SevenCubed - 7:07 pm on Sep 28, 2012 (gmt 0)
Thanks for the link tedster. I just skimmed it quickly but bookmarked it to return to. Didn't really find any ah hah stuff in there though. What's written is already a reflection of their public facing SERPs which leave a lot to be desired. Or another way of saying it is if their theories are so good why are their results so bad?
A more sophisticated way to do this is to look at the number of people who bounce off a web site and they click on a different search result for the same search query.
But that statement from within the article caught my eye. It's an indicator of one aspect of what's wrong with (much) of their logic. He puts emphasis on it being a "more sophisticated way"...yikes.
If I search for something important and find it on the first result I click on I still back-click to results to visit additional sites backing up and confirming the first one I read. If after reading the 5th result I decide I don't need any more confirmation that the original one I clicked on is valid I don't click-back. I just go directly back to the first one that I still have open in another tab. And chances are last site I visited was not the best choice. But the quoted statement above leads me to understand they would give more weight to the last site I visited because I didn't go back?