Understanding Relevancy

[tcampione]

Obviously, much has been written on the subject of relevance. But, I am still struggling to understand it. More to the point, I’m trying to better understand how *Google* determine relevance. The basics are of course, that the most relevant pages are listed first in any given search results.

So in effect, we are all striving to be the most relevant. But Google’s relevancy calculations are quite frankly, baffling to me. For example, if I search for my domain name based on an exact phrase match: "audience-response-rentals.com" Google return about 864 pages. Of the 864, only 64 are displayed. Google kindly note that the other 800 have been omitted because they are very similar to the other 64.

This tells me that Google consider the 800 somewhat irrelevant. Within the 64 displayed, there appears to be a good mix of page types. There are some very relevant industry sites, directory sites with appropriate category pages, and search services with relevant keywords in the url. Also, one of my internal pages is shown.

But, there are irrelevant forum pages that include my url in the signature, some blog comments pages, and some PPC partner search engine pages showing some of my weakest keywords.

If I then show all 864, my own default page (which links back to itself of course) comes in at position 40, or so. Yes, that is partially because multiple pages from the same domain are grouped. But even so, how can a no-name PPC page with almost no related content other than a dozen paid ads that are loosely related to my page, be more relevant than my own default page?

If I could understand that, I could be far more effective in my hunt for relevant links.

[fathom]

Relevancy "is" far more of a concept than a specific practice.

We tend to analysis individual tactics, techniques, and best practices (or higher risk practices) as separate standalone values (or merits) when in fact they (according to Googles way of delivering ordered rankings) are totally meshed together as a single combined solution.

As such - no can truly answer your question "correctly".

However, is the great scheme of things five factors stand out as being the backbone that drives the other 95 (if as Google says 100 factors are involved in delivering ordered rankings).

Note: not in any particular order:

1. More unique topical content with the website

2. Internal website architecture (internal breadcrumbs / navigation)

3. Page Titles (and uniqueness)

4. Votes - links to you but leaning to "quality rather than quantity"

5. Expansion of all consistently - the less connectiveness you have (relative to Google size) the more you lose over time).

Point #4 seem to be what you are stuck on however, Points #1, 2 & 3 are as relevant "externally" (to your website) - as internally.

[cz]

That was one excellent post Fathom! People agonize, explore mind boggling theories, and study research papers that Einstein would have to read and "grade" to unlock GG's secrets. Your post is an outline for anyone to understand and to do quite well on Google. If they do the work.
Thumbs Up!
Chuck

[tcampione]

Thanks fathom. It's a lot to truly digest, but I'll take some time and do just that.