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.
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.And why should we doubt the possibility of integrating that factor in the PageRank algorithm?
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.
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
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)
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.
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."
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
Last edited by Webnauts; 12-07-2011 at 12:11 AM.
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
Last edited by Webnauts; 12-07-2011 at 12:19 AM.
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?
Last edited by Webnauts; 12-07-2011 at 12:47 AM.