grant - 3:07 am on Nov 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you've never heard of:

1. Myth: Time on site matters 2. Myth: Bounce Rates affect my ranking 5. Myth: Links from topically relevant sites are critical

then see: [webmasterworld.com...]

Insofar as:

Mind you, I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'bounce rate'

Um, have you ever used Google Analytics? This is also known as "single access reports" in other analytics. If you are not looking at this metric...well, let's say you should be and it's kind of scary you have never heard of it.

For example, "Google doesn't know topical relevancy, it is too much of a wishy washy thing to comprehend for a computer." is total tosh :)

I gave an example. You did not. I showed a very significant example of Adobe KICKING THE ASSES of all the top financial companies. Give me an example. Please.

Google may or may not 'like' sites that gain multiple links fast; that's hardly the issue. The issue is what credit Google gives to those links.

Yes, we are saying the same thing here. Arrived at the same conclusion from different points of view.

Links from topically relevant sites are not critical, and no-oe ever said they were. But they are generally better than links from non-topically relevant sites, and less likely to be interpreted as paidlinks.

Define "topically relevant" and give me the opportunity to respond with a plethora of exceptions which will demonstrate why Adobe ranks so well for "financial services", "government", etc.

PR matters little, toolbar PR matters not at all. PR is one among about many factors. By all means obsess about it, if that makes you happy. But don't tell us toolbar pr is 'important' - because it isn't. And you you don't know 'real' pr, any more than I do.

I just showed you how Adobe ranks for "financial services", "government" and more. From one damn link on their PAGERANK 10 homepage. You think it doesn't matter? Please, for the love of God, give me a better data point to convince me otherwise. Speculation holds no water here.

No one site among a few billion 'proves' anything. There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations why one site may not behave 'as expected' - but that does not change the rules that apply to most sites.

You're right. I come from a science background. You can't prove anything, you can only demonstrate that it is likely to be so. WITH EXAMPLES. Please provide some.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but your rationalizations and theories really need more thought and a little evidence.

It will take a lot more to rain on my parade. Like examples.