stever - 11:37 am on May 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

(I am not steveb nor his glove-puppet)

MHes

I agree with much of your analysis when you keep it to the facts. Where I am a confused non-Senior Member is understanding why you define what you describe as "over-optimisation".

Yes, Google treats certain selections of words and phrases "differently". But where does this translate into "over-optimisation"?

That implies that one can "de-tune" a web page and return to an optimum level of optimisation. And that is something that I have yet to see satisfactorily demonstrated in any work I have done or in looking at the work of others.

(Sorry, Liane, I appreciate your honesty and the work that went into your posts, but I have fundamental disagreements with your conclusions.)

Far more likely, IMO, is that pages in certain keyword areas have to reach a certain standard of authority AS WELL AS do all the other things they did before (whether those standards are to do with semantic scope or differing kinds of links is another debate).

And it is entirely possible that the idea of networks and neighbourhoods has been rethought.

None of these ideas are in contradiction to what you posted above - yet if we debate "over-optimisation" there is a great danger that it becomes an accepted wisdom just by being the subject of so many posts.

Show me the money. Take a ranking page. Over-optimise it so it disappears. Now de-optimise it so it reappears. Now over-optimise it again. Now line up for an evening of drinks on me at Pubcon...