google panda .

[williamc]

Somehow I would probably disagree or be careful making such a statement: http://searchengineland.com/google-p...relation-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/h...n-credibility/

I think the above answers some PageRank questions too.

I also forgot to mention the "Readability" factor: http://www.seroundtable.com/google-r...ter-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?