New Google Patents - Interesting...

Discussion in 'Google' started by amaze, May 10, 2007.

0
  1. #1
    Hi,

    I found this google patent which was filed last month. It seems to PROVE many of our ideas about "rep anchor text", "domain age", "stale documents" etc... I haven't sat down and pulled the useful information out, but quickly skimmed. I thought it would be good if we all pulled out the information from this into plain English into this thread.

    http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1777633&F=0&QPN=EP1777633

    Makes interesting reading!! :)
     
    amaze, May 10, 2007 IP
  2. rcj662

    rcj662 Guest

    Messages:
    4,403
    Likes Received:
    97
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    I find it funny google is placeing so much on new content updates. They do not allow automatic updateing sites and call them spam but rank them higher.
     
    rcj662, May 10, 2007 IP
  3. amaze

    amaze Active Member

    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #3
    No one else find this very interesting?
     
    amaze, May 10, 2007 IP
  4. gibex

    gibex Active Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    95
    #4
    yes, interesting
     
    gibex, May 10, 2007 IP
  5. amaze

    amaze Active Member

    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #5
    The things I have pulled out of it are (some we already thought, but good to know!):

    Fresh\updating content wins
    Moving servers can have a effect on SERPS
    Too much of the same anchor text is bad
    Too many links in "spikes" is bad

    Anything else anyone has pulled out?
     
    amaze, May 11, 2007 IP
  6. twelfty

    twelfty Active Member

    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #6

    I find that one a bit odd. I mean, some sites are an absolute authority/answer on whatever subject and would never or rarely need to be changed.
     
    twelfty, May 11, 2007 IP
  7. amaze

    amaze Active Member

    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #7
    Agreed but it does say pretty much that "stale" content isn't as good as new content? I think maybe it means the site in general rather than a specific.
     
    amaze, May 11, 2007 IP
  8. login

    login Notable Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    280
    #8
    Its interesting, specially the part about the link building.
     
    login, May 11, 2007 IP
  9. trichnosis

    trichnosis Prominent Member

    Messages:
    13,785
    Likes Received:
    333
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #9
    it was interesting to read . can somebody explain more about "Too many links in "spikes" is bad"?
     
    trichnosis, May 11, 2007 IP
  10. trueman

    trueman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #10
    Dear tricknosis.

    it's about too many links in a sort time, just build links very slowly.
     
    trueman, May 13, 2007 IP
  11. simey

    simey Active Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #11
    And hope some big site does'nt link to you 'sitewide'?
     
    simey, May 13, 2007 IP
  12. amaze

    amaze Active Member

    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #12
    It seems crazy though... I would imagine when a new "hot" product is launched say the "iphone" there is going to be 1000s of links with the same anchor text (iphone) pointing to apples site...

    Of course apples site is very trutted, but this hot product could be from a unknown start up company... How can they differtiante (sp?) between that and someone link building...?

    Can anyone else pull any nuggets of information out from this patent?
     
    amaze, May 13, 2007 IP