homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.95.201
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
Is the Google Algorithm Really Secret?
Can the basis for the algo be incorporated in a website?
Onders




msg:103627
 11:20 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Was approached a few weeks ago by someone who is testing a new strategy to Search Engine Optimisation - specifically in Google. Says he is attempting to incorporate the algo into websites, so that a site gets optimised as effectively as possible, and changes to reflect any change in the algorithm. Sounds interesting but am a bit dubious! He says the algorithm itself is not secret (is this true?!)

Any ideas or thoughts on this? Is the algo actually available to anyone? I have seen a Page rank formula before but this is just a part of it.

Interestingly, he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on...

 

topr8




msg:103628
 11:25 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

actually backlinks is only ONE of MANY criteria - however it does seem that it is a pretty important criteria along with linktext which is obviously closely related.

trillianjedi




msg:103629
 11:32 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

He says the algorithm itself is not secret (is this true?!)

The exact details of it are secret. We know that there are over 100 factors (according to Google) which make it up. I'm sure between a few WebmasterWorld members we could list all 100 of them. That's guessable. We couldn't tell you the weighting applied to each - that's secret.

Is the algo actually available to anyone?

No.

I have seen a Page rank formula before but this is just a part of it.

Correct - it's just one part of it. I think the formula is actually published in their patent.

Interestingly, he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on...

Might well be right, but it's missing the point. It may only be 5% of the overall calculation, but what's important is what weighting is applied to that 5%.

TJ

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:103630
 11:46 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

This guy knows the Google algo and he's telling people about it?

Think about it ;)

Onders




msg:103631
 11:46 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for that topr8 and trillian! Is this something that you would stay well away from?! The only thing he wants to charge me for is setting up and designing a mirror site, the rest is up to him..
Am worried that if the site is any way connected to my initial site, Google might not look on me too favourably!

trillianjedi




msg:103632
 11:53 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

The only thing he wants to charge me for...

OK, now I get it - you didn't say that in your first post - I thought this was an experiment by someone you know ;-)

In that case:-

Is this something that you would stay well away from?!

The word "bargepole" springs to mind....

TJ

Onders




msg:103633
 11:57 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ha! It sounds ridiculous now I read my own posts! Thanks for the advice

keywordguru




msg:103634
 2:48 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you knew the google algo, you could literally turn yourself into a Billionaire overnight!

Imagine placing #1 for all of the biggest industry markets? Talk about MASSIVE TRAFFIC and MASSIVE amounts of cash to be made.

If you think about it, Yahoo isn't bashful and throws their link above all in every market. Smart I tell ya!
KG

walkman




msg:103635
 2:50 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

how fast can you run from this guy?

Onders




msg:103636
 3:38 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

im on the starting blocks already.. If it hadnt been for webmasterworld i may have risked it.. oh dear!

vabtz




msg:103637
 3:49 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

he may be referring the original paper written on search by the creators of google

but I am sure they have updated the algo since then

walkman




msg:103638
 4:08 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on"

I'm willing to bet that it's closer to 50%. Backlinks include PR, anchor text and popularity. You can put a page about anything on PBS.org site and it will rank high.

randle




msg:103639
 4:13 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Says he is attempting to incorporate the algo into websites, so that a site gets optimised as effectively as possible, and changes to reflect any change in the algorithm.

Pretty interesting concept though; wonder if anyone has tried it. Or at least begun creating a software package that would begin to mimic all you know about it.

Interestingly, he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on...

This I donít believe, back links with proper anchor text, from high PR pages, is the largest determining aspect of getting where you want to be. (or put another way, you really have your work cut out getting there without it)

trillianjedi




msg:103640
 4:38 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Walkman/Randle: in any algorithm you can distinguish between a number of factors and their individual weighting.

In this case (Google algo) it's the weighting of backlinks/anchor text etc that cuts the grade (as we all know it does), not their quantative make up of the entire algo.

It would not surpise me at all, if out of 100 or so factors present, backlink related criteria represent only 5 percent of the total.

It's not their presence relative to all other factors that's important, but their weighting relative to all other factors.

TJ

walkman




msg:103641
 4:45 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"In this case (Google algo) it's the weighting of backlinks/anchor text etc that cuts the grade (as we all know it does), not their quantative make up of the entire algo."

"quantative make up"
what do you mean? The % of their algo code?

here's a very, very simple test: let's take out the backlinks from Monster.com and see if it ranks first for "jobs" anymore. Backlinks provided its PR, anchor text and popularity. Actually, I'd say that 75+% on ranking is backlinks, directly or indirectly.

trillianjedi




msg:103642
 4:56 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, perhaps I didn't explain this very well.

Backlinks is a factor in google's algo, and in terms of weighting we all know it's massive (no disputing that).

But, say, for arguments sake, there are 99 other factors (page titles, density etc).

You can say that out of the total criteria in googles algo, backlinks (and associated criteria) represent less than 5% of the total.

That would be absolutely correct.

In terms of weighting of individual criteria, we all know that backlinks (and associated factors) are the trump card.

That does not invalidate the original statement from the original post:-

Interestingly, he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on...

You're mixing up numbers of criteria with their relative weighting, which are wholly distinct in any algo.

The original statement is absolutley correct but highly economical. It omits to go on and say ".... however the most important ones are....".

TJ

OptiRex




msg:103643
 5:25 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Onders - just type into Google

google ranking factors

then you'll know as much as your guru:-)

walkman




msg:103644
 5:33 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"You're mixing up numbers of criteria with their relative weighting, which are wholly distinct in any algo. "

let's see if I get it now:
Google uses let's say 10 factors to rank sites. Backlinks is one of them. 1 divided by 10 is 10%. In that sense? If this is it, what he said is techically true, but it's extremely misleading.

If Googles uses 100 factors and 90 of them carry a combined 10% weight, as far as SEO purposes are concerend, those factors not equal. We care about SERPS and what makes go on top.

trillianjedi




msg:103645
 5:38 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yup.

Google uses let's say 10 factors to rank sites. Backlinks is one of them. 1 divided by 10 is 10%.

Criteria.

If Googles uses 100 factors and 90 of them carry a combined 10% weight, as far as SEO purposes are concerend, those factors not equal. We care about SERPS and what makes go on top.

Weighting.

extremely misleading

Absolutely, and deliberately so I'm sure.

See my first post in thread (Msg #3).

TJ

nalin




msg:103646
 5:40 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think we can safely determine when the google algo has truly been deciphered by the code breaker springing to the top of competitive search engine optimization related terms overnight and with no backlinks.

Atleast thats what I plan to do after I break it - but alas still trying to brute force the kernels 11 herbs and spices as well as a certain cola companies "secret" formula.

phantombookman




msg:103647
 6:15 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interestingly, he states that backlinks constitute only 5% of criteria that Google ranks you on...

Links are everything, content is not king!
Nobody knows the maths or exact proportions but a search for 'miserable failure' or 'home' tells you just about everything you need to know about the Google algo

Dubya_J




msg:103648
 6:16 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think whether the algo is seceret or not is largely a mute point. (not entirely... before you spring into attack, but largely).

You can have all the weightings on all the factors, but if those factors are outside your ability to influence the weight of, then its redundant knowledge.

Its clealry why search engines rely on factors like a highly evolved appreciation of backward 3rd party links.

Ok..so you know you need links, you even know the type of links, you even know the type of sites that would carry the type of links. But if you have a terrible site, no content, a lousy business proposition, and nothing unique or compelling to offer, they're goign to refuse you point blank.

Then that knowledge is practically uselss. Its almost...the perfect way of filtering out the flannel.

Although I do concede that understanding it can certainly help you better leverage assets that you may already have.

Just Guessing




msg:103649
 6:32 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

But if you have a terrible site, no content, a lousy business proposition, and nothing unique or compelling to offer, they're goign to refuse you point blank.

Try offering them money

On second thoughts, if your site is that bad, why bother?

iblaine




msg:103650
 7:49 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very often you hear people say they cracked Google, MSN or Yahoo and it always means they found an exploit that a search engine is unable to handle. Look at miserable failure, you see large numbers of backlinks so you could say all I have to do is create backlinks to rank well. Apply this strategy towards a keyword like 'racing' and it's not going to work. This is because a websites position is determined by many factors that vary in importance. It's not a simple 2 dimensional formula like y=mx+b where y is your position, x is the number of backlinks and m & b are the secret ingredients. It's a complicated procedure that uses linear algebra, matrices and eigenvalues and is very unlikely to be reverse engineered. Fortunately we know some things to be true, like links and title tags are important. People can go to extremes with these factors and fool a search engine into ranking well but that's not cracking an algorithm. If it is cracking the algorithm then it should scale across any keyword and that's not going to happen.

Onders




msg:103651
 9:18 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for all your input - glad i provoked a backlinks frenzy.. and thanks for indirectly informing me that I have to spend the next 14 years in solitude asking every webmaster I know who's site is related to mine, for links. Oh great

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved