PR 0 site Ahead of Authority sites

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

.

Anyway enough rambling,

Zach

Don't mind. I liked the ramble.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by jasonmorgan

I completely agree.. I do actually try to write text that will sell. I was referring more to what SE's see. There is a lot of talk about quality content increases traffic which I don't believe because google bots aren't skynet (yet). Quality content is for visitors and making sales.

You can actually have both world , just pay more attention and effort to optimize your keywords and also use AIDA to optimize your content for readers!

[Zach Booker]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Don't mind. I liked the ramble.

Thanks, it's what I do best.

Zach

[seo_freak]

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by seo_freak

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

How much on page optimization have you done?

[Zach Booker]

I forgot to mention this before...but since this thread is near the top anyway I figured what the hell.

It is ALWAYS a good idea to buy two domains for one website. One to use and one to simply let age.

What I mean is that if you were going after the keyword amazing new dog training book than you'd pick up two domains like:

AmazingNewDogTrainingBook.com
and...
AmazingNewDogTrainingBook.Net

Use the .com and just let the .net sit. If for whatever reason you get sandboxed/de-indexed you will now have a keyword rich aged domain that you can quickly rebuild on.

Zach

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Dburk rather than covering the same issues in two threads I will link to my repsonse to you here

Banned From Google! Careful, This May Happen to You


I think anyone that reads the last page will see how utterly useless your research methodology is and once they see the examples you included in that thread to make the point you were making they will see for themselves you have no clue what you are talking about.

I dont need to mock you. You did a pretty good job of mocking yourself in that thread. As for all the rest of your gamemanship the facts still are that I am very open to finding evidence - real evidence of what you say. Unlike you I need things based on real evidence not assumption. Occan's razor does not preclude real research on solid facts with logical assumptions . You don't grasp that concept either.

Your sky is blue nonsense comparison has no relevance. Its not obvious at all the various critia Google uses to rank a site especially since we all know they keep quite a bit of it under wraps. The reason you think its all obvious is because you can't grasp what we are talking about as firmly and finally evidenced in that thread I linked to.

But lets keep it in one thread and let this one stay on track. Agreed?

Now you are just acting like a jerk!

I presented my argument civilly, with facts and logic. I even threw in an analogy to clarify the argument. I repeated it over and over for you and you keep bringing up straw man arguments, avoiding the incontrovertible facts while prodding me to prove a negative.

Face it, you have no sound argument. You have only attacked, attacked, attacked. Your attacks have grown steadily in viciousness and not once have you addressed the central question, just personal attacks.

I again assert that I have never seen evidence that supports the notion that backlinks from irrelevant pages has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword. You again, failing to provide any such evidence, have resorted to personal attacks.

I suspect all these personal attacks are meant to divert attention from the fact you have nothing to support the counter argument. If you do lets see it!

You continue to demand that I provide evidence while my point is that there is no evidence! Just another straw man argument by you trying to divert the conversation away from the central question: Where's the evidence?

Anyone of average intelligence knows you can't prove a negative. The absence of evidence is a valid criteria for assumption of nonexistence.

To use another analogy, if you look outside your home and don't see rain, it's reasonable to assume that it is not raining on your home. A statistical analysis supported by a series of scientific experiments, would likely conclude that indeed it is not raining on your home. I would find it ridiculously absurd if someone demanded just such a study and scientific experimentation must take place before I could make a casual and reasonable assumption of something so obvious.

And that is an analogy of the discussion you and I are having. Where's the rain?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Now you are just acting like a jerk!

I'm sure name calling will qualify you as trying to be civil and logical especially since it was preceded by you admitting openly that you were "mocking me" (your words). Again in fairness to his thread. Keep it on the other thread. No sense in derailing this one.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Again in fairness to his thread. Keep it on the other thread. No sense in derailing this one.

I'd love to see you follow your own advice. You brought it to this thread, not me.

I called you a jerk because you followed me to this thread with your badgering and personal attacks. You earned it!

I'll see you in the other thread!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

I'd love to see you follow your own advice. You brought it to this thread, not me.

You were continuing an attack on Kok in this thread that started there. So I commented on your flawed logic. No apologies

I called you a jerk because you followed me to this thread with your badgering and personal attacks. You earned it!

No problem. It serves as as disproof of you being either civil or logical. I'm cool with that. More power to you. See you there.

[SEO ibiza]

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

Originally Posted by dburk

If the opposite of what I said was true there would be many examples that you could find simply by running a bunch of searches on Google and examining the backlinks. I have already done this many times and have yet to come across a single website that contradicts my assertion.

There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword, at least none that I have found and I challenge you or anyone else reading this forum to produce just one verifiable example. Spread the word far and wide, I believe we can all learn something from this exercise.

I take it by your post that you have a personal experience or knowledge of someone with personal experience. Lets put this myth to rest, produce a single example and I will publicly admit I was wrong and you were the one that schooled me.


Examples of relevant backlinks that have gotten pages ranked are everywhere, I take it you are not asserting there are none. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we must find an example to prove a positive. I have not been able to find an example of backlinks from irrelevant pages that have boosted a page's rank, much less hundreds or thousands of cases. I doubt that you can find one either.

I think there are plenty of people who believe this myth, but who can produce evidence? Anyone?

[dburk]

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

Hi SEO ibiza,

I believe that report only addresses what he calls "Related Subject Sites" which is not at all what we have been discussing. If you can find anything in that report that demonstrates backlinks from totally irrelevant pages will help you rank, please provide an excerpt.

Let me repeat: I have never seen evidence that supports the assertion that a backlink from a totally irrelevant page will help you rank for a targeted keyword. You must first make the page relevant before you will receive any SERP ranking benefit.

Search engines rank web pages not websites. The "subject of a website" plays no direct role in the ranking of pages. That is what his findings show. The relevance of pages that link to a page, and the anchor text of outbound links, will have a significant impact on a page's relevancy score.

A perfect example of what I'm saying is Wikipedia. They have thousands of top ranked pages that have nothing to do with the "Website Subject". Wikipedia does a great job of linking relevant pages into a web that extends across many websites as well as pages on their own site. This web of relevant pages is what gives page its' main ranking power. Wikipedia does not have a team of workers building backlinks for them. Just a few well place relevant backlinks go a long way to helping them rank. Of course useful content tends to attract organic backlinks and that helps a great deal as well.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

Yes he has made some great points in his blog about the lack of feasibility of determing relevance that gave me pause.

"If you start ignoring links because the linking site does not appear to be related to the linked-to site, you start descending into the quagmire of determining the keyword relevance of a site, such as a news site, which reports on every kind of subject imaginable. With so many subjects, the list of keywords it relates to would be huge, making such comparisons computationally expensive."


He also makes some interesting observations regarding authority and how every link to your site (not just single pages) is valuable in that regard and can and does affect SERPS.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by seo_freak

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

PR 0 doesn't mean the link juice is the same

The higher Domain PR the more link juice will pass through each profile, and the closer the profile url to the main domain, the more link juice it carries! (See Terry Kyle Experiment)

That's why Angela and Paul type of backlinks work so well!

You should try it yourself, and if you like Angela backlinks, try mine and Mike, the more the better.

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

I have yet buy into relevancy, we will do some experiment and until then, I still think domain authority gives much more affect to your link building than relevancy.

Let's keep the mind open here for a moment, I'm not saying relevancy not important, but the weight, may not be that great..??

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Let's keep the mind open here for a moment, I'm not saying relevancy not important, but the weight, may not be that great..??

SEO ibiza does raise a point though that i'd like to look into. Although I have read leger's blog I didn't get the opportunity to dig into that report. Given the level of research Leger does he may save us some time in our upcoming joint project.

[SEO ibiza]

Hi all.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that "relevant" backlinks pack more punch. and with the passing of time this appears to be getting even more so..

we've done extensive testing on this too, but I think the salient point to take from Jon's report (which is a couple of years old now as well) is that to a certain extent..

"anchor text on the link makes any link relevant"

just after I posted this lastnight, I noticed Jon is actually a current member in this forum, maybe you should just ask him directly what he thinks the latest state of play is with this.

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

[adam westrop]

I find D Burk's statement funny. I think probably around 95% of warriors, with prob 80% with top ranking sites will disagree with you.

[kkchoon]

We speak only from our experience - Authority Domain can easily out weight the relevancy factor...

Will post more related result in next month test.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by adam westrop

I find D Burk's statement funny. I think probably around 95% of warriors, with prob 80% with top ranking sites will disagree with you.

Hi Adam,

Was there anything in particular you found as "funny"? Which part of what I wrote do you think most Warriors disagree with?

By the way, this is a forum where people come to learn. Sometimes information, right or wrong, will spread like wildfire in this forum. Can we assume that widely held beliefs are always correct, and does the popularity of a belief always make it right?

Personally, I'm interested in the truth, regardless of whether it is widely accepted or not. Each of us gets to decide who or what we choose to believe.

Do you think someone who possesses information, the rest of the forum has not heard of should just keep it to themselves? What if something changes, do we stick to our previous knowledge because it once was correct? Do we not have minds that can accept new information, particularly if is it is true?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

Hi all.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that "relevant" backlinks pack more punch. and with the passing of time this appears to be getting even more so..

Right No question about that at all

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

Bingo!

[dburk]

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

...we've done extensive testing on this too, but I think the salient point to take from Jon's report (which is a couple of years old now as well) is that to a certain extent..

"anchor text on the link makes any link relevant"

Hi SEO ibiza,

I totally agree with Jon's conclusion regarding this.

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

You made the postive assertion of an absolute fact. By any basic logical standard the burden of proof is not his its yours. In addition since in this thread we are now discussing Jon's report and you claim to agree with him his assessment is that the refering sites content outside of the anchor text is not something Google puts weight on and that pretty much would disprove your assessment that content or a referring site matters even outside of the anchor text.

So on two counts you have some proof you must provide to SEO ibiza not the other way around

[InternetMarketingIQ]

PageRank is NOT site rank. Google doesn't automatically rank sites because they have PageRank. Do NOT use PageRank as an indicator of SiteRank.

Google will always return what they believe is the best match for the Phrase being searched. And PageRank doesn't necessarily play into this.

[SEO ibiza]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi SEO ibiza,

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

lol. you havent been doing this very long have you? ..do you think I would be so confident if I didnt know?

how about this one? Google Search "Schiff senate"

..being as we put it there, would you accept that we know how we did it?

the main reason that is there is because of the footer link at the bottom of this page www.seoibiza.com -if we removed that, it would drop back to second page where it was before we added it.

if you'd like to explain why seoibiza.com is relevant to the subject I'm all ears

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

if you'd like to explain why seoibiza.com is relevant to the subject I'm all ears

Having heard alot of Don's assertions I can tell you that he will say that anchor text is content. Granted it says nothing about content of the referring site being relevant to the referred to site or backs up his point in the slightest regarding his assertions but in fairness that is his position.

[fir3d]

Google is very hard to understand. I don't think that one method can be shown to work all the time, because their algorithm is so complex and so many factors must be taken into consideration. If you have a backlink from a relevant site it is probably worth more, but it's also hard to tell what is relevant. I link from a clothing site to lets say a direct brand like lacoste would be extremely relevant but how would google know that lacoste and clothing are related theres too many relations to consider.

[SEO ibiza]

Originally Posted by fir3d

Google is very hard to understand. I don't think that one method can be shown to work all the time, because their algorithm is so complex and so many factors must be taken into consideration.

If you have a backlink from a relevant site it is probably worth more, but it's also hard to tell what is relevant.

I link from a clothing site to lets say a direct brand like lacoste would be extremely relevant but how would google know that lacoste and clothing are related theres too many relations to consider.

check out this Link Value Factors | Wiep.net

[Mike Anthony]

Ibiza - Very interesting link. Really dispels the authoritative statements that have been flying around recently.

In regard to what you were discusiing earlier I think I lean with this view.

Ralph Tegtmeier: “More of an informed guess than a scientifically proven assertion. I'm fairly confident, however, that proximity of keywords and targeted search terms will play a fairly important role soon.”

[dagaul101]

Chances are it's still a PR 0 until the next Panda algorithm, but Google are not against links, just have to build them naturally so it comes as no surprise that the odd site would outrank other authority sites as the algorithm is far from perfect