Pagerank is a decoy. Take it seriously at your own peril.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Mike, you are like a broken record,

Who has repeated anything more than your correlation and causation distortion.

anyway lets cut the fluff and get down to it. I'll just slice out the yada, yada yada.....and get to this

You presented absolutely no evidence that suggests domain level factors play any role.

Domains are not monitored for "age" by search engines. Search engines use the age of the "document", not "domain", within their index as a trust factor. Domain age seems to play no role whatsoever. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion, or did you pull it out of thin air?

Alright guys lets see if Dburk knows what he is talking about. There it is in his own words "Domain age seems to play no role whatsoever". Mike anthony is pulling it out of thin air. "theres no evidence that suggests domain level factors play any role"

Dburk I knew you would go there. Let the defence call its first witness.

MATT CUTTS!!

I look forward to the mental gymnastics that you will employ to get out of the fact that Matt clearly indicates over and over again in this video that he is referring to a DOMAIN and even goes as far to indicate that THE DOMAIN should be at least two months old in order to rank its various pages/documents. (1:38 mark)

He also says there is a very small factor (just as I said) but nevertheless a factor that extends 6 months to a year out (1:33 into the video).

He also indicates that the age for a domain start from when they first see a link to the domain - not just a particular page (at the 1:16 mark). that is ANY link to a domain regardless of page counts for the beginning of the aging of that domain not just the document as you allege. He also confirms that they may very well use domain whois information (which has nada to do with pages)but that the link to the DOMAIN is more reliable

‪How does Google determine domain age, and...

In short his testimony stands as evidence against your unsupported claim that I pulled it out of thin air and stands as evidence for your accusation as being clueless.

Or was Matt employing a logical fallacy of correlation implying causation there too?????

go ahead and post again that no evidence at all has been offered and that you have refuted what MATT clearly says based on the fallacy of correlation implying causation.

Dude you have to understand what a fallacy is before you accuse someone of it and you clearly don't. The FACT that google has in the past stated they look at a DOMAIN rebuts your absurdity point , shows your analogy is busted and proves your accusation of a fallacy is all in your own mind. The FACT that Google shows trust to a DOMAIN older than two months implies that on some level there IS evidence that the DOMAIN level CAN reasonably be said to play a role.

The defense rests. It has work to go do.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Who has repeated anything more than your correlation and causation distortion.

anyway lets cut the fluff and get down to it. I'll just slice out the yada, yada yada.....and get to this


LOL. Alright guys lets see if Dburk knows what he is talking about. There it is in his own words "Domain age seems to play no role whatsoever". Mike anthony is pulling it out of thin air. "theres no evidence that suggests domain level factors play any role"
Dburk I knew you would go there. Let the defence call its first witness.

MATT CUTTS!!

I look forward to the mental gymnastics that you will employ to get out of the fact that Matt Clearly indicates over and over again in this video that he is referring to a DOMAIN and even goes as far to indicate that THE DOMAIN should be at least two months old in order to rank its various pages/documents. (1:38 mark)

He also says there is a very small factor (just as I said) but nevertheless a factor tthat extends 6 months to a year out (1:33 into the video).

he also indicates that the age for a domain start from when they first see a link to the domain - not just a particular page (at the 1:16 mark). that is ANY link to a domain regardless of page counts for the beginning of the aging of that domain not just the document as you allege. He also confirms that they may very well use domain whois information (which has nada to do with pages)but that the link to the DOMAIN is more reliable

‪How does Google determine domain age, and is it important for ranking?‬‏ - YouTube

In short his testimony stands as evidence against your unsupported claim that I pulled it out of thin air and stands as evidence for your accusation as being clueless.

Or was Matt employing a logical fallacy of correlation implying causation there too?????

go ahead and post again that no evidence at all has been offered and that you have refuted what MATT clearly says based on the fallacy of correlation implying causation.

Dude you have to understand what a fallacy is before you accuse someone of it and you clearly don't. The FACT that google has in the past stated they look at a DOMAIN rebuts your absurdity point , shows your analogy is busted and proves your accusation of a fallacy is all in your own mind

Hi Mike,

Thank you for posting this video that collaborates my assertions.

In a certain context webmasters often refer to the root domain URL as the "domain". Cutts is simply using the terminology (domain) of the person asking the question. In this context, the term "domain" is used to represent the root URL. The main point Matt is making is that the domain age is not important. He confirms that age is based on the date of indexation of either the URL or a link to the URL. Exactly as I asserted.

Context matters! Nice try though at using an out of context example.

[Mike Anthony]

Pathetic and embarassing attempt at a dodge. the context is a question in the very first second about whois info which everyone and his dog here knows refers to a domain precisely in the context you don't want it to be - because it busts your point.

Originally Posted by dburk

The main point Matt is making is that the domain age is not important. He confirms that age is based on the date of indexation of either the URL or a link to the URL. Exactly as I asserted.

What?? are you hoping that no one watches the video where he says that two months aging OF THE DOMAIN DOES matter but not to sweat it out for the 6month to a year out because its a small effect (as opposed to your earlier assertion that it has NO effect)?

You have been nailed. Any honest person watching the video can see that and dancing won't help but if theres nothing else to do then jig man - jig.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Pathetic and embarassing attempt at a dodge. the context is a question about whois info which everyone and his dog here knows refers to a domain precisely in the context you don't want it to be - because it busts your point.

Yes, and Matt asserts that they use date of indexation, not whois information. Again, thanks for pointing out this video that supports my assertions.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Yes, and Matt asserts that they use date of indexation, not whois information.

The first time they see a link to the DOMAIN (Matts words) acts as an aging factor FOR THE DOMAIN and allows all the other PAGES to rank PRECISELY in contradiction to your claim that only documents are aged. Plus Matt doesn't say at all they never use whois. He just says there are a number of ways to do it and the age of the first link to the DOMAIN is more reliable indicating yet again that the context is DOMAIN like what is referenced in a whois record.

bob and weave - bob and weave.I'm out for now

[JamesGw]

I haven't followed the entirety of this argument, but doesn't Panda utilize domain-level markers? I know it's more of a penalty, but still. Supposedly, Hubpages has been having some success using subdomains to circumvent the problem. I hope they start rolling it out soon.

[kckcki]

i agree. page rank is highly overrated !!
i would say RELEVANCE, which is driven by On Page factors is actually quite important, over and above all the off page factors. But one thing seems to be working for me..... Backlinks (Lots of them!!!) always seem to work consistently.

[BarryWheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

The first time they see a link to the DOMAIN (Matts words) acts as an aging factor FOR THE DOMAIN and allows all the other PAGES to rank PRECISELY in contradiction to your claim that only documents are aged. Plus Matt doesn't say at all they never use whois. He just says there are a number of ways to do it and the age of the first link to the DOMAIN is more reliable indicating yet again that the context is DOMAIN like what is referenced in a whois record.

bob and weave - bob and weave.I'm out for now

Mike,

Would it be correct to say then there is some "domain" influence over ranking but it would be 100% correct to refer to this as authority?

What domain factors would you say should play a role in ranking then?

Barry

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by BarryWheeler

Mike,

Would it be correct to say then there is some "domain" influence over ranking but it would be 100% correct to refer to this as authority?

Well listening to Cutts there is indication that in the early goings the age of the domain has an effect. This is something that most all true SEOs know and many posters here do as well. Its well attested despite Don's pointless banter. Does that translate into full blown authority on a domain throughout its life? Not from this. Is it evidence that that MAY be the case? Yes .

Since google will give some value to a domain across the board if its aged a bit (over a brand new site) then theres nothing absurd about say trusting the Wikipedia domain on a new internal page. Its quite possible and I've seen cases where when I attempt to isolate everything else it leaves that door wide open.

But it really doesn't change anything with how we should do SEO and finally getting back to the topic of the thread authority sites regardless of what you believe do tend to have HIgh PR pages so rather than it being a decoy its a beacon telling you theres authority somewhere.

What domain factors would you say should play a role in ranking then?

Barry

Age is one sure one but not far out. I mean Google isn't going to rank you higher because you are five years old and bad content over a two year old page with god content. Its really a factor for months not years. so thats a known limited domain authority affect. So theres some evidence there but as I have said repeatedly evidence isn't always the proof of something. It just means theres reason this or that might be the case.

After all we are dealing in google with a secret sauce.

[BarryWheeler]

Thanks Mike.

That was my thinking but after reading through some of the other babble from others posting on this thread, I was beginning to wonder.

Great clarification!

Barry