Did The Recent TrustRank Patent Grant Murder DMOZ?

[greeneagle]

I have thought long and hard before posting these thoughts:

Recently the GOOG made public what is going on behind the scenes with the recently awarded "TrustRank" US patent #7,096,214 .

It should be pretty obvious to all us SEO'rs that "TrustRank" has been being implimented as far back as the "Florida" update...

With the advent of "seeded standards" is DMOZ dead?

Did The Recent TrustRank Patent Grant Murder DMOZ?

I think it did.

How can we conclude with the "new" knowledge of how "TrustRank" works, otherwise?

DMOZ is history! - DOA

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Must say just because a patent is applied for/granted doesn't mean it is involved in the current algorithm.

Of course I felt DMOZ was history years ago. With recent outings of corrupt DMOZ editors Google can see (if their was a weighting at all) that no additional preference should be given for appearing in that directory.

[greeneagle]

What the heck is going on here?

This topic has been up for a good while.

Are we afraid to openly discuss the death of DMOZ?

Do you think I am clearly whacked here? or have you just not had time to review the patent and associated papers?

Let's face reality here... The SEO world has been groveling around little tidbits here and there while the GOOG has been making the necessary monumental changes in infrastructure as far back as "Florida" - Is this an SEO black eye or black hole?

My god, are you really proposing that the GOOG has been implementing "TrustRank" right under our noses for a while now?

LOL - Damn Right I am!

If as the "TrustRank" information plays out as stated... 20 seed sites or so.... Where does that leave DMOZ in a relevant world?

Surely we are not afraid to discuss these issues here, are we?

This isn't a DMOZ bashing thread, and I don't want to go there. It's simply about technology obselescing older technologies... It happens all the time!

IMO - This is the biggest SEO news in a while, and hardly anyone even has an opinion!

What is that about?

Someone, anyone in the SEO world needs to "buck up" here and rewrite the books!

I can post many threads that are now garbage right along with many SEO'r sites that need to be completely revised to incorporate "TrustRank" standards.

DMOZ has been on the decline for a while. I am not sure just how many DMOZ "bitchin" theads I have read through in the last couple of years...but I really need someone, anyone to oppose me with some saving grace there in the face of being swamped by the "human seeded" standards outlined in TrustRank, which most likely has been being implemented for years now, if there is room to do so.

In my mind the E-Coroner has pronounced DMOZ flatlined outside of being just another leading directory.

What is it besides that now? Google is not basing anything SERP there any more, at least not that has any real advantage.

Ken

[scanmonkey]

The end of DMOZ is just wishful thinking.

Google will continue to use the DMOZ as an authority. Perhaps they may even buy it. DMOZ is owned by Netscape Communications and part of the AOL Network owned and operated by AOL, LLC, a Time-Warner company.

I believe that Authority Rank and Trust Rank will continue to be highly weighted, but they are only a couple of the 100 or so criteria that google uses in it's algo.

[Steven1976a]

In short what is "Trust Rank" is it just neighbour hoods which you link to and from?

[Webnauts]

Ken is the Google Directory Page Rank dead too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRan...ctory_PageRank

I just finished this a minute ago, and I was happy with results:
http://www.webnauts.net/test.html

[aaron2005]

Google still uses DMOZ to cut off those ugly page titles, other than that I am not sure of it's value to G.

Page Rank is mainly used for deeper and faster crawls but a new site can also do ok whithout PR if it uses Google sitemaps to notify G and doesn't break it's trust value by link building or other SEO.

The "Is DMOZ dead" thing is a little overly emotional don't you think there Kenneth, hmm? :)

[greeneagle]

We all know that:

1. The TrustRank Patent was applied for around 6 years ago.

2. The algs have been going through severe changes starting with Florida a couple years ago.

3. The changes we have been able to identify align with the patent and paper, on topic.

4. The crux of TrustRank system is human edited seed sites of 20 or more.

Where does that leave DMOZ - Furnishing those 20 sites, at best?

This is not a DMOZ Bashing Thread!

These are fair, upright and straight forward questions!

Ken

[Tubby]

DMOZ? . I usually avoid any thread that has the word DMOZ in the title.

I have not quite got my head around 'trustrank' I simply aim what I do at where I think the web searches will be in three years time. I get good feedback indication of what my user are looking for. I simply work on the premis that sooner or later the major players will get it right. . So all I need to is get it right in time to coincide,. (well thats the theory. . Yes I am an Idiot!)

I never like to declare anything dead unless I have personally checked the pulse. . Then I am not content until it goes cold. But If DMOZ is not dead. . to me the subject is. . (Well maybe I might reminisce about what DMOZ could have been)

DMOZ is not yet dead. . I kicked it a while back and it shouted back at me . . (should I have kicked it harder?

[greeneagle]

Tubby:

"DMOZ is not yet dead. . I kicked it a while back and it shouted back at me . . (should I have kicked it harder?"

My experience is quite different. I have kicked it several times in the last 3 years and had absolutely no response getting several well done Sites listed, even in little categories where competition was almost nil... 4 or 5 sites listed..

But then, that is not what this is about. In view of what TrustRank is - How does that play out for DMOZ?

It's a "very small" (LOL) but important role supplying 20 seed sites or so... Don't you think?

Why would the GOOG even give full power to DMOZ to supply those few sites for seeding in such an important role?

I haven't seen any authoritive expression that commands that capability there!

The GOOG isn't going to depend on DMOZ only to provide those seed sites!

So what is the use in submitting with that little chance and who else provides what there?

Slim and none! - What's the use in submitting to DMOZ anymore?:

Most likely:

1) You won't even be acknowledged.
2) It will take years.
3) It most likely has a depricated value with TrustRank playing in

Deader than dead, from here!

I'd really like to hear from DMOZ editors with their uptake on how the public disclosure and advent of TrustRank has influenced their view of editing DMOZ going forward.

It takes a great deal of time to play as editor there or MOD here or there. These are all personal sacrifices that for some have intrinsic value somewhere. I am just wondering where that value lies anymore either as a DMOZ editor or as a webmaster launching a site and trying to realize value from that community!

IMO - Those are very fair questions in light of the TrustRank algs which have already been being introduced by both GOOGLE and Yahoo.

Surely we all know by now that both Google and Yahoo were involved in the original TrustRank research, right?

Editors and viewers alike need to understand that I am not kicking DMOZ here. I am simply asking what is the new role in light of the public disclosure of "TrustRank" and it's most probable ongoing implementation for some time now!

There are obviously inner-workings that had to be meshed somehow between the old and new ranking systems.

These are obvious and fair questions that should be on everyone's mind's right now.

I am asking them - that's all!

Ken

[greeneagle]

Aaron,

Newer technologies supplant older technologies all the time. It almost happens moment by moment in the SE alg world.

There is really nothing dramatic going on here besides awaking up a few to some basic potentially conflicting facts between progressing technologies.

IMO - That train already came and went... Some are running to catch up.

It's the same old drama.

Ken

[kgun]

1. How can human beings trust a Robot in 2006? Read the short article

"Trust rank and trust" that I wrote on my Blog August 14, 2005.

"Objective search is not an easy game. When you use mathematical algorithms, you must know what they say and don't say. You must know their limitations. That a lot of people vote for the same person, does not imply that that person is more trustworthy. It simply says that he got a lot of votes. You are not more right, even if most people agree with you".

2. "W3C XHTML 1.0" validation.

MuNKyonline has understood some of the game.

He has not removed the "W3C XHTML 1.0" logo so long.

Once again I draw your attention to the old trusted site and the XHTML tutorial.

I have problems with affiliate providers. Their code imply that I can not use the "W3C XHTML 1.0" logo on some of my sites. They reduce my eProperty value. Even Google's code does. In the future, I may not use affiliate code that breaks the "W3C XHTML 1.0" standard.

3. Accessibility, usability and trust.

The concepts are all part of the same game. For an economist it is absolutely evident that a maximal solution is not the same as an optimal solution.

[greeneagle]

kgun:

"1. How can human beings trust a Robot in 2006? Read the short article"

kgun, as far as I am concerned, you are "dead on" there. Even with all the artificial Intelligence studies by numerous government agencies and corporations, worldwide...

The simple truth is that we still can't fully replicate the human advantage...

It's not just about logic!

How do you program any 1 of the other human thought components such as "Discernment"?

We are no where close yet! AI is not much more than ordered logic right now! How many $Billions - USD are spent there every year, in mostly vain attempts to tread deeper water than that?

There's nothing fatalistic about that view - it's just reality.

Ken

[greeneagle]

Webnauts,

Does the GOOG's directory deviate from DMOZ in rankings?

Ken

[Tubby]

tubby wrote
"DMOZ is not yet dead. . I kicked it a while back and it shouted back at me . . (should I have kicked it harder?"

Ken wrote
"I have kicked it several times in the last 3 years and had absolutely no response"

Correction; tubby
I only kicked an editor. It was he that shouted back.

I have never had any response from DMOZ itself. . just editors. When I said Kick, Ken. . . I did mean Kick. I did not say 'submit'.

Personally I think the whole DMOZ 'experiment' proves and demonstrates that an algorythm can be gradually improved upon. whereas Human involvement demonstrates gradual corruption and deteriation of objectives.

If Google were to hold a webmaster vote, those in favour of - continue the algo only upgrades. or those in favour greater human intervention.
My "AYE" would be with the former.

Where the hell are you going to find 20 trusted site . . Or more inportant. . How ther Hell would they remain trusted, once the knew they were trusted?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Webnauts,

Does the GOOG's directory deviate from DMOZ in rankings?

Ken

That is a question I have too.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is a question I have too.

Just compare 2 categories. They sure look different to me:

http://www.google.com/Top/Sports/Peo...ning/Coaching/

http://dmoz.org/Sports/People/Training/Coaching/

[simonm]

Ken

Having read many of your contributions, I cannot doubt that this is no less well thought out than the others, and it adds to my sense of futility each time I go on to dmoz as an editor.

However, within my SEO role I still rank dmoz in the same way I have always ranked it - as just another of the 100 or so aspects I must consider when optimising a page or web site. Okay, DMOZ might not now or recently offered any 'special' advantage to getting well listed on Google, what it does offer though is an extra inbound link from a relevant part of the web. As and when the dmoz listing gets uploaded onto the Google directory - if ever now - that's another very relevant inbound non spammy link.

Another consideration is that I can go onto the Google (DMOZ) directory and see where my site is in relation to its peer group. There are other similar advantages.

Certainly I am not disagreeing with you - I think perhaps you are right - but I do believe that DMOZ will retain a significant relevance for some years to come as part of the web and SEO regardless of any special relationship with Google.

Simon

[greeneagle]

Simonm,

I am going to moderate my view here some.

I completely concur with you that it is still one of the most important directories to try and get listed with.

In fact I was kind of surprised to find the solid growth strength reported in the July 2006 report issued by ODP0.

The original TrustRank research paper is based on only 20 seed sites in which researchers were able to significantly reduce webspam. In all actuality a real model would most likely "seed" with many more Sites, 200 or even 2000.

I don't believe it would take very many staff members by any SE to manage those sample populations including continual quality monitoring of said seed sites.

We really don't know what the source is or sources are for those "Seed" Sites and may never. It is possible that DMOZ plays a role there.

If we find out that ODP has a role there, it would probably encourage editors and webmasters alike to submit quality wherever possible.

For a while now ODP and the editors there have been being pummeled for slowness of review, admission and listing..not to mention shady allegations. It is a thankless job as is the case with many volunteer editing and MOD positions on the Net.

TrustRank couldn't work by itself, it is a "Bolt-On" module for TrustRank, used as a quality check and webspam filter.

If Google did come out and reaffirm their ties and belief in ODP and even hint that they still depend on DMOZ for quality infusion, I think it would give everyone involved in the organization a great boost.

Ken

[freetraff]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

The original TrustRank research paper is based on only 20 seed sites in which researchers were able to significantly reduce webspam. In all actuality a real model would most likely "seed" with many more Sites, 200 or even 2000.

Ken, nice reading, thanks for sharing it - I have not seen this piece before.

I am not good at all that formulas, but was a bit puzzled with their methods to select good seed: this is either the page with high PR or page with a big number of outgoing links. Isn't it a bit too simple to rely on these two factors? And will it solve the problem?

I see that only manual selection of niche majors can help to find a good seed for every niche. But manual means going a bit off road with 'we don't do any manual manupulations with the SERPs'

[williamc]

Discussing TrustRank is all well and good, until you realize that Google has stated openly that their BD infrastructure relies more on links, both inbound and outbound, especially as concerns crawling and now supplemental indexation. The trustrank papers core does not match up with what anyone who has a clue actually is seeing.

However, that was not the reason for this thread, was it Ken. This thread was just started to self-promote your article. This one goes in the misleading folder, yet again.

Simonm: you may want to get out on more forums my friend.

[SPC3]

I couldn't resist coming in on this one, so before Mike wakes up and bans me again...

Ken. Where on earth did you get the idea that Google ever relied on DMOZ for any sort of quality in their serps, and where on earth did you get the idea that DMOZ was ever one of the ranking factors? To the very best of anyone's knowledge, neither of those things was ever true. We used to think that a DMOZ listing gave a site a boost in the serps, but that was a long time ago, and we were wrong.

Again, Ken. Where on earth did you get the idea that Google has been using TrustRank since Florida? Trustability has been in play for a long time, but that's not TrustRank. TrustRank is something very specific, so where did you get that idea from?

Your article, and your thoughts in this thread, are nothing more than fanciful imagination, and completely worthless.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

However, that was not the reason for this thread, was it Ken. This thread was just started to self-promote your article. This one goes in the misleading folder, yet again.

Simonm: you may want to get out on more forums my friend.

All of us (except me :-) that has USD 3000/month net in pension are sellers. At least we sell our ideas, services or employment.

Oh I did forget to promote the internet:

DigitalPunkt.no

Google PageRank = 0, because Google sees it as a linkfarm. There is no value in that site for GoogleBOT. Why should it? GoogleBOT and I are in quite different businesses.

Yours: WorseKgun

[kgun]

Originally Posted by SPC3

I couldn't resist coming in on this one, so before Mike wakes up and bans me again...

Ken. Where on earth did you get the idea that Google ever relied on DMOZ for any sort of quality in their serps, and where on earth did you get the idea that DMOZ was ever one of the ranking factors? To the very best of anyone's knowledge, neither of those things was ever true. We used to think that a DMOZ listing gave a site a boost in the serps, but that was a long time ago, and we were wrong.

Again, Ken. Where on earth did you get the idea that Google has been using TrustRank since Florida? Trustability has been in play for a long time, but that's not TrustRank. TrustRank is something very specific, so where did you get that idea from?

Your article, and your thoughts in this thread, are nothing more than fanciful imagination, and completely worthless.

Yes, Ken as others including myself are sometimes speculating. I like his speculations and fanciful imagination.

"He said that the only thing that didn't lie because it simply couldn't was mathematics."

Cite from one of my top 10 financial books:
Edwin Lefervre: "Reminiscences of a Stock Operartor." Page 61 in my edition. Reccomended reading, and there are many good cites there.

Mathematics did not lie. No it does not. PageRank (external or internal) as a mathematical algorithm does not lie as long as there are no computational / programming errors.

Whether the subject that are written on that high pagerank site is true is another story. That is why we need SE to index the web and directories we can trust at least 51%. That is greater trust than flipping a coin.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

How do you program any 1 of the other human thought components such as "Discernment"?

Here is a collection of Neural Network Links that those who want to try may start with.

[dann]

As far as I know the only way into the Google Directory
http://www.google.com/dirhp is through the ODP.
Through my own research I have concluded these sites in the directory (Google not ODP)(mine included I have websites that compete against eachother) do way better in the serps. So the question to me is not the ODP but the Google directory. Since the G directory is a mirror image of the ODP + or - three months or so there is something to this, whether you want to admit it or not.
I like most believe you can rank very well without the ODP's stamp of approval it is in reality a huge boost.
As subjective and corrupt as the ODP is it still is an important SEO factor that cannot be ignored.
BTW I do not disagree with any of the previous posts accept the fact that being in DMOZ will give you a large boost in Google.
IMO as always, Dan

[SPC3]

Hi dann,

No, DMOZ isn't a huge boost in the Google rankings.

Yes, a site can rank a little higher because of a listing in DMOZ, but it's not because of DMOZ or Google's directory - it's because those two are good IBLs for the site. That's all it is - a couple of good IBLs. The good IBLs could be from anywhere and they'd have same effect. No site needs the DMOZ "stamp of approval" for anything. In fact, DMOZ doesn't give stamps of approval - they just build themselves a directory.

I'll give you an example from a few years ago. I had a site that had been listed in DMOZ for some years, but then it was dumped because I'd added a lot of affiliate stuff to it. It's rankings never changed.

Google never used the DMOZ data in the way that has been stated in this thread. For rankings in Google, DMOZ and the Google directory are just ordinary websites that link to other sites.

So to answer Ken's original question, "Did The Recent TrustRank Patent Grant Murder DMOZ?", no Ken, it didn't. It had no effect at all on DMOZ.

[Webnauts]

What about this? Or am I going off-topic? http://www.webnauts.net/test.html

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by SPC3

Hi dann,

No, DMOZ isn't a huge boost in the Google rankings.

Yes, a site can rank a little higher because of a listing in DMOZ, but it's not because of DMOZ or Google's directory - it's because those two are good IBLs for the site. That's all it is - a couple of good IBLs. The good IBLs could be from anywhere and they'd have same effect. No site needs the DMOZ "stamp of approval" for anything. In fact, DMOZ doesn't give stamps of approval - they just build themselves a directory.

Well said.

[greeneagle]

SPC3 and williamc,

LOL - I missed you guys. It’s good to see that you also miss those good old time cartoons like Heckle and Jeckle and PigeonRank!

I was challenged and chastised on 2 or 3 other memorable occasions:

1) Two and a half years ago when I suggested that the SE’s would have to and probably already were looking at and applying some kind of value to OBLs.

2) The next time I got slapped around, it was for predicting that CSS Spam Issues were going to be visited.

3) The 3rd time I was railed by a band of Trolls propagating “Sandbox” misinformation.

And now a great number of “members" in the SEO Community have run off “half-cocked” speculating about the newly awarded Google patent and written several articles without even drawing the obvious direct correlation between a 6 year old patent application, granted patent, and “TrustRank”. They didn’t even throw Yahoo in the equation (for the most part), nor give the original researchers credit where credit was due!

Pure SEO Blasphemy in my mind!

Doesn’t anyone do research anymore?

Spend a little time in the TrustRank research paper, familiarize yourself with the equations. Understand that it is a “Bolt-On” to “PageRank” and that it may have already been bolted on or is in the process thereof. It’s already 6 years old. That’s how long it took between patent application and grant.

If you want to believe that GOOGLE and YAHOO instigated research 6 years ago spending millions in research, development (most likely) patent attorneys and patents for nothing, let me just refer you back to the cartoons I referenced above.

I am having a hard time finding sound logic or good leadership in the SEO/SEM community right now – Point Blank!

Every article I publish is an attempt to help the SEO/SEM/Webmaster Community.

I have about 8 new sites to build or rebuild right now, I don’t need any more work. I am backlogged for months. My biggest problem is expanding Mountain Eagle Marketing right now with the quality I demand. That’s why I haven’t played much here lately.

You guys know that I publish my articles on my Site first and I have a long history of either publishing or referencing them here secondly.

I’d be happy though to spend a little time reviewing your articles and contributions to the community, if you’ll just make their location public.

Feel free to do it here.

Ken

[williamc]

[quote="greeneagle"]I was challenged and chastised on 2 or 3 other memorable occasions:

Yes, Ken, I remember several of them. You were called out for posting misleading and sometimes downright inaccurate information. The people who called you out provided facts and URL's backing those facts up. You provided 20 or so pagesof hot air and kept defending your position even tho at least 40 others explained why you were way off base. I even recall one time when you defended your position on competitive terms until someone from here took your "competitive" serps in 2 days flat with just a couple anchor text links and proved once and for all that you were wrong, at which point you slinked off somewhere.

And now a great number of “members" in the SEO Community have run off “half-cocked” speculating about the newly awarded Google patent.

I must say, I read your article, and you did give credit where it was due. kudos for that. However I would still put you in the “half-cocked speculating” group due to the article trying to push the angle that trustrank is being used in the algo as if it were fact, when the "static" ideas in the actual patent do not apply to what we are actually seeing as the "trust" factor that is being used.

Spend a little time in the TrustRank research paper, familiarize yourself with the equations. Understand that it is a “Bolt-On” to “PageRank” and that it may have already been bolted on or is in the process thereof.

Actully I did. When this was first discussed at WWS a year or 2 ago. A number of us that can actually understand patentspeak discussed it in great length.

As for it being a "bolt-on" to Pagerank, I think mel Nelson or SP3 are far better suited to disseminating that one than I.

If you want to believe that GOOGLE and YAHOO instigated research 6 years ago spending millions in research, development (most likely) patent attorneys and patents for nothing, let me just refer you back to the cartoons I referenced above.

Oh, you mean like the other thousands of patents google and yahoo have that have never been used and most never will be? Let me just refer you back to the cartoons YOU referenced above.

I am having a hard time finding sound logic or good leadership in the SEO/SEM community right now

It is not difficult. When you step into the real world occasionally you may be shocked to see all is well. DannyS is still at WMR daily, SEO firms are still ranking their clients just fine, Marketers are still making their clients pay PPC fees, SES speakers are still speaking, those of us who actually test things before we open our mouths and say things as fact are still testing and proving/disproving things.

Oh, and you are still here trying to promote your own articles. :)

I’d be happy though to spend a little reviewing your articles and contributions to the community, if you’ll just make their location public.

Seeing as you included both me and SPC3 in that, why not read up some at http://www.webworkshop.net I have no doubt you can find a great many useful articles there. Public enough? :)

Feel free to do it here.

I just did. I take it you did not really expect it tho :)

[greeneagle]

You are dead wrong williamc...

I expected you to reference that forum!

I'd really like to see a collection of articles aimed at provocative thought, though. Something leading edge.

Forum conversations don't usually qualify as articles.

Ken

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

You are dead wrong williamc...

I expected you to reference that forum!

I'd really like to see a collection of articles aimed at provocative thought. Something leading edge.

Forum conversations don't qualify as articles.

Ken

Wrong am I? :)

The forum is actually a back part of the website. If you ever took the time to look you would have known that Ken.

Webworkshop was dubbed "The home of PageRank" by Dan Thies years ago. Those articles have been giving provocative thought and tested information longer than you have been around. :)

Once again you have stepped into the wrong "dirt" again. How about you "bulldoze" your way out of it :)

[greeneagle]

williamc,

Most of us might agree that good SEO/SEM by nature requires someone to be part prophet. I have read many articles in agreement with that statement due to the secrecy of the SEs.

Anyone that proposes to be a stark critic should be able to point to a compilation of their own works for validation of that stature.

Let's try and get back on topic.

Ken

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Most of us might agree that good SEO/SEM by nature requires someone to be part prophet.

Then there are those that actually test, test, and test some more and actually know what we are on about.

However this really has not gone off-topic as you posed something with no basis in reality that many of us have seen in answer to the original poster, and what came after was merely to show that you had no clue.

I can however see why you would want to switch to any other topic quickly.

I also see you were not able to discern anything in the many articles on the webworkshop.net front page that you were able to tear apart in any way. I would say that is validation in itself :)

[kgun]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

3) The 3rd time I was railed by a band of Trolls propagating “Sandbox” misinformation.

A TROLL is a creature used in Norwegian fairly tales. The worst have three heads, often used about Norwegian bureaucracy.

TimsharingReactiveOnLineLibrary (TROLL) is a system developed at MIT.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

A TROLL is a creature used in Norwegian fairly tales. The worst have three heads, often used about Norwegian bureaucracy.

TimsharingReactiveOnLineLibrary (TROLL) is a system developed at MIT.

Well, in all fairness, the word "troll" is used to describe someone who takes potshots at people for no good reason at all on forums. That however has never been the case with Ken. Everyone has always given righteous shots to the face at things he has posted that were misleading or inaccurate.

That is not "for no reason". That is for the betterment of the newbies who read this forum, so that they walk away with some idea of what really is, and what is not.

[greeneagle]

williamc,

There is really nothing to get so wound up about here so let's approach this topic from a different direction:

Since around or maybe beginning with "Florida" we have witnessed a continuous march toward Trust in the rankings.

Obviously, even by your own admission we have been witnessing increasing emphasis in the importance of OBL relativity.

That is an integral part of "TrustRank", at the very core of the whole "Seeded Site" play there.

How would you propose testing to see if it had been implemented?

Would you know if 20, 200 or 2000 sites were planted as seeds?

If so how?

How would you discern that TrustRank as depicted in both the paper and patent was or was not being utilized now?

How would you determine by testing, the source of those chosen seeds?

You have been a leading testing advocate here for a long time.

How would you go about it?

ODP for a while was being fed directly into the GOOGLE index as it's base. Does it factor into your testing as strongly now? In essence DMOZ was the selected human edited seeding.

Does it continue to play that position out, or have things changed?

If so, what has replaced it?

Test that?

Ken

[kgun]

Here is an example of a three headed TROLL. Here is another.

It has been used for centuries in Norwegian fairly tales.

Originally Posted by SPC3

So to answer Ken's original question, "Did The Recent TrustRank Patent Grant Murder DMOZ?", no Ken, it didn't. It had no effect at all on DMOZ.

I think that is the correct conclusion of that simple question.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Obviously, even by your own admission we have been witnessing increasing emphasis in the importance of OBL relativity.

That is an integral part of "TrustRank", at the very core of the whole "Seeded Site" play there.

Actually Ken, I said it was to do partially with links. Not OBLs by themselves. And I have not seen proven any relevancy factor in OBLs. What I have seen that pertains to trust is domain age and link age. So, the TrustRank patent has no place in that at all.

You seem stuck on thinking "florida" brought about new revelations when in fact you just mistook other things as being part of the florida update. I personally think that you should be barking up the BD tree, where sevral things really did happen, as florida itself was really nothing spectacular at all.

But that would not suit the purpose would it? You appear to want to be the only one attributing all nature of things to florida because nobody of any importance has. So there, in your eyes, is no prior art to prove otherwise.

The problem is, that people of notoriety have shown the things you attribute to florida as being attributed to other things such as BigDaddy. However, nobody is saying anything about florida, except you. Thats not prophetic ken, thats just a sucker bet.

[greeneagle]

williamc,

I am trying to get on board with your slant here.

Tell me how you would test to see if TrustRank has been implemented.

They (Google and Yahoo) spent a great deal of money (probably millions) on research, development, patent attorneys and a patent.

Forgive me William...This was a "loaded" question. As an Engineer I studied up through Differential Equations and I can't imagine a test you can possibly devise that would decipher proprietary algorithims capable of differentiating whether human edited seed sources were supplied by DMOZ or a different source, nor how many were supplied as sources from another source, outside the band of propietary information.

All we can say is yes, it makes sense. Google had the foresight 6 years ago to realize "PageRank" wasn't enough! That's why DMOZ gained the popularity it did. TrustRank was initiated in it's infancy with DMOZ (ODP).

Is that respect still valid, or has TrustRank outgrown ODP?

None of us have the resources to test for that!

It doesn't make mathematical, theoretical, business, financial or "business physics" sense that any one of us could turn that big a ship with an oar.

Any speculations?

Ken

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

All we can say is yes, it makes sense. Google had the foresight 6 years ago to realize "PageRank" wasn't enough! That's why DMOZ gained the popularity it did.

Haha, uhh no, DMOZ gained popularity much the same way as myspace, digg, and slashdot did. It was a community effort. It gained more popularity when many of the search engines started using their listings or using titles or descripts from them. Never once has it ever been mentioned that trustrank or any other of the thousands of patents filed by google had anything to do with it.

TrustRank was initiated in it's infancy with DMOZ (ODP).

Now see this just proves my case. Here you go spouting something as if it was fact, when in fact, it has never been remotely shown to be so. You are once again misleading people purposely.

Is that respect still valid, or has TrustRank outgrown ODP?

You both ask a question, but include a statement as if it were fact yet again. You really need to come off that mountain dude. You lost the plot completely.

None of us have the resources to test for that!

I think that amazingly, much like the thread where you thought that some extremely "uncompetitive" keywords were competitive, that you have missed the boat yet again Ken.

Nobody has to prove anything about seeds or seeding or anything to do with them. You see, the patent states some very static ideas, methods, and outcome they hope to realize.

When you look at all three of those things you get a "whole". When you have Ken-vision, you look at one simple part(seed in this case) and concentrate on it until you think you found the holy grail, when in fact, you just snorted a turd.

[greeneagle]

William,

Let's dress it down real simple here:

You proposed earlier that no one should conjecture without test after test.

Lay out the test!

Ken

[williamc]

I have said no such thing Kenny. You did.

The line you refer to was used to say that some of us test, test, and test some more, before we state things as fact. In other words, something you never tried.

Heres a test for you.

Next time you write an article that states some things as facts, actually write about something that you can and have tested and can back that up. Otherwise, some of us will always be right here to let newbies know what is fact, and what is imagination or fantasy.

Let's see if you can pass that rather simple test. :)

After a year, I somehow do not think it will hppen.

[greeneagle]

Willy,

What is the difference between "IMO" and "I believe" in my statements here?

And

Just what is misleading about this conclusion in my article:

"There are a host of other associated observations that practicing SEOs might consider in light of the fact that “TrustRank” has become public knowledge. Chief of which, may be: Has the e-Coroner just pronounced DMOZ dead?

It is a good idea to read, discuss and understand the intra-workings of "TrustRank" and reform our SEO concepts. Suddenly there is public validation that many SEO concepts, practices, services and websites are outdated.

It’s kind of a shame that the system described in both publications wasn’t named; “TrustRank” until well after the patent application was made. It is also nice to place some of the credit where credit is due, with the system’s researchers and authors, since they couldn’t be named on the patent."

Ask the Pope.

Ken

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Willy,

What is the difference between "IMO" and "I believe"?

Just what is misleading about this conclusion in my article:

Ask the Pope.

Why ask the pope? You laid out all the ammunition in the article anyone needs.

A better question would be whats the difference between "IMO" and "TrustRank was initiated in it's infancy with DMOZ"

The answer: One is an opinion, the second is an imagination stated as a fact.


Maybe some better examples of differences:

Not misleading:

I think that Google SERPs have always been dependent on human editing to some extent

Misleading and stated as fact when not proven:

GOOGLE SERP have always been dependent on human editing to some extent

Not misleading:

Google may have thought that the “PageRank” system based largely on popular voting or linking wouldn’t stand the test of time by itself as far back as 6 years ago.

Misleading, stated as fact when not proven:

GOOGLE knew that the “PageRank” system based largely on popular voting or linking wouldn’t stand the test of time by itself as far back as 6 years ago.

Not misleading:

“TrustRank” may have been “quietly” implemented through several “alg changes” starting back maybe as early as the “Florida” update on December 3, 2003.

Misleading, stated as fact when not proven:

“TrustRank” has been being “quietly” implemented through several “alg changes” starting back maybe as early as the “Florida” update on December 3, 2003.

Not misleading:

Subsequent updates including “Jagger” may have even involved new “TrustRank” implementation layering including ranking of IBLs and OBLs (inbound and outbound links) as described in both publications.

Misleading, stated as fact when not proven:

Subsequent updates including “Jagger” involved new “TrustRank” implementation layering including ranking of IBLs and OBLs (inbound and outbound links) as described in both publications.

Where exactly do you see "IMO" or "I believe" in what you stated in the article?

I surely do not see it.

All I see are statements made as facts when they are anything but.

[greeneagle]

We were posting at the same time.

I am done with the debate.

I enjoyed it though - Good to see you again!

Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Ken

[greeneagle]

williamc,

Let's lighten up a little.

After accusing me of promoting my own article, for whatever good it might do me, I googled "TrustRank Patent" and found WebProWorld in first place with this thread, imagine that!

LOL - I then looked for my listing and found it at 209th place, so I thought I would take "your advice" and tweak a few Links on my Site.

Let's see what happens over the next few days!

I really think it's time everyone understood this patent as the "TrustRank Patent" and that credit is shared with both Yahoo and the original participating researchers and authors for what it is, don't you?

I really defaulted on this one, not taking the time (10 minutes) to promote my own article, even on my own site. My bad! - Shame on me.

I think you call it "apathy".

After thinking about this thread though, I realized just how much I really didn't like what some of our SEO/SEM "bretheren" did here, rushing off without the facts to be first to press. That fact was at the core driving me to write the article in the first place! It's really quite pathetic, but it happens almost every time. Like you said (paraphrased); It seems like anyone seasoned in SEO or SEM would make sure and have their facts straight first.

Let's Play.

Queen's Pawn to Q4.

LOL

Ken

[williamc]

You do not even realize you are 6 moves behind already Ken.

I was not attacking your reason for writing it. In fact, I applaud that aspect. However, "when" writing it, you did the exact same thing as the group you say did not give the "facts". You wrote the article in a way that made it look to give factual info and conclusions when it does not. You are misleading people in it, plain and simple. That to me, is a worse crime than someone not giving yahoo credit mate.

[greeneagle]

Good morning William,

All I can tell you is that I wrote the article "on the fly" in just a few minutes, with much less time than I have already dedicated to this thread because it really chapped my "arse" (as the Brits might say here) when I first noticed these SEO/SEM Community atrocities.

To be quite honest, I was appalled and still am. But you are right, my voice is just a "tinkering bell in the wind" - I know ...But that being said, I failed to notice that the article had already made #1 SERP in MSN for TrustRank Patent and 8th place for "TrustRank". Granted, that's no real conquest!

The funny thing is that, when I stated 209th place, that was checking using my Google API Key. Of course that's always "dated" information. I had to search longer than usual for this one manually because it had already crawled up to 49th with absolutely no effort at all.

All I have done since, is align the title and metas and deployed 8 PR4 pawns.

I haven't even evoked the bigger guns yet (PR5s) to make my point, and I really don't think I'll have to. If I do, I'll go ahead and "Flog the Bishop" or "Slap the Queen around". The whole game can't be played at once.

I may not have articulately expressed my distain for the "off to the races" game and it's short-sidedness that pervades the SEO/SEM article world right now to your taste, but I believe I did deliver that message in the article in a manner that was not distasteful, and that is an important aspect - IMO.

Our engagement here though, has reinforced my desire to make sure it takes a premium seat in the arena.

Sure wouldn't want to "*****-foot" around when I have something important to get across.

Thanks,

Ken