilited and therefore of importance

Which all means I'm about to go and have another glass of Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc from NZ

[mcdar]

Hi Ya Foxy,

Thanks for the welcome! I too have decided to find some other forum to "hang my hat in". This forum is a breath of fresh air!

It is great to see folks freely post questions and answers without a few people dominating and ridiculing... Unfortunately, it dosn't take long for the trolls to take over a forum and run off the other members. nuf said.

I too was flabbergasted by the results of this tool. As soon as I got the code written and ran it for the first time, I couldn't believe my eyes. In many of our keywords, we have the stronger PR, more pages, even more backlinks, BUT rate lower in the allinanchor: results for the keyword.

Since seeing this, I have started a campaign soliciting links with very targeted anchor text. It seems that we improve in rating with every new link we acquire.

Since I have been virtually pulling my hair out since Florida, trying to improve our ranking, I am greatly relieved to find something that is actually providing results.

Our main competitor has a domain name like www.keywordkeywordandkeyword.com. No spaces, dashes, or underscores. Although they are number one in the results for keyword keyword and number one for allinanchor:Keyword Keyword, they are NO PLACE TO BE FOUND for allinurl:Keyword Keyword. It is due to this that I believe G is not yet able to, or at least does not, find the runtogethers in domain names.

Caryl

[compar]

Which all means I'm about to go and have another glass of Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc from NZ

Ah! Now your talking, NewZealand and Australia wines. First class in my book.

[digitalpoint]

Originally Posted by mcdar

It is great to see folks freely post questions and answers without a few people dominating and ridiculing... Unfortunately, it dosn't take long for the trolls to take over a forum and run off the other members. nuf said.

Just takes good Master of the Universe and Moderators to enforce things.

- Shawn

[hulkster]

Mcdar/Caryl,

Just another atta-boy for 'ya - I remember looking at this tool a little while back and yea, it takes a little bit of time to understand it - maybe add a link/explanation to explain AllInAnchor - note that Google no longer shows it on their "operators" page and you MUST lower-case it.

But definately provides some insights into the Google "secret sauce" and further reinforces the importance of anchor text.

Thanx again for sharing and thanx for joining this forum - Shawn has done an amazing job with his tools and hopefully the signal-noise ratio will stay decent in this forum and the trolls will stay away.

alek

[Foxy]

Yep there were tooooo many of those over there - my pet hate!

But when it comes to "putting it down the gullet" I can't have toooo many at all

Funny that!

Ah! Now your talking, NewZealand and Australia wines. First class in my book.

We need a wine section Shawn - just for the finer things in life

[mcdar]

Thanks for the welcome, hopefully Shawn will be able to keep this forum a "Troll free zone".

alek,

Thanks for the suggestions! I will see what I can come up with.

[Foxy]

They need to be watched though

eg french property

No7 www.frenchpropertylinks.com with the frenchproperty hilited

and

No 9 www.le-guide.com/frenchproperty with the frenchproperty hilited

so my reckoning is that it is being factored - we just aint seen it all yet!

[compar]

The tool gives some rather unbelievable results from time to time. I didn't do an actual search on Google to confirm these results but look at this report.

(I tried to attach a copy of a web page but couldn't figure out how to covert the page to one of the acceptable attachment formats????? )

So to see the results use www.yourfriendlypharmacy.com as the URL and 'order prescription drugs' as the search term.

www.medcohealth.com is reported in position 5 with

1200 pages
0 backlinks
59th place in allinanchor

I am rather incredulous that that site could really rank #5 with those specs.

(And Shawn not being able to attach a copy of a web page is the first deficiency I've found with this forum software. Is there a way to cope with this?)

[digitalpoint]

Originally Posted by compar

(And Shawn not being able to attach a copy of a web page is the first deficiency I've found with this forum software. Is there are way to cope with this?)

You just trying to attach .html file?

- Shawn

[compar]

Originally Posted by digitalpoint

You just trying to attach .html file?

- Shawn

I did and it is not one of the acceptable file extentions the acceptable extentions are:
Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt zip

Back to the Analysis. McDar, is one of the premises of this analysis that Google orders the results of a 'allinanchor:' search from the site with the greatest number of occurences of the anchor text to the least?

Because I just checked a manual 'allinanchor:' search and it appears that sites returned for the search are in random order.

[mcdar]

Bob,

What has lead you to believe the the allinanchor results are random?

I do not believe the results are random BUT it does seem thay may be calculated by some percentage of total backlinks to a site.

I really do not know how Google sorts allinanchor but I have found the results stable, not random.

[digitalpoint]

Originally Posted by compar

I did and it is not one of the acceptable file extentions the acceptable extentions are:
Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt zip

Okay... updated... html and php have been added (and a couple lame extensions removed):

Now supports:
doc gif html jpg pdf php png psd txt zip

- Shawn

[compar]

Ok. Thanks Shawn. So here is the page I wanted to show everyone:

Now if you look at these results my site is in 169th place despite being 7th on the allinanchor search.

So while I agree that I think anchor text is absolutely crucial in getting good placement in the SERPs from you backlinks. I don't think this analysis is giving us what we think it is. I don't think that the sites presented in an allinanchor: search are in any order, and the assumption that a high placement in the allinanchor: SERP indicates a high number of occurences of that keyword as anchortext is invalid.

[mcdar]

Bob,

Your results do look wierd! I have no idea what formula Google uses to produce the allinanchor results. But, what ever they use, the order of the results is fairly stable on repeating the search. So, I do not believe they are just organized randomly.

[compar]

Originally Posted by mcdar

Bob,

Your results do look wierd! I have no idea what formula Google uses to produce the allinanchor results. But, what ever they use, the order of the results is fairly stable on repeating the search. So, I do not believe they are just organized randomly.

So show me a 'allinanchor:' search that you feel is really in top down order.