SEO expert opinions please

[DMC_34]

I have a few questions for you SEO gurus out there.

These statements appear in some court documents.

1. Based on its years of operating the [blank] website, and discussions with other website owners, [the company] has learned that one of the ways acheive SEO is by locating other highly credible websites to direct hyperlinks at the website, which Google considers to be a "vote" for your website - the more votes, the better the site is perceived by Google, and the higher the website becomes in the page rank system.

2. By the same token (and logic), the company reasonably believed that if a website redirects visitors from its site to another site through outbound hyperlinks, it the latter's site that is promoted for purposes of SEO thereby dimishing a website's credibility (and hence, lowering its page ranking, which, ultimiately, reduces revenue).

3. Credible websites often agree to exchange links to one another. Others sell outbound links for profit. In addition, based on both its years of expereince operating the [blank] website and discussions with other website owners, websites with a singular focus (such as one that sells only products "x") tend to rank higher than websites that combine multiple products or themes (such as trees products "x" and producs "y").


I would like some opinions based on the information above.

My analysis:
Statement 1 Rebuttal - I can agree with for the most part.

Statement 2 Rebuttal - Inaccurate. an OBL to a relevant credible website ...."thereby dimishing a website's credibility (and hence, lowering its page ranking, which, ultimiately, reduces revenue)." The flaws with this statement outbound links doesnt hurt the website unless the link is to a penalized site. Even that is just a theory. Secondly how does a outbound link to a credible website lowers its page ranking? It doesnt.

Statement 3 Rebuttal - While this could be true, I doubt there is anyway to prove it, without knowing the algo at Google. I can show examples of multitheme sites ranking higher than specific theme sites even for that specific keyword.

In the end, the statements 1-3 are eluding to the factual knowledge which isnt known, such as Google algo. SEO = educated guessing on ways to promote or increase your listings in Google.

DMC

[dburdon]

DMC34,

my view of the statements as follows:

1. I'd agree with.
2. I would not agree with. Indeed, there's an argument that a few well targeted outbound links may even help.
3. If you substitute "page" for "site" I'd agree with. There are many examples of multi-theme sites doing well. But a tightly focused page will typically outperform a loosely focused page.

I wouldn't mind knowing the nature of the legal documents.

[DMC_34]

Thanks dburdon

The court documents are a part of litigation from my former employer against my company. I can't name the company though. They are making claims I hurt their SEO efforts, profits, etc by placing an OLB to my site on a links page. Interestingly enough they claim it caused them harm and dropped rankings even though their rankings, PR, have only gotten better or stayed the same. I need to hire expert testimony for affidavit purposes in regards to their claims. If anyone is interested please PM me.

DMC

[glengara]

IMO those statements would appear to show a limited knowledge of SEO and seem to mix up Pagerank and page ranking.

1. Broadly correct but flawed - improper use of "SEO" and "page rank system"

2. Makes little sense - improper use of "redirects".

3. "Credible websites often agree to exchange links to one another.", G and Y! may well not agree.

[dburdon]

DMC-34,

an outbound link on a links page!!! Interesting. Its possible that if you put a link on a targeted landing page you may have some affect on the ranking of that page. Especially if the anchor text was deemed somehow corrupting. But I wouldn't have thought a links page would be that important.

[DMC_34]

It didnt hurt them. The link was relevant but non competing. For example: Christmas related but different products. An argument can be made relevant links can help. Even Bruce Clay has stated this theory in his seminars and classes. The bottom line is the burden of proof of it being damaging rests on the plaintiff. A link on a links relevant to the topic of the page, and even more relevant to the topic than other OBL's on the same page doesnt damage the websites credibility. The simple fact is the only would be knowing the algo and if it really does hurt. Since that is propietary to the SE's there is no way to prove it does actually hurt.

Rankings are not a right but rather a privledge. The same goes for PR. This has already been precedence in previous cases. The simple fact that rankings can come and go without your control is evidence enough. SEO is a means of "TRYING" to acheive better rankings but it is not guaranteed nor controllable. Then add to the fact, their rankings and PR have only increased or stayed the same through my tenure with them will make it very diffuclt for them prove with "Clear and Concise Evidence"

Their theories rest on the fact that their expert testimony believes PageRank is the main factor to rankings which is totally inaccurate. Havent all PR dinosaurs died already?

DMC

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DMC_34

Rankings are not a right but rather a privledge. The same goes for PR. This has already been precedence in previous cases. The simple fact that rankings can come and go without your control is evidence enough. SEO is a means of "TRYING" to acheive better rankings but it is not guaranteed nor controllable. Then add to the fact, their rankings and PR have only increased or stayed the same through my tenure with them will make it very diffuclt for them prove with "Clear and Concise Evidence"

I agree whole heartedly here. I think this should be the real precedence of the case.

[wesleyw]

OBL weight is distributed across the total amount of OBL, it does not reduce PR.

From the paper by Ian Rogers:

PageRank or PR(A) can be calculated using a simple iterative algorithm, and corresponds to the principal eigenvector of the normalized link matrix of the web.

this might help your case http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by glengara

IMO those statements would appear to show a limited knowledge of SEO

I agree.

[DMC_34]

I am still seeking anyone who may be interested in providing an affidavit in response to inaccuracy of their SEO claims. Obviously I need someone other than myself. I doubt travel or court will be necessary. Obviously payment for normal hourly charges will apply and be covered. Anyone who owns or works for SEO firms or owns a firm with good credentials is welcome to PM me.

Thanks
DMC