Forum Moderators: open
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...
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.
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
Think about it ;)
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
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
but I am sure they have updated the algo since then
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.
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...
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
"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.
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
google ranking factors
then you'll know as much as your guru:-)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
On second thoughts, if your site is that bad, why bother?
