google panda .

[lambcrazy]

hello friends , I recently red about google panda update . In that article it is said that panda mainly concentrates on the site content . My question is , if it is true , then, now site ranking is mainly based on the site content ? what percentage contribution in the page rank , site content has ?

[SteveGerencser]

Pagerank has "nothing" to do with content.. Zip.. Zero.. Nadda.. It is all about links.. Nothing else.. Just links..

[Sweet Tooth #3]

I was unaware of it until recently, but there's been a lot of Panda updates. I got hit by the Oct 14th update and examined every on page aspect of my sites; which are top quality. I even switched to Lite Speed powered hosting to make sure page load speed wasn't a factor.

The recent Panda tweaks have not been based entirely on site quality. I lost 75% of my traffic overnight; and have gained about 50% of it back through building high quality backlinks.

Is it still Google's official position that Panda is all about site quality; if so, I'd say they are being misleading.

[deepsand]

Is it still Google's official position that Panda is all about site quality; if so, I'd say they are being misleading.
Bear in mind that quality is frequently in the eye of the beholder; and, that the beholder here is not exactly a disinterested and unbiased party.

[Sweet Tooth #3]

Bear in mind that quality is frequently in the eye of the beholder; and, that the beholder here is not exactly a disinterested and unbiased party.

That's true. But my life would be a lot easier if I were less obsessive about my content.

I wasted a lot of time screwing around; when all I really needed were a few quality links.

Many of my competitors pages; that could probably be reported as webspam, were untouched.


So there! I said it! I'm OCD! Love my new Lite Speed powered hosting though. :)

[deepsand]

... my life would be a lot easier if I were less obsessive about my content.
Perfectionism is both curse and blessing; the difficulty lies in finding the balance.

[UOI]

Hello everyone, I have heard about Google panda. But some time I get confused that what kind of work Google panda do..? & after how many time is report come out..??

[LD]

Hello everyone, I have heard about Google panda. But some time I get confused that what kind of work Google panda do..? & after how many time is report come out..??

Panda is a name coined for a particuar G update. It doesn't "work" anything. But if you are asking what were the result of the Panda update(s)? Well, let me Google that for you...Panda Update. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+the+Panda+Updates)

What report are you referring to UOI??

[williamc]

Your site content should have unique content. Otherwise google will consider as a spam.


yeah indeed content is now king

Horsepuckey.

[Webnauts]

Pagerank has "nothing" to do with content.. Zip.. Zero.. Nadda.. It is all about links.. Nothing else.. Just links..
Somehow I would probably disagree or be careful making such a statement: http://searchengineland.com/google-pagerank-spelling-correlation-95821

[williamc]

Somehow I would probably disagree or be careful making such a statement: http://searchengineland.com/google-pagerank-spelling-correlation-95821

More rubbish from the smoke and mirrors king. He didn't say it had anything to do with pagerank, he simply said he saw some similarities between the two. remember, matt never actually 'lies' outright. He just hints at things that are not always true, and lets you come to incorrect opinions.

[Webnauts]

More rubbish from the smoke and mirrors king. He didn't say it had anything to do with pagerank, he simply said he saw some similarities between the two. remember, matt never actually 'lies' outright. He just hints at things that are not always true, and lets you come to incorrect opinions.
Well I watched the video again and I noticed that he is repeating that more than once. And why should we doubt the possibility of integrating that factor in the PageRank algorithm? If I would exclude for example that possibility, and any others that can come out, then the original PageRank algorithm should still be current. Do we disagree there?

If he wanted to promote site quality, he could have said that it is a ranking factor. Like they already did with "Site Speed". So I am still not sure if he is being tricky again.

[deepsand]

Matt did not say that spelling is a factor in PR, but simply that pages with poor spelling tend to have a lower PR.

The simplest and most obvious reason is that such pages attract a smaller following, i.e. fewer IBLs, than do those that are more well written.



And why should we doubt the possibility of integrating that factor in the PageRank algorithm?

Setting aside the issue of which spellings should be deemed acceptable, because PR is a probability value, to which spelling has no direct material relevance.

By way of analogy, the color of the two sides of a well balanced coin has no effect on the probability of a particular side being displayed when flipped.

[Tubby]

I like it . . But I wonder if every site had perfect spelling, who would get the highest ranking?

Personally I would give more ranking to sites using the longer words, the tricky spelling words, schizophrenia pages would rate extremely high I expect ( I spell checked that). .

Spelling is not accumulative. . . I do not foresee the day when webmasters start gathering up hard to spell words to gain a better ranking.

Bad spelling? . . That is covered well and truly in the notes: Write for users.

Would anyone with a brain link to a page title " Sychological stuy of gineration X " . . . I have no great doubt that a good percentage of top ranked sites sites do not display gross spelling mistakes. It would suprise me to find more webmasters linked, or recommended visitors to sites that displayed such basic mistakes.

The better sites get the natural links - Of course there is a correlation

[Tubby]

By way of analogy, the color of the two sides of a well balanced coin has no effect on the probability of a particular side being displayed when flipped.

Yes. . . . But are we not rather discussing the Probability of suckers betting on the result.

The chance of a coin landing a head or a tail is fixed. .
The chance of persuading the gamblers to choose a particular side can be manipulated.

In many coin flipping gambling games, winning on the least bet side can be very profitable - If my money is on Heads and I win against tails - and there are ten gamblers on tail and only me on heads - the return is excellent for a win.

Matt Cutts is just flipping coins . . and chatting to the gamblers. (nothing new)

[deepsand]

Continuing with your analogy, the point is that the color doesn't affect the outcome of a flip of the coin, but rather the willingness of some to have a preference as to which particular side of the coin to bet on.

PageRank is a measure of the probability of a page being randomly requested, not of why that happens, or what's there.

[Webnauts]

Matt did not say that spelling is a factor in PR, but simply that pages with poor spelling tend to have a lower PR.

The simplest and most obvious reason is that such pages attract a smaller following, i.e. fewer IBLs, than do those that are more well written.


Setting aside the issue of which spellings should be deemed acceptable, because PR is a probability value, to which spelling has no direct material relevance.

By way of analogy, the color of the two sides of a well balanced coin has no effect on the probability of a particular side being displayed when flipped.
First I would like to thank you for the computer sciences lecture about Google's original PageRank algorithm.

I was just reading:

"When Google was founded, one key innovation was PageRank, a technology that determined the “importance” of a webpage by looking at what other pages link to it, as well as other data."
Source: http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tech.html

If I understood you right, you were pointing out the bit: "what other pages link to it". But what are with the "as well other data"? Can you please clarify?

Or are we talking about the original PageRank algorithm? If that is where the discussion is leading to, I am definitely not interested. We had that already for years here and elsewhere, and for me it is beating a dead horse.

If some people here cannot follow your software engineering nature lecture, I would like to point them to a wonderful resource to read more about the original patent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

[Webnauts]

I like it . . But I wonder if every site had perfect spelling, who would get the highest ranking?

Personally I would give more ranking to sites using the longer words, the tricky spelling words, schizophrenia pages would rate extremely high I expect ( I spell checked that). .

Spelling is not accumulative. . . I do not foresee the day when webmasters start gathering up hard to spell words to gain a better ranking.
I am not very sure Tubby: http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/03/how-a-search-engine-might-visualize-and-rerank-web-pages-based-upon-credibility/

I think the above answers some PageRank questions too.

I also forgot to mention the "Readability" factor: http://www.seroundtable.com/google-reading-level-search-filter-12625.html

[deepsand]

First I would like to thank you for the computer sciences lecture about Google's original PageRank algorithm.
Just what very many who pass through here need.


I was just reading:

"When Google was founded, one key innovation was PageRank, a technology that determined the “importance” of a webpage by looking at what other pages link to it, as well as other data."
Source: http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tech.html
The blurb on said page page is Public Relations fluff for the technically ignorant.


If I understood you right, you were pointing out the bit: "what other pages link to it". But what are with the "as well other data"? Can you please clarify?
The latter is a reference to the SERP algorithm.


Or are we talking about the original PageRank algorithm? If that is where the discussion is leading to, I am definitely not interested. We had that already for years here and elsewhere, and for me it is beating a dead horse.
It should very well be a dead horse. Unfortunately, far too many never do a modicum of independent research, but mere parrot the tripe repeated by others.

[Webnauts]

Just what very many who pass through here need.


The blurb on said page page is Public Relations fluff for the technically ignorant.
That is embarrassing for a company with the size of Google.



The latter is a reference to the SERP algorithm.
Can you be more specific?



It should very well be a dead horse. Unfortunately, far too many never do a modicum of independent research, but mere parrot the tripe repeated by others.
I am a fanatic oblique SEO and I hate copying or repeating stuff of others. The industry is full with that crap. You write a unique blog post, and in a very short time you will find your post rewritten in thousands of versions. And over the years maybe in millions of versions. That is for example why I am not an active blogger. And when I blog, I exclusively do that for link building purposes or for a bit popularity.

I study patents, I do a lot of experimenting, monitoring patents and my experiments outcomes with the search engines.

But if I understood you correct, did you already hack the current Google's PageRank algorithm? I would assume not brother. Otherwise you would definitely no be here. Do we disagree?

[Webnauts]

More rubbish from the smoke and mirrors king. He didn't say it had anything to do with pagerank, he simply said he saw some similarities between the two. remember, matt never actually 'lies' outright. He just hints at things that are not always true, and lets you come to incorrect opinions.
William I revisited your post and thought to add some extra value. Lets say you are right. Do you exclude the possibility that grammar and/or spelling could become a SERPs ranking factor? They already made that step towards that direction, making "Readability" a factor, I do recall.

And if Matt did not mean what myself and others thought, still I think it is a web site credibility factor, as described in the patent which link I posted above, replying to Tubby. Good spelling and grammar can also boost accessibility and usability of documents, and they likely tend to get backlinks naturally.

Now taking that a step further, I would not exclude the possibility that it may become a SERPs ranking factor, as already happen with the "Sites Speed" factor already. The PageRank algorithm through its nature (links and anchor texts) have been so heavily abused, that I would assume that search engines could add factors like spelling, etc into their ranking factors. Do we disagree?

So lets drop the PageRank side of the coin. The OP was asking questions about Panda, and again this turned out into another PageRank discussion.

[deepsand]

That is embarrassing for a company with the size of Google.
Nothing unusual about the practice of dumbing things down for the public and prosepctive investors.


Can you be more specific?
About what? The PR fluff that you sited conflates the PR and SERP algorithms.


But if I understood you correct, did you already hack the current Google's PageRank algorithm? I would assume not brother. Otherwise you would definitely no be here. Do we disagree?
Of what relevance "hacking" to the difference between an observed correlation and a causal relationship; and, between a direct and an indirect input into a function? :confused:

Matt said nothing re. spelling/grammar being an input factor into the PR algorithm, but merely that a correlation was allegedly observed.


So lets drop the PageRank side of the coin. The OP was asking questions about Panda, and again this turned out into another PageRank discussion.
Were the call mine, we would have no more discussions re. PageRank, but a stock post that replaces that of the miscreant who raises the dead with one that redirects all comers.

[Webnauts]

Were the call mine, we would have no more discussions re. PageRank, but a stock post that replaces that of the miscreant who raises the dead with one that redirects all comers.
Just for the record, the OP asked: "...what percentage contribution in the page rank..."

And a last question before I go: Were the redirects permanent (301) or temporary (302)? :lol:

Anyway I have to go now, because Zynga is waiting for me. I have to build "Chips", to boost my Zynga "ChipRank."

Very nice to meet you all again. I had a very nice time talking with you again. Hope talk to you all soon again. :)

[deepsand]

Were the redirects permanent (301) or temporary (302)?

I'm torn between a 307 and a 402. :mrgreen:

[Webnauts]

I'm torn between a 307 and a 402. :mrgreen:
What a coincidence? I was torn for years between a 404 and a 604. After a lot of years of research and experimenting, I decided to go for a 604: http://www.seoworkers.com/errors/604.html :lol:

[deepsand]

We could put the 601 to good use around here. ;)

[Webnauts]

We could put the 601 to good use around here. ;)
I would bet on that. So I think you can ask the admin if he could implement. It would be very beneficial for all of us! :)

[deepsand]

I would bet on that. So I think you can ask the admin if he could implement. It would be very beneficial for all of us! :)
Might be able to get rah to add it to the emoticons. :D

[Webnauts]

What a coincidence? I was torn for years between a 404 and a 604. After a lot of years of research and experimenting, I decided to go for a 604: http://www.seoworkers.com/errors/604.html :lol:
After such a hot discussion, you made laugh out very loud man. That is what we Pennsylvania people have in common! :lol:

[Tiggerito]

I have a client where a 609 error might be appropriate. "Request too kinky"

[williamc]

And if Matt did not mean what myself and others thought, still I think it is a web site credibility factor, as described in the patent which link I posted above, replying to Tubby. Good spelling and grammar can also boost accessibility and usability of documents, and they likely tend to get backlinks naturally.

Now that one is in the realm of possibility, but IMO it won't happen, simply because not everyone uses english as a first language and Google knows this. They are not likely going to knock some otherwise awesome sites down in the serps for a few grammar mistakes.

[Webnauts]

I showed an Indian SEO the 604 Error page (http://www.seoworkers.com/errors/604.html) and he said: "So this new 604 status is approved."

I replied: "Did you read it carefully?"

He replies: "So, 604 would be a by-pass for 404, but howz google going to react on this header".

This is not a joke guys! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Webnauts]

Now that one is in the realm of possibility, but IMO it won't happen, simply because not everyone uses english as a first language and Google knows this. They are not likely going to knock some otherwise awesome sites down in the serps for a few grammar mistakes.
I am not saying that they will knock some entirely for a few grammar mistakes. I am talking like what happens with "Page Speed", "Readability", etc.

[alster]

quality content is all about panda effect. Google considers the web page from which you get back links. even squidoo got effected. as a result pages will not be indexed.

[williamc]

quality content is all about panda effect.

Now an update is an effect? And how exactly do you qualify this when a good number of sites with quality original content also got hit by the updates?


Google considers the web page from which you get back links.

Really, please show any actual evidence of this happening.

[deepsand]

Pagerank is all about links and traffic..

nuff said..
Not only is this wholly off-topic, but it's pure unadulterated BS.

'nuff said?

[Webnauts]

I was reading again an article of Bill Slawski "Document Level Classifiers and Google Spam Identification (http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/02/document-level-classifiers-and-google-spam-identification/)", and I felt that the discussion should not die yet.

There Bill added the patent Identifying language attributes through probabilistic analysis (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7386438.PN.&OS=PN/7386438&RS=PN/7386438) which says: "A system and method for identifying language attributes through probabilistic analysis is described."

Deepsand previously said: "Setting aside the issue of which spellings should be deemed acceptable, because PR is a probability value, to which spelling has no direct material relevance."

And my question is: Deepsand if you were right, can you explain where is the difference between spelling and markup (i.e character sets/language meta tags)? Does markup have a direct material relevance? If yes, please explain. Also, isn't a probability value a result of a probabilistic analysis?

There are a lot of interesting points in the article which made me feel that could be important to walk through and keep this thread alive.

[Webnauts]

Here http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/12/most-important-seo-patents-reasonable-surfer/ is a scenario Bill Slawski envisioned when reading the Google patent "Ranking documents based on user behavior and/or feature data", which took away some of the randomness, and introduced us to a different model of surfer – the reasonable surfer.

I think it is worth to read and hope I will get some replies to my previous post above too.

[sushil.fame]

page rank nothing to do with content . your page rank depend on backlinks only

[williamc]

Content readability

Do you actually believe that?


external and internal links form the quality domains and many more.

Only from quality domains?

[deepsand]

quality content is all about panda effect. Google considers the web page from which you get back links. even squidoo got effected. as a result pages will not be indexed.
Do you understand the distinction between being indexed and being displayed in the SERPs? Why would an SE not index anything that it discovered?


There are many factors consider to optimize in page rank. Like On page modeling,Social signals, Content readability, external and internal links form the quality domains and many more.
Sounds like you're speaking of SERP rank, not PageRank.


correct your spelling mistake first. now panda effect is about actually copied content in any form. it is mainly about the backlink content page too. it is very important to get backlinks from a page with unique content.
Is it truly so limited in its focus? And, how many pages are there that are semantically unique?

[deepsand]

I was reading again an article of Bill Slawski "Document Level Classifiers and Google Spam Identification (http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/02/document-level-classifiers-and-google-spam-identification/)", and I felt that the discussion should not die yet.

There Bill added the patent Identifying language attributes through probabilistic analysis (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7386438.PN.&OS=PN/7386438&RS=PN/7386438) which says: "A system and method for identifying language attributes through probabilistic analysis is described."

Deepsand previously said: "Setting aside the issue of which spellings should be deemed acceptable, because PR is a probability value, to which spelling has no direct material relevance."
To clarify, spelling is not materially relevant to the calculation of PageRank because PR is a mechanistic mathematical function that describes the natural probabilities involved in a stochastic random walk of the members of a lattice, one that is contextually agnostic with respects to the characteristics of such members.


And my question is: Deepsand if you were right, can you explain where is the difference between spelling and markup (i.e character sets/language meta tags)? Does markup have a direct material relevance? If yes, please explain. Also, isn't a probability value a result of a probabilistic analysis?
All objective search results are, in the practical sense, an attempt at determining which results are most likely to be relevant to the users quest. So, in a manner of speaking, they are about probabilities. However, that does not mean that the algorithms invoked are necessarily ones dealing strictly in the mathematics of probabilities. In practice, they are more akin to what is known as Fuzzy Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic), where input and output values are neither binary values nor crisp.

So, while matters re. spelling, grammar, syntax, etal. may be material to the SERP algorithm, in that they may alter the perceived value of a document to a given user, they are not amenable to being transformed into crisp inputs of the sort needed for the calculation of what are true measures of probability.

[Tiggerito]

I believe Google has been working on it's PR algo since its first inception.

One particular aspect I've heard a few times is the idea of downgrading footer links. i.e. the variation of the probability based on position on page.

If Google is tweaking what a random walker does based on this. Then who says they are not using other signals to skew the probabilities.


Is the link above the fold?
What section is the link deemed to be in? (heading, sidebar, advert, footer, article, menu...)
Is the link in a sentence, a list, a group of links?
Is the link initially visible on page load or even, how many clicks does it take to see the link?
Is the link a large image or small text?
Is the link in a section that is repeated over multiple pages (e.g. footer, sidebar)


And if these, then why not:


Is the link in a sentence that is readable?



Could Google reasonably assume that a link in or after a poorly written sentence has less of a probability to be clicked on?

[williamc]

If Google is tweaking what a random walker does based on this.

Then it would not be 'random', now would it?




Is the link above the fold?
What section is the link deemed to be in? (heading, sidebar, advert, footer, article, menu...)
Is the link in a sentence, a list, a group of links?
Is the link initially visible on page load or even, how many clicks does it take to see the link?
Is the link a large image or small text?
Is the link in a section that is repeated over multiple pages (e.g. footer, sidebar)




To clarify, spelling is not materially relevant to the calculation of PageRank because PR is a mechanistic mathematical function that describes the natural probabilities involved in a stochastic random walk of the members of a lattice, one that is contextually agnostic with respects to the characteristics of such members.

So, while matters re. spelling, grammar, syntax, etal. may be material to the SERP algorithm, in that they may alter the perceived value of a document to a given user, they are not amenable to being transformed into crisp inputs of the sort needed for the calculation of what are true measures of probability.


Can we return to reality now please?

[deepsand]

I believe Google has been working on it's PR algo since its first inception.
We already know that they've made some changes. But, they are not to the mathematical function itself, which is firmly rooted the abstract fundamentals of probability, but rather in the details as to how a page's PR is parsed amongst links.

Notable here is the change that a page's PR is now parsed prior to "nofollow" links, and multiple links pointing to the same target, being excluded from the PR calculation matrix, so as to thwart "PR sculpting," a wrinkle in the fabric that is smoothed out at the very end when actual PR values are normalized so that the sum of all in the matrix equals 1.


One particular aspect I've heard a few times is the idea of downgrading footer links. i.e. the variation of the probability based on position on page.

If Google is tweaking what a random walker does based on this. Then who says they are not using other signals to skew the probabilities.


Is the link above the fold?
What section is the link deemed to be in? (heading, sidebar, advert, footer, article, menu...)
Is the link in a sentence, a list, a group of links?
Is the link initially visible on page load or even, how many clicks does it take to see the link?
Is the link a large image or small text?
Is the link in a section that is repeated over multiple pages (e.g. footer, sidebar)


While all of the above appear on the surface to be reasonable factors to be considered, they are neither all so easily discerned nor materially relevant to PageRank, for lack of ability to assign a crisp numerical value to them, but conceptually better suited to being SERP algo. inputs, where data re. the user's platform is available. In practice, though, the latter would be quite resource intensive, owing to the data needed to be indexed so as to compute what would appear where on the users display, and the time required for such computations.

Take, for example, the questions of position relative to the fold and size of text. Given that both are highly user dependent, it is not possible to ascribe with either a reasonable accuracy or precision how the probability of a link being clicked on may be so affected, as would be required for its being a factor in the parsing of the pages PR amongst the links on the page. The best that might be obtained is to use a weighted average based on a hypothetical typical user. Given the rapidity with which technological changes would alter what constitutes a "typical user," any such weighting scheme would risk being quickly becoming outdated.

In any case, though, the result of such, though, would not affect the PR passed by a page, but simply change the manner in which that PR is parsed between all of the links on that page; no link could ever pass more PR than it would were it the only one on that page.


And if these, then why not:


Is the link in a sentence that is readable?


Could Google reasonably assume that a link in or after a poorly written sentence has less of a probability to be clicked on?
Not only can a machine not discern what is readable and understandable by a human, a link in an "unreadable" phrase or sentence may be eminently understandable on its own merits.

[Tiggerito]

Then it would not be 'random', now would it?

True, I'm really talking about the reasonable surfer patent here, not the original random surfer one:

http://www.seobythesea.com/2010/05/googles-reasonable-surfer-how-the-value-of-a-link-may-differ-based-upon-link-and-document-features-and-user-data/
http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/12/most-important-seo-patents-reasonable-surfer/

Some of my suggested ideas are mentioned in the patent. It's probably where I got the ideas from in the first place.

@deepsand these articles refer to other ways Google may sculpt PageRank distribution based on document features. As it's a patent it is showing that Google has the desire to go that way. Are you saying they are finding it hard to implement and still haven't got further than just ignoring links that are nofollow or duplicates?

They filed it in 2004!

[deepsand]

True, I'm really talking about the reasonable surfer patent here, not the original random surfer one
Which is still a probabilistic calculation of exactly the same form as set forth in the published expression. All that changes is the internal parsing of the sourcing page's PR amongst links, so that that which is now uniformly distributed across all links on a page becomes asymmetrically allocated.


@deepsand these articles refer to other ways Google may sculpt PageRank distribution based on document features. As it's a patent it is showing that Google has the desire to go that way. Are you saying they are finding it hard to implement and still haven't got further than just ignoring links that are nofollow or duplicates?
None of these Patents re. page rank (the generic term for PageRank,) including that of the original PageRank, should have ever seen the light of day, as they are not non-obvious to one skilled in the art, as is a requirement to being patentable.

Given the myriad means in which a user may now view a page, that which 6 years ago may have been a relatively easy task, is now rendered much more difficult, unless one wants to just use a hypothetical typical user, a task that is now conceptually better suited to time-of-query manipulation of results, where the characteristics of the user's platform become known.

In any case, as noted, all that changes with respect to PageRank are internals of the 2nd term of what is an mathematically inescapable representation of the probabilities here involved; i.e., its form remains the same.

[Tiggerito]

So the interesting question is, what methods do they use to work out how to asymmetrically allocate the PR over the links?

[deepsand]

What evidence is there that they actually do that? If such exists, then it may provide clues as to the how.

[Tiggerito]

Here's an interesting Matt Cutts video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0fgh5RIHdE

Not evidence of anything though!

[deepsand]

Question: "Does Google treat links in footers differently than links surrounded by text (e.g. in a paragraph)?"

Answer: Typical Cutts obfuscation - "We reserve the right to treat [them] a little bit differently." :lol:

Viewer's comment:


Good God its yes or no Matt! As usual vague.....much more sophisticated.....reserve the right to treat differnt....may, it might not.....You never simply say YES we do treat it different...but disclaimer we reserve the right....you never say anything honestly, yet we have to get our sites found and u want us to be honest.....where is the clear answers they never exist? reserve the right??? come on!


Note that the specifics that he does finally mention as characteristics that may be impacted all deal, not with PR, but with Link Profile.

[raj kumar]

Page Rank of your website depends on the number of back links your website has - which my friend depends a lot on quality content of your website.

Posting original, useful, interesting and relevant content on your website (regularly) not just ensures free traffic, but a lot of back links to your account. Only 1 useful article carries the power to bring hundreds of backlinks..

So, spend a lot of time on writing useful content on your website or blog..
how can one good article get 100's of back links?, please explain

[deepsand]

Page Rank of your website depends on the number of back links your website has - which my friend depends a lot on quality content of your website.

Posting original, useful, interesting and relevant content on your website (regularly) not just ensures free traffic, but a lot of back links to your account. Only 1 useful article carries the power to bring hundreds of backlinks..

So, spend a lot of time on writing useful content on your website or blog..
18 rapid fire junk posts, many to dead threads, including one to a thread that died over 8 years ago, with your Signature stuffed & ready to go = posting for count.

None of us are pleased when we get 18 e-mail alerts, all for posts by the same person posting junk.

Stop wasting our time.

[Webnauts]

18 rapid fire junk posts, many to dead threads, including one to a thread that died over 8 years ago, with your Signature stuffed & ready to go = posting for count.

None of us are pleased when we get 18 e-mail alerts, all for posts by the same person posting junk.

Stop wasting our time.
That spammer woke up the thread, and brought me back here. But not to click on his garbage signature, but to add here a video I watched a few days ago which everyone who is really interested about Panda should watch too: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/google-panda-video

[weegillis]

Two and half million ways to make French Toast. This really helps to put Panda, or the need for it, in perspective. As short as this video is, it puts a lot of questions about Panda to rest. Nice find, John. Thanks.

[deepsand]

"French toast" is a piker compared to "medical dictionary," with 14 million hits for broad match, and 21 million for exact match.

Not only have there never been some many such dictionaries published, the Gold Standards are few indeed, and none show on page 1 of Google's SERPs.

On the upside, the current number of listings is a full order of magnitude smaller than had once been the case!

[weegillis]

What's funniest is that the best reach on any medical dictionary is a doctor's appointment. They will all tell you that, and in this instance, they are telling the truth.

[deepsand]

Or, ask an accident and health insurance claims adjustor.

[weegillis]

Or, ask an accident and health insurance claims adjustor.

Hadn't thought of HMO. Guess down there one would check 'if it's covered' before booking that appointment. Pity of the Great American Way.

[deepsand]

It's just that claims adjustors need to know how to read and understand medical reports in order to do their job, so that medical dictionaries are part of their usual reference works.

[Nukunsen]

hello friends , I recently red about google panda update . In that article it is said that panda mainly concentrates on the site content . My question is , if it is true , then, now site ranking is mainly based on the site content ? what percentage contribution in the page rank , site content has ?

My question is same:According to Google panda update is website content increase site ranking(keywords ranking) or page rank ranking?
What is mainly depends on PR increase?

[bzforum]

My question is same:According to Google panda update is website content increase site ranking(keywords ranking) or page rank ranking?
What is mainly depends on PR increase?

My Friend don't worry about Page Rank!! just concentrate on the Content you site has...and keep on sharing them on normal Social Networking or Bookmarking sites...as traffic increases...you will see how the rank increase...but do not...Only traffic will not increase your Rank....you need to have good Keyword Rich Content!! Do not copy or use spinning methods..or else Panda will Rip you off!!

[LD]

...as traffic increases...you will see how the rank increase.
Not so. Traffic does not increase one's PR


you need to have good Keyword Rich Content!!

Actually, again, no. Content will not increase PR. The attribute that will increase a page's PR is a strong Link Profile. In other words, an increase in the quantity and quality of backlinks.

[morestar]

The only way I can see bzforum as being correct if he's talking about cause and effect. In other words, if you...


...don't worry about Page Rank!!

...and just...



concentrate on the Content
keep on sharing them


...then traffic increases.

He does say


Only traffic will not increase your Rank

So with that he can say that traffic can increase SERP ranking and even page rank because if his content is "good", more people may link to it, not to mention the ranking value of engagement...

He's being quite positive I guess...


you need to have good Keyword Rich Content

This is debtable/ambiguous or not completely true in exactly the way you said it as some could consider Rich Content to be filling in keywords into every single sentence, even a few times while others may take Keyword Rich content to mean at least having the keyword in your content at least 3 to 5 times depending on other factors - so many other factors.

[LD]

I guess if we dissect and try to figure intent, you could be right. What I did see (and may be deciphering it incorrectly) and commented to, is that traffic to ones site will not increase a pages PR. Traffic will not increase SERPs as far as I know also. However, I suppose if you look at it this way: if a site gets a lot of new traffic and those visitors decide to link to said site page(s), PR, in various levels of quality, could be passed to increase PR of the target pages.

[deepsand]

My question is same:According to Google panda update is website content increase site ranking(keywords ranking) or page rank ranking?
What is mainly depends on PR increase?
PageRank (PR) is all about counts of links and pages; nothing more. There is no qualitative component to PR; PR is strictly quantitative.

See PageRank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank).

[bzforum]

Yes @LD you are right only Traffic would not increase your Page Rank thats what i meant when i said
Only traffic will not increase your Rank, and also what i meant by keyword rich is not that you type some gibberish with keywords repeating it self again and again...

Social bookmarking , in a way increases your backlink so this could be an effect to get your PR increase...(though it would be slow )...and people should really stop worrying about Page Rank or Alexa Rank...as i think if you only concentrate on the quality of posts , articles , comments which you get on your site...people would backlink to you for references and without even knowing your page rank would increase...but for people who only concentrate on link building...end up spamming forums and blogs etc...for their quick PR increase and site flipping purposes...so you cant help it...it's always gonna happen...serious webmasters would never worry about quick ways of increasing your PR or Alexa etc.