11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Moz.com Lost it's Mind With MozRank/MozTrust/DA?

by nik0 Banned
9 replies
  • SEO
    • |
First let me say never focus on stats from just 1 platform, it can lead to costly mistakes.

STATS:

Majestic Trust Flow: 1
Majestic Citation Flow: 8
Moz Domain Authority: 18
Domain MozRank: 3.65
Domain MozTrust: 3.84

If you would rely on Moz.com you could say this is probably a somewhat weak PR3 domain right?

Now let's look at the back links:

2 PR5 links (nofollow) from university
1 PR4 link (nofollow)
14 PR2 links (mostly from same domains)

Normally I would ignore such domain right away but I was just curious why the MozRank/MozTrust levels were so high while Majestic gave it a TrustFlow of only 1.

Seems like Moz.com gives nofollow links the same weight as dofollow links.

Just curious, cause it has 2 PR5 links from a university, would you pick it up for registration fee?
#lost #mind #mozcom #mozrank or moztrust or da
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
    Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

    STATS:

    Majestic Trust Flow: 1
    Majestic Citation Flow: 8
    Moz Domain Authority: 18
    Domain MozRank: 3.65
    Domain MozTrust: 3.84


    2 PR5 links (nofollow) from university
    1 PR4 link (nofollow)
    14 PR2 links (mostly from same domains)
    I should send you lists that get flushed to my recycle bin Those stats do seem a bit discombobulated . But nothing is perfect so we just have to roll with it.

    I personally concentrate my main filtering based on Moz PageAuth and Majestic TrustFlow, and from your stats above that looks very weak.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by nik0 View Post


    Normally I would ignore such domain right away but I was just curious why the MozRank/MozTrust levels were so high while Majestic gave it a TrustFlow of only 1.
    You have to understand how trustflow works. Its entirely possible (thought not all that common) because trustfow is determined by the number of hops from their main starter websites. this most affects PR4/PR3 and below sites. can you get a link from a PR4 and a bunch of Pr2 and Pr3 pages that are far down the food chain from the sites Majestic uses for trustflow? I will admit 1 is low but I would not be shocked if it was off.

    Seems like Moz.com gives nofollow links the same weight as dofollow links.
    I'm betting there are other links you are not seeing plus big point -

    You are still going off of the PR metrics that have not been updated for nearly a year. its entirely possible some of the PR zeros and N/as you are ignoring are really no longer that. However if those links are accurate, yeah, I'd definitely pass.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666586].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      You have to understand how trustflow works. Its entirely possible (thought not all that common) because trustfow is determined by the number of hops from their main starter websites. this most affects PR4/PR3 and below sites. can you get a link from a PR4 and a bunch of Pr2 and Pr3 pages that are far down the food chain from the sites Majestic uses for trustflow? I will admit 1 is low but I would not be shocked if it was off.
      You mean that trust flow is based on how far away the inner page (the one where the link is) is from the homepage? Like 2, 3 or 4 levels deep?

      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      I'm betting there are other links you are not seeing plus big point -

      You are still going off of the PR metrics that have not been updated for nearly a year. its entirely possible some of the PR zeros and N/as you are ignoring are really no longer that. However if those links are accurate, yeah, I'd definitely pass.
      It's more likely that the PR 0 / n/a links are actually burried deeper into the site then that they've become stronger, otherwise TF would probably have been higher instead of at an all time low.

      There's one thing I've missed btw which kind of screws up this whole example, I checked the TF of the non www. version so this whole example is kind of screwed from the start.

      In earlier days when I checked domains from my broker the TF often seems to be pretty parallel with the strength of a domain. However when I compare it based on "deleted" domains from expireddomains.net the TrustFlow actually means nothing when it's in the <20 range.

      Why, yesterday I used that Inspyder tool and I found a whole bunch of domains that only had like 1 PR1 link and a handful or dozen of PR0 links, according to multiple back link checking tools and a TF in the range of 12-18.

      In that case it could be that the PR0's aren't PR0's anymore of course but it becomes a lot of guess work.

      I'll post a sample soon to show you what I mean, with live url of the deleted domain with it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8667274].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nik0
        Banned
        Here I have one:

        joinmim | Just another WordPress site

        Trust Flow: 21
        1 PR2 homepage link
        27 PR1 inner page links (most come from the same homepage, and a handful from a different domain)
        PA33

        Lol, never mind, Majestic is showing some homepage links that don't exist anymore and that's what the TF is "partly" based on.

        So we can't rely on PA/DA cause that's highly manipulative by amount of links instead of strength, can't rely on TrustFlow as it works way too often with old data. Can't rely on PR cause it hasn't been updated for so long.

        Manual inspection all the way but it feels like a waste of time to find some solid deleted domains for cheap, guess I have to assign a VA for this type of work as it makes no sense to spend so much time on this myself.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8667347].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        You mean that trust flow is based on how far away the inner page (the one where the link is) is from the homepage? Like 2, 3 or 4 levels deep?
        What? :confused: No not at all. Its just like Pagerank. It flows from trusted site to the next site. Its "hops" from other trusted sites I was referring to

        There's one thing I've missed btw which kind of screws up this whole example, I checked the TF of the non www. version so this whole example is kind of screwed from the start.
        Yeah that will do it. pretty annoying that whole www thing. You would think some of the tools and data providers would include both. Even in inspyder I have to be running the ahrefs call twice for both.


        In that case it could be that the PR0's aren't PR0's anymore of course but it becomes a lot of guess work.
        in that scenario I would more think its Majestic behind the times. Definitely checking out domains is going to be more complicated going forward. Could be worse though -

        We could have nothing to replace pagerank.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8667400].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          What? :confused: No not at all. Its just like Pagerank. It flows from trusted site to the next site. Its "hops" from other trusted sites I was referring to
          Ah ok, didn't know what you mean with hops.


          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Yeah that will do it. pretty annoying that whole www thing. You would think some of the tools and data providers would include both. Even in inspyder I have to be running the ahrefs call twice for both.
          Figured that out as well while when you enter the domain it talks about alias www., still you have to import twice, odd software builders.



          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          in that scenario I would more think its Majestic behind the times. Definitely checking out domains is going to be more complicated going forward. Could be worse though -

          We could have nothing to replace pagerank.
          Majestic is terrible outdated yes.

          Not sure if you use Netpeak checker on regular base? I think so right.

          Well don't trust referring domains from Majestic with that tool, it's super flawed, just had a domain where Majestic stats said 0 referring domains while when I went to Majestic itself it showed 66 referring domains.

          You know that there's also a difference in Trust Flow when you type in:

          www.domain.com

          vs

          hxxp://www.domain.com

          Can easily change 6+ points, you would think both are EXACTLY the same, nope!

          Nice trick for domain sellers , just give the stats based on http:// in case someone asks about TF, you always end up a lot higher that way.

          Previously when I got domains from my broker, dropped PR3 ones for example I could often say to myself, ok this one has TF12 so that's probably a legit PR3, talking about a year ago, nowadays when I check such PR3 domains they often have TF20 lol (due to me checking the hxxp://www. version). And when I check expireddomains.net often crappy PR1-PR2 domains end up with Trust Flow 20. Why? Cause when a domain has sitewide links, like a PR3 root in 4 versions like:

          domain.com
          domain.com/index.html
          www.domain.com/index.html
          www.domain.com

          Something I see happening more often then not, it seems that Majestics keeps it adding up like it are 4 separate PR3 homepage links. Add a whole bunch of PR1-PR2 inner pages on that same domain and the Trust Flow go's through the roof.

          It's all the dots, the more dots it has the higher it go's (you know all those dots in that visual interface), all those checkers are way too basic in their thinkings.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8667470].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            Previously when I got domains from my broker, dropped PR3 ones for example I could often say to myself, ok this one has TF12 so that's probably a legit PR3, talking about a year ago, nowadays when I check such PR3 domains they often have TF20 lol (due to me checking the hxxp://www. version).
            To be honest I have never used metrics as anything but a filter of what domains to check. Until I see the links none of them are legit. That multiple links reporting for one page is a pain. Just so people understand better its a folder issue

            http://www.website.com/folder/
            http://www.website.com/folder/index.html

            Well in that case its the same page because index.html is the default page for the folder ( as in your example the root folder). Now add the www variation and some tools will spit out 4 links where there really is only one.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8669194].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steve Waller
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              To be honest I have never used metrics as anything but a filter of what domains to check. Until I see the links none of them are legit.
              Spot on - a bit of manual inspection never hurt anyone.

              As for metrics, I personally use root domain MozTrust more often than others but again, only having checked the actual backlinks themselves - it's more of a comparison tool when I'm trying to decide between multiple domains to buy.
              Signature


              Crawl Your Way To Cheaper Expired Domains - PM Me To Access My Personal Crawler/Scraper


              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8669495].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    What? Moz DIY metrics blow?

    I did not know that.

    What's funny is the public PR hasn't been updated, yet all that DIY moz junk is based on PR & people still harp on how the moz metrics are better than looking at PR.

    One word..., ShamWow.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8667376].message }}

Trending Topics