Insecure? You don't know me very well, do you, compar.... and no, I'm not attacking you, or anyone else for that matter -- the issues, just the issues, ma'am. My main mission here is to turn AC's Red Square into a Green Square -- I would see that as a triumph of environmentalism over communism. But either way, Google will triumph over both.
DP is a good American, I just came here and sort of shocked the members, any other forum would have banned me. Shawn put up with a lot, folks even coming here from other forums to attack me Minstrel. So we all know that he is fair. But we also need to stay on topic or the thread is doomed.
Interesting article Bob, but if I am correct in that you are saying that Google is now somehow using relevancy to rank links, I would have to disagree. We can go through the various patents one by one, but in summary, I cannot see LocalRank being in use since that would seem to give preference to external as opposed to intenal links, and demonstratably internal links still seem to be important. Hilltop and TSPR are such a radical departure from the traditional Google algo that I doubt it is in fact practically possible to blend them into Google without a whole new aglo, and since many sites that were optimized before the Florida update continue to rank well, I tend to discount that possibility. Applied Semantics CIRCA technology is being used by Google for interpreting which ads are relevant to page content, and since this is similar to the job the Google algo does, one wonders why they bought the company at all. IMO it is used because it can view a page in isolation, without reference to external factors and make a relevancy judgement without resorting to a large database and parsing out the contents, etc. Does CIRCA do a better job than the Google algo? Best to ask those who use adsense. Stemming we know is in use, but it really does not change much of the ranking algo, just acknowledges that there are root words or derivatives which may also be relevant and thus somewhat broadens the ranking base but IMO it is not a major ranking factor. But IMO the biggest factor that mitigates against the use of these technologies is that sites and pages untouched since before Florida continue to rank very well today. If in fact Google is using these new technologies which are available to them, the search results are not much different to those achieved without them.
Mel, You are perfectly correct on stemming. I shouldn't have included it in my list, but everyone else seems to so I just left it in. You will notice however that I never said that Google was doing or using all these things. In fact I, like you, rather doubt they are. But if they were then I think the content on the linking page -- internal or external -- but mainly external, would become important. The article is speculative in nature at best and was originally meant as a fob to the "content is everything people" who link people like myself seem to irrate so badly. Now on the continued success of old pages. You can't say simply because a page was in the top ten before Florida and all the subsequent update that it necessarily doesn't conform with the criteria that some of these sematic tools would be looking for. In fact there were lots of SEOs seeking only links from relevant pages before Florida. I think they were doing this unnecessarily at the time and may still be doing so, but there is no reason that an old page could not exhibit the characteristics that a new algo is looking for.
Mel, my old friend, the following search explains why Google acquired AS, very important, I am sure you would agree http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=applied+semantics+adsense&x=38&y=17 hope you are doing well Mel
No I am not wondering at all since the AS was supplying Adsense under contract before Google bought them, and IMO it was a case of seeing a product they liked and buying it, firstly to keep the technology out of competitors hands, secondly likely for a long term profit, and possibly with an eye to other uses of the technology, the programmers and other assests of AS.
I think the AS shareholders got a good deal, Cash, Google Stock and I would bet royalties on the Adsense program for quite a long time.
First off Bob, you do not irritate me (at least not all the time ) I have respect for your posts which tend to be well thought for the most part. Its just that I am a cranky old fart who is not as diplomatic as I could be. As far as the old pages go, I should have been more specific and mentioned that these are customers pages that I have been tracking for a long period of time, and have a pretty fair knowledge of where and how the links come about. As an contrary example I note that once a page ranks well in the serps, those sites who publish search results as web pages are giving the high ranking sites links, and usually these are from semi-related pages, so you are correct in saying that some links are from relevant content pages. I also know of other pages that rank primarily based on internal links, but leave open the judgement on whether these are relevant pages or not.
Mel what is your opinion of DMOZ listed sites, do you feel that those sites stayed the same after the so-called Florida update? I do not believe in the "Florida Update" as most of the SEO's do, I feel a lot of the theories are false that these guys came up with.
IMO the Florida update did not stay long enough for anyone to get a good grasp of what it was and what it was not. It seems to me that by the time the Brandy Update rolled around in January, that we were seeing the Pre-Florida results again. As an example on one site, a great many rankings on many different phrases plummeted from top five rankings to oblivion. The site was not modified from November to January and with the Brandy update almost identical rankings were back for these unchanged pages. This and other things have convinced me that the results we see today from Google own little or nothing to Florida.
The same thing that I have always thought, they are a normal link from a PR so-and-so page with usually many other links on the page ie. no different than any other link,but they are a two for one deal as they also get you a link from the Google directory and possibly many others who use the DMOZ feed.
In some keywords I have found that those listed with DMOZ have a hell of a lot longer life at the top than those who do not over a LONG PERIOD of time Mel.
It never occurred to me that I irrated you Mel. I never counted you among the "content is king" school. In fact we should be friends. If you remember I went to the wall for you on that other forum when a couple of moderators attacked you over the experiment I reference in my article. As I remember it I thought the attack was so stupid and ill-considered that I quit that forum shortly thereafter and have never visited or posted there regularly since. In fact I originally wrote that article in February and it was partly motivated by the defense of your experiment. I have just refreshed it in light of the upcoming anniversary of Florida and because one of the more popular online newsletters or journals said they would publish it if I updated and refreshed it.
Mel is a good man Bob, I like Mel a lot, he makes some great points all the time and we can all learn from his insight, yea yours also Bob
Anthony, There certainly was a "Florida update". I think what you may mean is you don't believe many of the explanations and theories about what the cause and motivation of the Florida update was. I agree with Mel, Florida as such was reasonably short lived, but what it did mark has been a succession of updates and modifications that are still going on as far as I can see. This thread started out talking about whether or not Google was broken. The debate got semantic a bit because what is the meaning of broken. If Shawn and Minstrel can't except the term broken I think they will at least agree that there has been a steady flow of changes. Pages have fallen in and out of the SERPs for no discernable reason. And while the PR/backlink update is not directly related to the SERPs, nonetheless it is not working in anything like the manner to which we had become familiar. So my article isn't talking so much about Florida as it is the almost year of change that was signaled by Florida.
What I have tried to make clear to everyone is that no one that I am aware of has put as much effort into the study of this than you Bob. So I feel with the McDar thread under your belt and still ongoing that we should stay tuned in to what you have to say. I do not think anyone on this forum or on many others have the insight that you do on these matters. I can not even understand the terms you are using in your experiments so I must trust your opinions as I can understand those I hope. Keep up the research and good work, I for one am thankful you are around, many others are also and have expressed that in many threads here.