#1 on Google for "Search Engine Optimization" !!

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/5/emw122760.htm


Who are those lucky individuals who have mostly held on to #1 on Google for Search Engine Optimizaion

this article offers some insight

 

I want my revenue to increase 650%

Can we say instant multi-millionarre?

 

The less said about SEOINC the better I say, needless to say that they and their 'methods' of Search engine optimisation' are not held with very much regard by many in the SEo/SEm world.

Best not to say any more as I would not want to get my butt sued off ;-)

 

Agreed

What is interesting though is go into

http://www.mcdar.net/KeywordTool/keywordtool.asp

and type in "www.seoinc.com" and "search engine optimization"

and look at the figures!

So what is important then?

 

Backlinks and Anchor text!

They have the competition beat, hands down.

Caryl

 

Got it in one!

But look at the triangle shape down [5400 down to 90] for Backlinks

and the 'A'
1
2
7
3
5
6
12

that is affected "only" by the Links

 

Forget the last column (links)...

Look at how site size will nudge the placement.
Allinanchor:
1. 96 5400 1 2090
2. 1 2930 2 5810
3. 880 2840 7 10800
4. 120 228 3 4050
5. 82 207 5 345
6. 135 150 6 7370
7. 9630 90 12 35700
8. 634 174 10 1430
9. 72 4950 9 1250
10. 9120 780 15 12400

But look at positions 8 and 10. Allinanchor is the winner there. (but it could also be a "category" thing)

 

What is it that makes SEOINC place number 1? it looks like many of the top ten would out perform it.

 

schlottke,

If you look at the numbers I posted above your post, you can see that they have beat the competitors with Backlinks. (the second number in the list above).

They have 5400 backlinks to that page and the next closest competitor has 2930 Backlinks.

PLUS, since they are number one in allinanchor:, most of those 5400 backlinks have "search engine optimization" as the anchor text.

 

Here's some grist for the mill. The URLs and keywords are immaterial. This is as reported by the McDar tool, save for the PRs, which are as per Proogle.

SERP......Pages......BackLinks....*A*........Links........PR

..# 5...............39...........40............. 6...........134..........5
..# 6.............. 59...........36............16...........233..........5
# 41........15,800...........36............39......17,600..........6

Can the *A* (position for allinanchor) really be that important?

If so, what in the world does one do when one cannot control it? (The very name of the #41 site, mine--which is really about #33, must have caught a bad moment on an off data center--has all the keywords in it; what more can one do?)

[Possibly amusing sidebar: the relevant Yahoo Directory page, #3 placement, has 27 backlinks showing.]

 

"not held with very much regard by many in the SEo/SEm world. "

thats because the seo world is full of player haters

obviously their methods are the right methods for google because , they have been number 1 for months now

 

Well, all I can say is the evidence speaks for itself. Apparently position for allinanchor really is that important?

What do you mean "one can't control it"? First of all you have total control over the anchor text of all internal backlinks. And most webmasters will respect your wishes if you asked them nicely to use a particular anchor text. And if you are doing reciprocal linking you can insist on it.

To to say you have no control is a cop-out in my opinion.

When are you going to start listening, and give up the idea that on-page content is what drives SERP placement? It isn't! Backlinks with the right anchor text drive SERP placement. It has been said a 1,000 times on this forum and others. Why are you still asking questions about keywords in your content?

 

Well, all I can say is the evidence speaks for itself. Apparently position for allinanchor really is that important. I was under the impression that you were a champion of the view that the all-important factor was backlinks. We see three sites with very similar numbers of reported (presumably meaning PR4 & up) backlinks, but one with almost a hundred times as many total links as the other two each have. Those thousands and thousands may be of low PR, but that's a lot of links.

What do you mean 'one can't control it'? I mean, um, one can't control it. First of all you have total control over the anchor text of all internal backlinks. So I do, and most, I'd reckon, of those thousands of links are my own, which, sheerly by using my site title, are each "all in anchor". So that's covered, probably 80% to 90% of the total links are necessarily "all in anchor", yet the "allinanchor" placement figure is far lower than that for a site with a grand total of 134 links.

And most webmasters will respect your wishes if you asked them nicely to use a particular anchor text. Perhaps on your home planet: not on mine. Most of them--being, in my sandbox, amateurs--don't even answer emails (of any kind). And if you are doing reciprocal linking you can insist on it. But I'm by and large not. As I have said before, most of the sites ahead of me in my category are amateur sites run by amateurs; the very few that aren't are rather cut-throat about links (they hide theirs behind JavaScript, and/or require a garish graphic reciprocal backlink wildly out of keeping with civilized sites). To to say you have no control is a cop-out in my opinion. OK, now we know your opinion. What is being copped out of is unclear, but so be it.

When are you going to start listening, and give up the idea that on-page content is what drives SERP placement? It isn't! Sorry, I seem to have forgotten the part where I said or implied that it was. What I see, looking back, is a straight-numbers statistical comparison of three sites, with no reference to page content whatever.

Backlinks with the right anchor text drive SERP placement. It has been said a 1,000 times on this forum and others. Why are you still asking questions about keywords in your content? That's another part I seem to be missing. I see no question, overt or implied, about keywords. The one use of the term is in the sentence "The URLs and keywords are immaterial." Are we looking at the same text?

My sole question was whether it is possible that "allinanchor" is so weighted that a relatively small differential in that value outweighs tens of thousands of links; I might also have added, and do now, the question of how the "allinanchor" rating is arrived at, when I know that a very high percentage of those thousands of links have exactly my keywords in the anchor text. Are links from one's own site severely discounted in that reckoning?

Site #5 has 134 links in grand total. If each and every single one of them has all the keywords in its link anchor, how does that weigh in the positioning for a site that has, exclusive of its own backlinks, doubtless more allinanchor links than the other site has in total, plus thousands more internal allinanchor? I do not grasp the calculation algorithm for the allinanchor ranking.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=455

 

thats nice but i think we were talking in this thread

 

Whats up with having ! ! as a name on a forum? Seems kinda odd to me.. ;0)

 

While rechecking this allinanchor stuff (#19 for allinanchor, #27 or #28 for straight keywords), I ran across this possibly interesting bit of minutiae: Google's result page specifies that it is showing results "21 - 30"; there are 11 listings on the page (and no, none is a subpage of any other). Is this what they call "the new math"?

 

Heaven knows if it will stay up, but as I type I'm looking at:

http://www.google.com/search?q=science+fiction+fantasy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=20&sa=N

Counted several times.

Update a little later:

Well, the "11 - 20" page also has 11. Apparently, this datacenter for this search (I have looked no farther yet) is giving 10 items on the first page, then carrying the last item of that and each successive page across as an "extra" atop the correct 10--that is, on an 11-item page, the apparent first item is a spurious carryover from the end of the last page. Bug or feature?

(A new search on a completely different term did *not* reproduce the condition. Following that, in turn, with a new search for the former terms--science fiction fantasy--again returns 11-item pages. Weird . . . .)

 

Oh, and meanwhile, back at the ranch: the old which-datacenter raises its head.

Repeated calls to McDar's tool show the site as #39 overall and #34 for allinanchor, whereas a parallel repeated directs call to Google shows #28 (or #27, it's on the 11-item page) overall and #19 for allinanchor. Not drastically different, but assuredly significantly different. Which, as I have said before, leaves me in my status as a Google user, wondering what worth Google's results are supposed to have for me. Different relevances for different users?