It was semi-recently. Maybe thegypsy knows when it was created but I forgot. But I do know it is as accurate as it comes. It was done very well and the data can be trusted. The other link is to a resource that was created back in 99 I believe and updated in 2001. Since then I don't see any changes in it. Alot has happened since then. But this list from seomoz is not that old. I believe it was in 2006 sometime but again I am not quite sure.
I got that there 2 sites displaying the same content and how do I know who is copying whome. If you look at the domain that you've refered has PR 3, where as domain refered above has PR6. So I'm assuming the PR6 is the original one. The comment by you is quite a nasty one. Not very encouraging. I think before you make comment should do some research. Regards
PR has nothing to do with age. The URL of the domain you supplied looks less than legit in my eyes. I know when I saw the list the first time it didn't have adsense ads around it, as it took the original author quite sometime to write out. If the website where the document is posted is not yours, I apologize for the comment.
The ranking factors list on SEOmoz was written by me with help from all the contributors you see listed on that page. The link from SEM-Advance is stolen, copied content. Frustrating to see that folks believe that to be the original. I can assure you that's not the case.
Hey Rand - I haven't read it in a while, U still have the 'code' ( ie; compliance/W3C/) factors on that after Matt 'poo pooed' it last fall? I remember in being on yer list, no? Just following up with V and the 'freshness' bit....
Hey Rand Now I remember where I read it first. What's odd is copyscape didn't seem to bring up seomoz
I got the communication. The site doesn't belong to me, I saw the site and thought worth posting. Now I'm clear from what context you came from. Regards