Google Algorithm - SERPs

by Dele
96 replies
  • SEO
  • |
We all know Google utilizes probably as many as 200 ranking factors for its SERPs.

The major ones may include
- originality of content
- pr of webpage
- pr of homepage of site
- age of domain
- quality & quantity of backlinks to particular page
- quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site
- quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
- unique linking domains to page
- unique linking domains to website
- edu. domain links
- gov. domain links
- dmoz
- yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)
- On page factors e.g. meta tags

and so on....

Can you please
1. rank these factors in order(highest ranking --> lowest ranking) you believe they weight with Google
2. add other factors not included here
3. delete/identify any you believe is no more or never was a significant ranking factor.

The objective is to try and arrive at what may be near to the Google algorithm.

What motivates this is the realization that some absurdity seems to play out in the SERPs when you see a site you do not expect to rank higher, ranking higher than another site, apparently because of the "unknown Google algorithm"

Many thanks.
#algorithm #google #serps
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by Dele View Post


    The major ones may include
    - originality of content
    - pr of webpage
    - pr of homepage of site
    - age of domain
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    - unique linking domains to page
    - unique linking domains to website

    - edu. domain links
    - gov. domain links
    - dmoz
    - yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)
    - On page factors e.g. meta tags (no meta tags went out years ago)

    I've bolded the ones I think are important. I won't weight them or order them because they are all important. Kind of like water and air. You need both except to say links to a page are going to more directly help rankings than a link to another page/home page.

    plus its really not possible to link to websites without linking to individual pages
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by Dele View Post

    We all know Google utilizes probably as many as 200 ranking factors for its SERPs.

    The major ones may include
    - originality of content
    - pr of webpage
    - pr of homepage of site
    - age of domain
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    - unique linking domains to page
    - unique linking domains to website
    - edu. domain links
    - gov. domain links
    - dmoz
    - yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)
    - On page factors e.g. meta tags

    and so on....

    Can you please
    1. rank these factors in order(highest rankingm --> lowest ranking) you believe they weight with Google
    2. add other factors not included here
    3. delete/identify any you believe is no more or never was a significant ranking factor.

    The objective is to try and arrive at what may be near to the Google algorithm.

    What motivates this is the realization that some absurdity seems to play out in the SERPs when you see a site you do not expect to rank higher, ranking higher than another site, apparently because of the "unknown Google algorithm"

    Many thanks.
    I am not going to rank these, but these ones are not factors.

    - pr of homepage of site
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site (this can help to rank pages though based on the structure of the site, but is not a direct ranking factor)
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    - unique linking domains to website

    These two myths piss me off that they are even still around. EDU/GOV links do not carry any special ranking power.
    - edu. domain links
    - gov. domain links


    This list looks like it is straight out of something like Market Samurai.

    And yes, you are right that the Yahoo Directory does not exist anymore, however there is a new product that has taken its place.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I am not going to rank these, but these ones are not factors.

      - pr of homepage of site
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site (this can help to rank pages though based on the structure of the site, but is not a direct ranking factor)
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
      - unique linking domains to website
      You need to read up and do some research then Mike. Besides Pr of home page they are all factors.

      quality or quantity of backlinks to the home page will convey authority through the site (as you indicated ) so it can hardly be said to not be a factor. Plus almost all professional SEOs admit that there are diminishing returns on links from the same site at some point (plus one domain alone linking would look as spammy as hades ). So yes more than one site aka linking domains is a factor. Denying that would be silly
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810968].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        quality or quantity of backlinks to the home page will convey authority through the site (as you indicated ) so it can hardly be said to not be a factor.
        It is a factor for ranking the home page of a site. It is not a factor for an internal orphaned page that is not linked to. That's why I stated what I stated. If the site has good link structure, than it is an indirect factor. It would be greatly diminished though based on how many hops you have to make from the home page to that internal page.

        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Plus almost all professional SEOs admit that there are diminishing returns on links from the same site at some point (plus one domain alone linking would look as spammy as hades ). So yes more than one site aka linking domains is a factor. Denying that would be silly
        Again, yes for the home page that would be a factor. For an internal page on a site, it is not a direct factor.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810986].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          It is a factor for ranking the home page of a site. It is not a factor for an internal orphaned page that is not linked to.
          Its a factor for every linked to internal page (and several levels) so to says its only good for the home page is utterly ridiculously wrong SEO. Just because orphaned pages may exist somewhere on the site doesn't change the facts that juice flows through a site through to internal pages.

          Again, yes for the home page that would be a factor. For an internal page on a site, it is not a direct factor.
          I wonder why then someone says elsewhere that interlinking from other pages within the same site (in defiance of any evidence) builds up relevance? IF it doesnt; work for the home page that person is blowing smoke.

          Good night Mike. I have to think you are taking issues with things for other reasons because you usually know better SEO than this. Claiming that link juice flowing to interior pages is not a factor makes you essentially contradict yourself.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811035].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            LOL....I see that Yukon is joining you in this foolishness too. They say the newbs are a problem around here. go figure.

            I' d like to see the site getting links from only one domain in a competitive serp that does not look as spammy as a two week old open can of spam in the sun.

            Now does saying a whole bunch of different domains of no quality linking to me ranks me then no but to say that diversity of links from quality sites has no bearing at all on the algo is just some straight up silly SEO.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811052].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yukon
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              LOL....I see that Yukon is joining you in this foolishness too.
              You ranting out of habit or you going to be specific with something you disagree with that I posted?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811072].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                You ranting out of habit or you going to be specific with something you disagree with that I posted?
                already did. Is your reading problem out of habit? I just said "joining" so it wou;d be the area you agreed with Mike and what I was discussing with him .

                Originally Posted by Dele View Post

                From all posts above, seems my deduction is that the most important ranking factors are
                - On page
                - unique linking domains to page
                - quantity and quality of backlinks to page

                Thanks guys.
                More power to you my man. Never turn down links to anywhere. if you can build authority on any page (usually the home page) then you can convey that to any page on your site with a link and it is a factor despite what you are reading on this forum

                anyone wondering can just do a simple search and see that internal linking is a factor so home page and even other pages are a factor in the algo.

                http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how...link-structure
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811090].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author yukon
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  already did. Is your reading problem out of habit? I just said "joining" so it wou;d be the area you agreed with Mike and what I was discussing with him .
                  I don't care enough to waste my time reading a wall of text guessing what tiny bit we agreed on or didn't agree on.

                  Carry on...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811115].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                    I don't care enough to waste my time reading a wall of text guessing what tiny bit we agreed on or didn't agree on.

                    Carry on...
                    Sorry can't. My lunch time break is just about over. Just helping out Dele from misinformation.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811142].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            You are not understanding what I am saying.

            If you take Webpage A...

            You cannot assume that the number or quality of the links to Home Page A is a factor in its ranking. You have to investigate the internal linking structure.

            It is the exact same reason that the PR of the home page is not a direct factor.

            Now if there is a good internal linking structure that you can trace to Webpage A, than the home page PR can play a role because it is going to pass some of that on through the links.

            Just seeing Webpage A in the SERPs and seeing the links to its home page, you can say whether what is going on at the home page level is playing a ranking role for the internal page.

            It is the same reason that the authority, PR, link count and quantity on 2.0 sites are not direct ranking factors for new accounts setup.

            And even in the cases where they are a factor, what if you have to hop through 8 links to find any route from the home page to get to the ranking internal page? In that case, it is likely barely going to be a factor.

            That is what I am saying. There is a lot more to it than just looking at links to the home page and assuming they are playing a role.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811057].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Mike We are discussing the algo. The algoooooo

              You and yukon are telling people and newbies reading this thread that links to their home page are NO FACTOR in SEO.

              Its ridiculous nonsense. Most sites do have navigation to internal pages. Now if you want to say that part of the algo will not work IF navigations is not utilized then thats fine but when you say its no factor thats just wrong.

              Newbies reading this will conclude from it that if they get an opportunity to get a link to their home page it won't do anything for the pages they are working to rank and potentially bypass getting it or even blow the chance by insisting on a direct link all the time.

              Second any good campaign should also look to get links from a variety of domains so plural domains are a factor. Now again if you want to say that that alone will not rank a site thats fine but the OP already knows there are more than one factors that comes into play and you just told him that diversity of recommendations to his site regardless of quality don't matter

              I'd love to see the data on that since 99% of the sites ranking in serps have more than one high quality domain recommendation to their site. My evidence is sitting in the serps. Where is your and Yukon's evidence it is no factor whatsoever.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811082].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Mike We are discussing the algo. The algoooooo

                You and yukon are telling people and newbies reading this thread that links to their home page are NO FACTOR in SEO.

                Its ridiculous nonsense. Most sites do have navigation to internal pages. Now if you want to say that part of the algo will not work IF navigations is not utilized then thats fine but when you say its no factor thats just wrong.

                Newbies reading this will conclude from it that if they get an opportunity to get a link to their home page it won't do anything for the pages they are working to rank and potentially bypass getting it or even blow the chance by insisting on a direct link all the time.

                Second any good campaign should also look to get links from a variety of domains so plural domains are a factor. Now again if you want to say that that alone will not rank a site thats fine but the OP already knows there are more than one factors that comes into play and you just told him that diversity of recommendations to his site regardless of quality don't matter

                I'd love to see the data on that since 99% of the sites ranking in serps have more than one high quality domain recommendation to their site. My evidence is sitting in the serps. Where is your and Yukon's evidence it is no factor whatsoever.
                You are arguing just to argue. And actually, it is the newbies that I am trying to save from being led astray.

                If you just say as a blanket statement that the number and quality of links to a home page are a ranking factor with no other qualifiers, they are going to go and fire up Market Samurai and every time that they see an Amazon page ranking they are going to assume that the competition is stiff because hey, look at all those home page links.

                It entirely depends on the page in question's relation to the home page. I do not know why you are arguing with me over that.

                As for the diversity of link sources, sure I would rather have 100 links from 100 different domains pointing to my page. If those links are all pointing to other pages on the site though, again, it comes down to the page in question's relationship to those pages.

                Are only 1 or 2 of them linking to the page? What internal pages are linking to those pages?

                A bunch of link sources to the domain is just not automatically a factor for an internal page if there is a lousy link structure throughout the domain. That is all I am saying about it. You need to dig a little deeper to make that determination.



                Also, it is possible to rank with just one link source to a page and even in competitive spaces. I have seen pages ranking and ranked pages myself in life insurance SERPs with nothing but internal links pointing at the ranking page.

                Will those pages rank better when they attract more external links? Sure. But it can be done with just one link source too. I would not recommend anyone doing only that. You better have a pretty kick ass domain and know what you are doing with silos if you are even going to try it.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811150].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  You are arguing just to argue
                  You mind reading isn't very good (which i suspect you know) and given other discussions vastly hypocritical. I am making sure to correct a VERY bad statement made to Dele. it doesn't help newbies to make blanket statement about what is not in the algo and is not a factor when in many cases it is.. We can discuss how it affects the algo and even how people might misunderstand tools but when something is a factor we should not tell them isn't.Thats deceiving them and I've already listed at least one consequence of giving wrong information.

                  Anyway your call .. you can continue to lead people astray with statements that are inaccurate and I will state what is accurate and then subsequently explain how tools and metrics should be analyzed. I don't have to say that home/other page authority is not a factor just because of market samurai metrics .

                  Also, it is possible to rank with just one link source to a page and even in competitive spaces. I have seen pages ranking and ranked pages myself in life insurance SERPs with nothing but internal links pointing at the ranking page.
                  So um internal links for other pages (including the home page) matter then? thought it was no factor in the rankings.... lol.......and yeah you can have one link source in certain situations but that doesn't mean the algo doesn't give benefit to more. Its just the multiple factors in that serp . You argue elsewhere that you don't have to have the keywords on a page to rank it. Are you going to then claim that keywords on a page has no factor in the algo?

                  think man

                  Anyway Like Yukon said ....carry on.. toodles for now.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811213].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    So um internal links for other pages (including the home page matter then? thought it was no factor in the rankings.... lol......
                    I do not know what you are reading. I did not say that internal links are not a ranking factor. In fact, what I have been getting at is that they are the most important factor in determining if anything going on at the home page matters or not for an internal page.

                    If you just blatantly say that home page links are a ranking factor, then everyone should stop building there own sites and just use Web 2.0 sites instead.

                    The reason that everyone does not do that is because home page links are not a ranking factor on their own. There has to be a direct relationship (link path) from the home page to the internal page.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811230].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author nik0
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                      If you just blatantly say that home page links are a ranking factor, then everyone should stop building there own sites and just use Web 2.0 sites instead.
                      Is this a joke or what?

                      Since when do web2.0 platforms LINK from the homepage to your web2.0 page or sub domain?

                      What a ******* ridiculous discussion is this thread.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812524].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                        Is this a joke or what?

                        Since when do web2.0 platforms LINK from the homepage to your web2.0 page or sub domain?
                        Yep but if history is any indicator the answer you would get back is that it depends on site structure as if the majority of web SITES (we call then sites instead of pages because there are usually more than one linked together) don't have any. So apparently Google took into consideration the exceptions to websites when it developed and updated its algo and forgot about the rule.

                        even funnier is on WF probably 80+% use Wordpress and many standard features like tags, categories, most popular posts etc on sidebars funneling juice and even relevance to internal pages (not claiming any are optimal but that they all convey juice to other pages). Almost all modern CMS have some features like that but um yeah the algo is based on the less than 10% of the internet that are web 2.0s and other pages internally linking to you is not a direct ranking factor or at least thats how their thinking goes

                        What a ******* ridiculous discussion is this thread.

                        The Domain diversity not being a factor is even worse .. can't even bother much . They have nada proof it isn't a factor and both common sense and the serps say that it is a factor. You can rarely find a site ranking in a competitive serp without multiple domains. Makes sense since links are like votes in google's algo so provided they are quality the more votes you get from different sources the better

                        but um they say otherwise with crickets as evidence .....classic case of Forum guruism to me.

                        Like you said It is FREAKING unbelievable especially because its not coming from WF newbs. But duty and the day's work calls.
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812994].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    You mind reading isn't very good (which i suspect you know) and given other discussions vastly hypocritical. I am making sure to correct a VERY bad statement made to Dele. it doesn't help newbies to make blanket statement about what is not in the algo and is not a factor when in many cases it is.. We can discuss how it affects the algo and even how people might misunderstand tools but when something is a factor we should not tell them isn't.Thats deceiving them and I've already listed at least one consequence of giving wrong information.

                    Anyway your call .. you can continue to lead people astray with statements that are inaccurate and I will state what is accurate and then subsequently explain how tools and metrics should be analyzed. I don't have to say that home/other page authority is not a factor just because of market samurai metrics .

                    Nothing I said leads newbies astray. It demonstrates to them that with most things relating to SEO there are no absolutes. You usually have to dig a little deeper to see what is going on.

                    Home page links are not a direct ranking factor for an internal page. They can be an indirect ranking factor, but that all depends on the link structure. In a lot of cases, they are playing a role. In a lot of cases, they are not playing a role.

                    You have been doing SEO long enough to have seen pages that people created which they think should rank. They could throw links at the home page all day long and it would have zero impact on the page because the site design is all jacked up.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zaccks
    I think if you're going to pay attention to all the 200 parameters, then it will take years to rank a single website.

    The most important thing you need to pay attention to is on page factors,

    it has happened many times that a new website has outranked old domain name for a given keyword.

    my simple secret to ranking my sites to any given keyword is to optimize the site for on page factors and then find out my competitors source of backlinks and do the same. it's that simple for me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Doesn't matter in red:


    • - originality of content
    • - pr of webpage
    • - pr of homepage of site
    • - age of domain
    • - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site
    • - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    • - unique linking domains to page
    • - unique linking domains to website
    • - edu. domain links
    • - gov. domain links
    • - dmoz
    • - yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)
    • - On page factors e.g. meta tags
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811007].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dele
      From all posts above, seems my deduction is that the most important ranking factors are
      - On page
      - unique linking domains to page
      - quantity and quality of backlinks to page

      Thanks guys.
      Signature

      What Others Are Saying About This Top MLM Company | Get Brand New, Brand Name Products For Pennies @ New Penny Auctions | Play Online Game At Eager Zebra Games | The source through which i smile to the Bank daily with $$$ => Top Home Based Businesses

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811065].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
        Originally Posted by Dele View Post

        From all posts above, seems my deduction is that the most important ranking factors are
        - On page
        - unique linking domains to page
        - quantity and quality of backlinks to page

        Thanks guys.
        If the word "quality" encompasses editorial latent semantic relevance factors. Then, that's a good list. If not I feel it should be added.

        See, No jokes with Dele.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812038].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      • - originality of content
      Wrong, no content is better than duplicate content.

      You know what's even more funny, you guys flag everything as zero influence on rankings but Google says they have 200 ranking factors, care to share 20 of them if all those small things don't matter?

      I bet they all matter to some degree as otherwise they would never be able to come up with 200.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813066].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Wrong, no content is better than duplicate content.
        Lol, tell that to anyone with a scraped site & the scraper domain/page outranks the domain/page that created the original content.

        Also tell that to an authority site like dafont that has never created any original content & owns the SERPs for that example niche. Repeat with thousands of other authority sites in thousands of niches.

        I seriously doubt OP meant duplicate content on the same domain If that's what your thinking because he said originality of content.

        Dream on with original content...




        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        You know what's even more funny, you guys flag everything as zero influence on rankings but Google says they have 200 ranking factors, care to share 20 of them if all those small things don't matter?
        Take your pick:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813198].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Lol, tell that to anyone with a scraped site & the scraper domain/page outranks the domain/page that created the original content.

          Also tell that to an authority site like dafont that has never created any original content & owns the SERPs for that example niche. Repeat with thousands of other authority sites in thousands of niches.

          I seriously doubt OP meant duplicate content on the same domain If that's what your thinking because he said originality of content.

          Dream on with original content...
          Blabla you start to talk like Mike F, using exceptions to the rule.

          I had a client that wanted to compete with DaFont, we couldn't get his site move an inch cause of the thin/duplicate content.

          I also had this other client with only one huge image on the homepage, didn't rank higher then page 20, when I told him to add some text to the homepage he ranked top 3 in the same week (and that after not ranking for 3 months).

          Nice scraper site example, I can also scrape some crappy PR0/PR1 site and publish it on some PR4-PR5 domain and outrank them. Authority makes the difference but when all things being equal duplicate content has no chance to rank.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813270].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            Blabla you start to talk like Mike F, using exceptions to the rule.
            Duh, there's no exception.

            I've built my entire network of domains on public domain content where that same content is on thousands of other domains/pages.

            You obviously don't understand authority/links/optimization trump weak pages regardless of what's on the pages. It all boils down to which domain/page has better SEO (mainly strong links).
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813278].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              Duh, there's no exception.

              I've built my entire network of domains on public domain content where that same content is on thousands of other domains/pages.

              You obviously don't understand authority/links trump weak pages regardless of what's on the pages.
              I adjusted my comment while you were writing this, authority makes the difference yes, I agree on that sure anyway read my comment again, makes no sense to retype it here.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813281].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                I adjusted my comment while you were writing this, authority makes the difference yes, I agree on that sure anyway read my comment again, makes no sense to retype it here.
                I read your edit, doesn't change my last reply.

                Original content does not rank pages.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813303].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author nik0
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  I read your edit, doesn't change my last reply.

                  Original content does not rank pages.
                  I showed you two examples (and have many more), end of discussion

                  Yes I could say original content does not rank pages on it's own, bla bla bla, but we ain't gonna discus about the obvious.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813318].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author yukon
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                    I showed you two examples (and have many more), end of discussion

                    Yes I could say original content does not rank pages on it's own, bla bla bla, but we ain't gonna discus about the obvious.
                    Apparently it's not obvious enough:

                    Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                    Wrong, no content is better than duplicate content.
                    I guess your ranting because you can since that's not ranking pages.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813405].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author nik0
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                      I guess your ranting because you can since that's not ranking pages.
                      I ain't ranting, I once had a site that I accidentally deleted and thus an empty WP, guess what rankings went up.

                      Bit contradictional with my example where the page with only a single image didn't rank, sometimes it's hocus pocus.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813464].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author yukon
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                        I ain't ranting, I once had a site that I accidentally deleted and thus an empty WP, guess what rankings went up.

                        Bit contradictional with my example where the page with only a single image didn't rank, sometimes it's hocus pocus.
                        I've got a new single page WP site sitting at #22 with about 10 network links & Lorem Ipsum text on the one page (lmao). It's a 30k traffic per month keyword. I'm not building anymore links until I get the content dealt with. Anyways, I thought the Lorem Ipsum placeholder text was kinda funny. Imagine ranking the page with placeholder text & competition flipping out, lol.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813504].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author shimul0011
            Some people emphasize on on page factors. I don't know why on page seo alone never worked for me. Recently I targeted very low competition keywords, wrote good seo optimized and reader friendly articles on those. But none of those sites ever ranked until I created some backlinks. I was surprised to see, a few irrelevant pages with a few backlinks on the Google first page and my relevant SEO optimized articles are nowhere near first 5 Google search pages.

            On page seo definitely rocks .. no doubt! But sometimes mighty Google just misses things!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815490].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Big Kahuna SEO
    Quality of quantity of links....everything else is a distant 2nd in my opinion...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811509].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      If you just blatantly say that home page links are a ranking factor, then everyone should stop building there own sites and just use Web 2.0 sites instead.
      Sigh...I'll give it one last try . IF you think being accurate is "blatant" it probably still won't get through but heres a go in the limited time I have right now (or ever on this so obvious subject) - The only thing i can get from that statement is that you don't understand what a ranking factor in the algo is. A ranking factor is something that generally will HELP a website's (in some way linked together) page rank. Web 2.0s accounts are an exception not being generally linked to from the home page (some DO HELP RANKINGS while the post/title page is on the home page).

      Does the home page or other page authority help pages to rank on a typical website? Yes it does because on most sites some pages are linked. Link juice flowing through pages is a ranking factor ...pretty central one too because most sites do have some link structure.

      Sooooo it (the authority from the home page or other page/pages on the website) IS a ranking factor.Should anyone look at home page authority and say I cannot rank against this? No because the algo is multi layered and there are different factors including number of hops/distance from the page with authority. The overwhelming majority of websites have some link structure though so saying its not a factor is no matter what you claim inaccurate and potentially misleading. You'll probably still deny it but I don't think I can explain it any simpler.

      The linking domains not being a factor is just very poor advice theres no excuse for . Like I said citing exclusions doesn't disprove what we see in the serps. its relatively rare for one source links to rank a site in a competitive serp. Also you seem to separate internal linking from the pages they link from but internal links are no ranking factor at all except for the strength of the page they come from. Straightforward and simple. They are a part of the algo.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Curtis2011
    The discussion of SEO has been done to death already. Ultimately it all boils down to the fact that you need to have great content that visitors genuinely enjoy viewing, and lots of links from real websites who really want to show your content to their viewers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812183].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Curtis2011 View Post

      The discussion of SEO has been done to death already. Ultimately it all boils down to the fact that you need to have great content that visitors genuinely enjoy viewing, and lots of links from real websites who really want to show your content to their viewers.
      I have a new domain sitting at position #22 for a 30,000 per month traffic keyword with only about 10 backlinks from my own network of domains/pages, 1 webpage & zero content on the new domain.

      I agree give traffic what they want (decent content) but decent content doesn't rank pages, optimized links & text rank pages.

      I do need to get busy with creating content before I reach page one of the SERPs, the last thing I need is competition reporting a ranked page with Lorem Ipsum text (lol).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812227].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    Homepage links are only as meaningful as the internal linking structure of the target domain allows them to be.

    All else comes down to links-to-pages, internal link structure and text elements (titles, headings, alt/des tags, etc).

    Really, a domain could have zero homepage links but with a strong internal link structure would still do well purely from links-to-pages. It's all about controlling and intelligently distributing inbound link juice to any page without letting it bleed out or "terminate" suddenly.
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812282].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      Homepage links are only as meaningful as the internal linking structure of the target domain allows them to be
      Just in case you think like Mike ...I don't deny that at all.My point is if its meaningful its a part of the algo and the emphasis in the Op is not merely any ole home page links but quality and quantity of that or other pages than the ranking page.

      When we say anything else like social is not a part of the algo we are saying it doesn't count. Sam e with Meta tags - doesn't count. You can have all the social signals in the world and the perfect structure and your tweets will not do anything for any of your pages You CANNOT say you can have a powerful say real PR5 page and it does nothing for your internal pages with good on page so its a factor. Denying that is just utterly ridiculous. Shuck s ev en wit half baked structure you are going to get benefit.

      Thats the other thing - the on page is already listed as a factor and structure is a part of on page so some structure is already assumed in the premise. I'm sorry it s just silly to say something is not a factor that with on page is. really silly,

      Its just BASIC SEO - what helps is part of the algo.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812305].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Just in case you think like Mike ..
        My comments weren't meant to 'take a side' but rather stand on their own as my individual opinion. Pagerank is passed through links; no links = no pagerank. That's all.
        Signature
        Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
        http://www.godoveryou.com/
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813114].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

          My comments weren't meant to 'take a side' but rather stand on their own as my individual opinion. Pagerank is passed through links; no links = no pagerank. That's all.
          It's a case of George Bush syndrome, You're either with us, or against us.

          The phrase "you're either with us, or against us" and similar variations are used to depict situations as being polarized and to force witnesses, bystanders, or others unaligned with some form of pre-existing conflict to either become allies of the speaking party or lose favor. The implied consequence of not joining the team effort is to be deemed an enemy.
          We can't have individual opinions.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Meanwhile I'd love to see the evidence that more diversity of domains linking to you is not a factor but all I have heard is crickets.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812323].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Meanwhile I'd love to see the evidence that more diversity of domains linking to you is not a factor but all I have heard is crickets.
      I moved 80 clients recently, from about 30-50 domains linking per client down to 15.

      And those 15 links pass on almost twice the amount of juice then those 30-50 ever did.

      Guess what's the end result?

      Every single client ranks a little worse than before.

      Amount of referring domains / IP's plays a fairly large role and imo always did.

      It's not for nothing that I start an extra 5 OBL network again, and start to do some link exchanges on the dedicated domains of clients, without leaving obvious obl footprints or diminishing the relevance, so that means everyone gets 2-3 more links max from that, the rest will come from the new 5 OBL network.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author reddy183
    Hi Dele,

    Thanks for sharing very useful information about search engine ranking factors order is like following in my opinion.
    - originality of content
    - On page factors e.g. meta tags
    - dmoz
    - pr of webpage
    - pr of homepage of site
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to particular page
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    - unique linking domains to page
    - unique linking domains to website
    - edu. domain links
    - gov. domain links
    - age of domain
    - yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)

    Regards,
    Reddy Sekhar,
    SEO Analyst.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812377].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      I just read the first few posts, don't feel much for reading the whole discussion.

      All I can say Mike Anthony is right and the rest just WOW'd me with their nonsense.

      It's time to stay a little more up to date and do some testing guys, that's the only advice I can give you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Mike for the last time, I said that links to a home page do not impact internal pages if there is no link path between them. That's all I was pointing out.

    I'm not sure what part of that you are arguing with.

    If there is a link path between a home page and the internal page in question, then the links to the home page can be a factor.

    And the diversity thing is the same thing. If their is no link path to the page you are looking at, it does not matter what kind of diversity in links the rest of the site has.

    Google does not say that because a domain has great link diversity it should boost ALL of its pages. Pages get boosted through the flow of links.

    Again though, you have to look at the relationship of the page you are trying to rank or evaluate. If the diversity all goes to the home page, and the page you are looking at is 7 hops deep on the site, it really is not going to play much of a roll unless you are talking about an absolutely incredible link profile to the home page.

    That is why as posts roll deeper and deeper on the public blog network sites, the links are weaker and weaker. PBN's usually have nearly all of their links (and diversity) pointed at the home page.

    I used the Web 2.0 example just because it is a common example that everyone would be familiar with. New pages on 2.0 sites are inherently weak because they have no relationship to the home page of the site (or generally any other page throughout the site), where most of the links would be found.

    It is no different than home page PR not being a ranking factor. You even agreed with that. So what is the difference? How can home page PR not be a ranking factor, but home page links are a ranking factor? Both of their influence's has to flow through links.

    Bottom line is this...

    Yes, a strong home page will pass on its influence throughout the site as long as it can flow through links. Every additional link it has to flow through to get to a page, the weaker that influence is. If there is no path to a particular page, the home page's link profile makes zero difference.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Mike for the last time, I said that links to a home page do not impact internal pages if there is no link path between them. That's all I was pointing out.
      What I don't get is why are you pointing out such huge exception? Everyone knows (or should know) that the root domain of a web2.0 platforms helps nada.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813059].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        What I don't get is why are you pointing out such huge exception? Everyone knows (or should know) that the root domain of a web2.0 platforms helps nada.
        I used that as an example because it is an example most marketers are familiar with and easy to understand.

        Another example I have often seen are IM'er sites that have internal pages that are a sales page or squeeze page of some sort, but they are orphaned. There is no link from their home page.

        Here is an example many people will be familiar with.

        Code:
        http://scrapebox.com/
        http://scrapebox.com/bhw
        There are no links from the home page to the special offer page.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813078].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        What I don't get is why are you pointing out such huge exception? Everyone knows (or should know) that the root domain of a web2.0 platforms helps nada.
        Its hopeless nik0. MIke does not understand that when people ask whats in the algo they are NOT asking what applies to every single page on the internet. they are asking what factors are in the algo (most of the time because they want to apply those factors to their owns site). Mike thinks he can cover saying that home page (and other internal page flows) and diversity of the links is not in the algo by pointing out the exceptions where there are no internal links to a website.

        Using that same logic.....links are not int he algo since there are errors made that cause 404s. H1 tags are not in the algo because some sites don't have em.

        In addition to just being misleading poor SEO advice its just a straight up weird way of thinking.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813142].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Its hopeless nik0. MIke does not understand that when people ask whats in the algo they are NOT asking what applies to every single page on the internet. they are asking what factors are in the algo (most of the time because they want to apply those factors to their owns site). Mike thinks he can cover saying that home page (and other internal page flows) and diversity of the links is not in the algo by pointing out the exceptions where there are no internal links to a website.

          Using that same logic.....links are not int he algo since there are errors made that cause 404s. H1 tags are not in the algo because some sites don't have em.

          In addition to just being misleading poor SEO advice its just a straight up weird way of thinking.
          Yeah I told him already, but he might think it's needed for the noobs here as they always seem to think that the root domain from a web2.0 is giving them a powerful property.

          With so many noobs here I can understand that but he could have brought that to the attention in a different way then just saying that homepage links have no influence on rankings of other pages.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813148].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            With so many noobs here I can understand that but he could have brought that to the attention in a different way then just saying that homepage links have no influence on rankings of other pages.
            Yeah but what good does telling newbs the wrong thing?? Truth is a lot of newbies don't understand internal link flow so telling them that the other pages and all the other links to their website have no direct bearing in the algo will just make them ignore it more. Tell them it can help because it IS in the algo but they need to do it right and guess what???....it gives them an incentive to work on their internal structure more. In regard to web 2.0s tell them YES its in the algo but Web 2.0s are not set up to use it and the algo will also diminish it to nada if its too far from the page with authority.

            I've explained that to mike and he doesn't get that either. and then the whole diversity of links doesn't matter is even more destructive. It will affect how people go out and look for a variety good links.

            anyway far too much time overspent on this crazy thread.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813186].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Mike for the last time, I said that links to a home page do not impact internal pages if there is no link path between them. That's all I was pointing out.
      uggh......MIke Niko has read the thread too and gotten the same sense so the whole you are getting me wrong twisting what I said nonsense will work even less this time. You said multiple time that home page and other pages are not direct ranking factors in the algo. its crapola. most sites on the internet have linked pages so 90% of the time its a direct factor for those

      You can dance, swim , do somersualts its what you said and I have not time today for your games. this is even worse -

      And the diversity thing is the same thing. If their is no link path to the page you are looking at, it does not matter what kind of diversity in links the rest of the site has.
      Your right its the same kind of nonsense. Mike thats like saying external links are not a factor because 404 errors exist or because they were never placed. Most sites have links from home and other pages to internal page . The questions was what factors play a part and are in the algo. you said unique domains are not in the algo as a ranking factor Sheesh you goofed. If you would just be honest and say hey I mispoke but its all this dancing and dishonesty to claim you never said what you said.

      Put up another wall of text to divert from what you said. its not going to change anything
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Mike, forget everything else in the thread. Do you agree with this statement?

    Yes, a strong home page will pass on its influence throughout the site as long as it can flow through links. Every additional link it has to flow through to get to a page, the weaker that influence is. If there is no path to a particular page, the home page's link profile makes zero difference.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813136].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Mike, forget everything else in the thread.
      Why? because you want us too. the thread is about whats in the algo -

      Yep..checked again

      "Google algorithm - SERPS"

      its not about whether this or that site doesn't have links . its what is in the algo. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?????? The Op is asking how to rank his sites an use whats in the algo

      Is the home page authority on a website which traditionally and overwhelmingly have links from its home and other pages a direct factor in the algo? Yes.

      Is multiple domains and votes from multiple parties a factor in the algo for ranking? Yes

      You said no. deal with that. if a site doesn't have internal links does it change whats in the algo? does the line in the computer code disappear at Google. The question is about the algo for the purpose of using it to rank Everything else is just doing a dance
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        its not about whether this or that site doesn't have links . its what is in the algo. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?????? The Op is asking how to rank his sites an use whats in the algo

        Is the home page authority on a website which traditionally and overwhelmingly have links from its home and other pages a direct factor in the algo? Yes.
        Ok, I can see you have no interest in a discussion.

        As for what you said there, yes I would disagree with that. Authority passes through links to pages, whether those links come from the home page, internal pages, or external pages. I have never seen any evidence or heard Google state that links to a home page are an independent ranking factor on their own. Yes links to a home page influence anything else they link to, just like links to any other page on the internet.

        You are suggesting that links to a home page are a separate and independent checkbox, and that I can not agree with.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813191].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          You are suggesting that links to a home page are a separate and independent checkbox, and that I can not agree with.
          having failed to spin your own words you want to spin mine. I said most websites on the internet have internal links therefore the algo allows for their authority to be factor to those linked to pages. Sooooo it in the algo as a direct factor. You are being totally dishonest. I have said that multiple times.

          As for what you said there, yes I would disagree with that. Authority passes through links to pages, whether those links come from the home page, internal pages, or external pages. I have never seen any evidence or heard Google state that links to a home page are an independent ranking factor on their own.
          Spin it mike. The discussions has ALWAYS been about any page external to the one ranking . It was never a discussion exclusively about home page. the Op even said links to a website which would be any web pages on the site Now you are just straight up and up distorting/lying. I don't know how many times i have written "and other pages" but anyone with a conscience can read the thread and see me say that multiple times. Heres just two

          Does the home page or other page authority help pages to rank on a typical website? Yes it does because on most sites some pages are linked.
          I don't have to say that home/other page authority is not a factor
          We mention home page merely because sites tend to get linked to their domain root directory. don;t even try spinnin that into an exclusive rule about home pages. You listed links to the website also as not part of the algo and I never ever limited the discussion to the home page only.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813225].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            having failed to spin your own words you want to spin mine. I said most websites on the internet have internal links therefore the algo allows for their authority to be factor to those linked to pages. Sooooo it in the algo as a direct factor. You are being totally dishonest. I have said that multiple times.

            I am not being dishonest. I said that links to a home page are not an independent ranking factor. There is nothing untrue about that. There is zero evidence that I have ever seen and I have never found a comment from Google stating that links to a home page are a part of the algorithm. Maybe you are privy to some information nobody else knows about.

            It is a part of the algorithm only in the respect that links from any page to another are a part of the algorithm, but nothing specific about home page links.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813243].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post


              It is a part of the algorithm only in the respect that links from any page to another are a part of the algorithm, but nothing specific about home page links.
              If you continue to claim the discussion was restricted to only home pages specifically (which you ARE trying to spin) even after I showed you several times where I referenced other pages with authority over and over then you were not only lying but you still are and need to quit that dishonesty.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813276].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                If you continue to claim the discussion was restricted to only home pages specifically (which you ARE trying to spin) even after I showed you several times where I referenced other pages with authority over and over then you were not only lying but you still are and need to quit that dishonesty.
                Mike we were arguing for like 20 posts about home page links.

                Either way, same rules apply. Overall link count to an entire website is only a ranking factor for a specific internal page to the extent that there is a link path that allows the page to benefit from those links.

                The Scrapebox example is a legit example. That page is independent of the rest of the site and gets no benefit from the rest of the site (unless there is some internal link somewhere that I have never found).

                You can disagree with me all you want, but do not question my honesty. That is pretty despicable.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813300].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  You can disagree with me all you want, but do not question my honesty. That is pretty despicable.
                  If you lie about what i was suggesting I will call you on it. I have no obligation to let your distortions stand. I won't be concerned with your outrage on being called on it. the despicable part is starting the fabrication and then continuing with it . I NEVER made any claim exclusively to the home page specifically . Thats a lie. I mentioned over and over and over again other pages. I cited just two times where I included other pages with authority in the discussion (anyone can read the thread and see more references) and you ignored them and kept going with your insinuation that I was claiming a rule specifically for the home page only.

                  I say its dishonest because it IS dishonest. No apologies because none is deserved.

                  The Scrapebox example is a legit example. That page is independent of the rest of the site and gets no benefit from the rest of the site (unless there is some internal link somewhere that I have never found).
                  the scrapebox example doesn't matter squat. It rebuts air ...breeeze. No one ever said every site on the Internet had internal links what was at issue was you saying home/other page authority isn't a direct part of the algo just because some sites don't have internal links
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813330].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dele
    All in all, i think both Mike Anthony and Mike Friedman are arriving at the same conclusion but in different ways. What can be deduced from the arguments is that
    the homepage is an indirect ranking factor only to the extent that it has a link path to the page in question.
    Below, i present an extract of the SERP for the keyword phrase "googles current ranking algorithm"

    I refer to the major ranking factors deduced above i.e.
    - On page
    - unique linking domains to page
    - quantity and quality of backlinks to page

    I still cannot seem to see how the SERP below justifies the rating of the above factors as the most influential, as there does not seem to be a correlation between these factors and the order of the results. In fact, what seems most obvious to me from the results is what Mike Anthony and Mike Friedman had been arguing about above. i.e. Not much influence of the home page backlinks on the particular page's ranking.

    How can one explain for example the many pages with very high no. of unique domains pointing to the particular pages and yet with lower rankings than those with much lower unique domain backlinks pointing to the particular pages? I don't think quality of the backlinks will account for such wide disparity.

    Another deduction i can make is that PR of the particular page is not of much importance.

    What other deductions can you make guys as to the most influential google ranking factors?

    Thanks as usual.

    Signature

    What Others Are Saying About This Top MLM Company | Get Brand New, Brand Name Products For Pennies @ New Penny Auctions | Play Online Game At Eager Zebra Games | The source through which i smile to the Bank daily with $$$ => Top Home Based Businesses

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813821].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I am not going to rank these, but these ones are not factors.

      - pr of homepage of site
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site (this can help to rank pages though based on the structure of the site, but is not a direct ranking factor)
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
      - unique linking domains to website

      These two myths piss me off that they are even still around. EDU/GOV links do not carry any special ranking power.
      - edu. domain links
      - gov. domain links


      This list looks like it is straight out of something like Market Samurai.

      And yes, you are right that the Yahoo Directory does not exist anymore, however there is a new product that has taken its place.
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      You need to read up and do some research then Mike. Besides Pr of home page they are all factors.

      quality or quantity of backlinks to the home page will convey authority through the site (as you indicated ) so it can hardly be said to not be a factor. Plus almost all professional SEOs admit that there are diminishing returns on links from the same site at some point (plus one domain alone linking would look as spammy as hades ). So yes more than one site aka linking domains is a factor. Denying that would be silly
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      If you lie about what i was suggesting I will call you on it. I have no obligation to let your distortions stand. I won't be concerned with your outrage on being called on it. the despicable part is starting the fabrication and then continuing with it . I NEVER made any claim exclusively to the home page specifically . Thats a lie.
      My entire argument was about links to the home page not being a ranking factor. That was my first post in this thread, which you then refuted. So what part am I lying about?

      Now you are saying we weren't talking about home page links, when clearly we were. I could quote plenty of more posts.

      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      the scrapebox example doesn't matter squat. It rebuts air ...breeeze. No one ever said every site on the Internet had internal links what was at issue was you saying home/other page authority isn't a direct part of the algo just because some sites don't have internal links
      Home page authority, on its own, is not a part of the algorithm. Pretty simple to understand. Incoming links are a part of the algorithm, whether they come from a home page, internal page, or external page. No links. No authority gets passed. Just like in the Scrapebox example. There are thousands of other examples out there too. Even if your estimation is true that 90% of the websites out there are using internal links and doing so fairly efectively, 10% of the internet is still a hell of a lot of webpages.

      So again, argue your points all you want. Argue against any points I made.

      Questioning my honesty is just lowbrow, unfounded, and unappreciated.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813881].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        My entire argument was about links to the home page not being a ranking factor. That was my first post in this thread, which you then refuted. So what part am I lying about?

        Now you are saying we weren't talking about home page links, when clearly we were. I could quote plenty of more posts.
        I don't really care what you want to quote. You are just picking and choosing what you want. If I say in one post home page backlinks and I say in other posts that I am talking about home page backlinks AND ANY OTHER PAGE (multiple times) with authority then trying to represent even after I corrected you I am talking just about home page as separate from linkflow from any page is a farce, low brow in itself and you ought to be embarrassed to keep up with the lie..

        Either learn how to read or stop trying to insinuate that I am saying that there is a separate "checkbox" for the home page distinct of any other link flow for page with authority . Home page authority is a factor because its part of the flow of juice of any page. Why didn't you bold quote this

        quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
        because it would indicate that it was about any link to any domain's page regardless of home page and ruin your case? You got one word right - despicable - but it doesn't apply to me.

        I've spelt out specifically why home page is referenced (because it often gets the most links from links to the domains root) and in multiple occasions specified "other pages" . You continue to ignore that in order to float your lie you are correcting me on something I never said (apparently to save face on other things)

        So go ahead Mike insinuate again that I am saying theres a separate algo for the home page distinct from any page flow metric and you'll still be insinuating the same old tired lie again and again. I 'm not "questioning" your honesty. I am calling you out on your dishonest representation. and lie about what my position is

        quality or quantity of backlinks to the home page will convey authority through the site
        Yeah and so??? How in the word does saying that indicate that I think that it applies only to home page as a separate home page specific algo. its true of the home page because of the flow of juice through any page but the home page often get s the most links. I've said it works that way with "other pages" 5-10 tmes in this thread and you choose to gloss over it to suit yourself.again apparently to save face.

        Dude straight up just stop lying and insinuating lies about my position.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813948].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dele
        One possible ranking factor that i have read about of recent and that i seem to observe at play is the "age of the particular webpage".

        I observe that despite throwing backlinks at a page one is trying to rank for and it becomes obvious that it has higher unique domains and quantity and quality of backlinks pointing at the webpage in question than many of its competitors, the page still fails to rank high enough. The explanation may well be the age factor which i understand Google now incorporates to sift out the "flash in the pan" pages.
        Signature

        What Others Are Saying About This Top MLM Company | Get Brand New, Brand Name Products For Pennies @ New Penny Auctions | Play Online Game At Eager Zebra Games | The source through which i smile to the Bank daily with $$$ => Top Home Based Businesses

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813965].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Dele View Post

          One possible ranking factor that i have read about of recent and that i seem to observe at play is the "age of the particular webpage".
          That's a myth.

          Look at extremely old domain/pages with no decent links, they're not ranking for anything.

          What they're seeing is established link profiles ranking pages, that includes both internal & external authority links. The age of the page is an illusion.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814003].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dele
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            That's a myth.

            Look at extremely old domain/pages with no decent links, they're not ranking for anything.
            What seems to be stated is that your page needs to have been around for a while to rank high and not the other way round. i.e. your page could have been around for a while and yet not rank.
            Signature

            What Others Are Saying About This Top MLM Company | Get Brand New, Brand Name Products For Pennies @ New Penny Auctions | Play Online Game At Eager Zebra Games | The source through which i smile to the Bank daily with $$$ => Top Home Based Businesses

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814021].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yukon
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Dele View Post

              What seems to be stated is that your page needs to have been around for a while to rank high and not the other way round. i.e. your page could have been around for a while and yet not rank.
              A new page can be ranked in a short amount of time with good links. Even a new page on a new domain with no previous backlink profile, though you'll have to supply the links once the site/page is setup.

              Really it all comes down to how fast can you build decent links & get Google to reindex all the backlink pages to update the SERPs.

              Obviously competition plays a roll but that's whoever has better SEO wins. Example, look at ebay, they're an authority site but they have a tendency to blast weak internal search pages at the SERPs so their authority doesn't mean anything for thousands of indexed pages.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814037].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dele
                Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                A new page can be ranked in a short amount of time with good links. Even a new page on a new domain with no previous backlink profile, though you'll have to supply the links once the site/page is setup.

                Really it all comes down to how fast can you build decent links & get Google to reindex all the backlink pages to update the SERPs.

                Obviously competition plays a roll but that's whoever has better SEO wins. Example, look at ebay, they're an authority site but they have a tendency to blast weak internal search pages at the SERPs so their authority doesn't mean anything for thousands of indexed pages.
                What then seems to account for a site with some backlinks pointing to the particular page not ranking as high as some with no backlinks at all pointing to the particular page?
                Signature

                What Others Are Saying About This Top MLM Company | Get Brand New, Brand Name Products For Pennies @ New Penny Auctions | Play Online Game At Eager Zebra Games | The source through which i smile to the Bank daily with $$$ => Top Home Based Businesses

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814066].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author deezn
                  Originally Posted by Dele View Post

                  What then seems to account for a site with some backlinks pointing to the particular page not ranking as high as some with no backlinks at all pointing to the particular page?
                  Could be on-site optimization.

                  Site A might have good links, but the signals are confusing Google so they don't know who to send there. Site B might have on point tags, content, titles etc.

                  Also, there maybe good internal link structure so links pointing to the domain in general (other pages) are effectively being funneled to that page.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814149].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
                  Originally Posted by Dele View Post

                  What then seems to account for a site with some backlinks pointing to the particular page not ranking as high as some with no backlinks at all pointing to the particular page?
                  Same thing we've talked about in this thread - internal linking structure.

                  It's pretty simple. Let's use keep it simple and draw upon WordPress as an easy, common example for an internal linking framework.

                  Let's say a certain category on a domain has a PR value of 3 and that 25 of the pages in that category each have a PR value of 1.

                  In this scenario, let's also say that the webmaster is using a automatic 'related posts' style plugin which puts a link to that new post on the bottom of each page in that category.

                  On day one of that post being written it automatically has one PR3 link and twenty five PR1 links with no additional work. Sure they are internal, but they pass pagerank just the same.

                  Now, if you plug that page into your backlink finder, it's going to show no external backlinks. But the truth is that it has plenty of link juice right from the start and will probably rank very well, very quickly.

                  That's why internal linking is so important. Of course, there is much more to it as well. Semantic relevancy and what not should be considered of course, but assuming you have tightly themed silos this really isn't a problem.

                  Does that make more sense?

                  Originally Posted by Dele View Post

                  One possible ranking factor that i have read about of recent and that i seem to observe at play is the "age of the particular webpage".
                  As Yukon covered, age isn't really significant, although the ranking of many of my pages do improve over time. None the less, it's just as common for a new page on a strong domain to rank in the top 3 in days or maybe a week.

                  Originally Posted by nicoli View Post

                  Whoever thinks PR is still a factor is somebody to ignore in all areas of SEO advice. PR died ages ago and people from Matt Cutts through to SMX hosts have all said the same thing. Good gravy, there some clowns around here.
                  Pagerank didn't die - just your access to it did. Saying pagerank died is like saying that links building holds no value, which if you think that's the case then I won't argue you out of it.

                  But if that's not the case and you still think link building has value, just what do you think is going on there. Obviously there is some sort of "Value" generated by that link - what do you think that is exactly? What would you call that value if not pagerank? "Link juice?" Same thing....

                  Originally Posted by shimul0011 View Post

                  Some people emphasize on on page factors. I don't know why on page seo never worked for me along. Recently I targeted very low competition keywords, wrote good seo optimized and reader friendly articles on those. But none of those sites ever ranked until I created some backlinks. I was surprised to see, a few irrelevant pages with a few backlinks on the Google first page and my relevant SEO optimized articles are nowhere near first 5 Google search pages.

                  On page seo definitely rocks .. no doubt! But sometimes mighty Google just misses things!
                  On-page SEO is really only important when there is pre-existing pagerank flowing either through the internal linking structure (which originates from other inbound links to the domain's pages) or external links.

                  Just writing "Great Content" on a domain with no inbound link juice doesn't really work except for weird, low competition spaces.
                  Signature
                  Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
                  http://www.godoveryou.com/
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815645].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author shimul0011
                    Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                    Pagerank didn't die - just your access to it did. Saying pagerank died is like saying that links building holds no value, which if you think that's the case then I won't argue you out of it.
                    .
                    Couldn't agree anymore. I don't know why someone would think PR died. I search 10 times on Google and what I find is, most search results on first few pages have some PageRanks. Not a lot of pages have PR N/A or 0.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815683].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author yukon
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by shimul0011 View Post

                      I search 10 times on Google and what I find is, most search results on first few pages have some PageRanks. Not a lot of pages have PR N/A or 0.
                      Obviously that's not happening. It's like saying nobody ranked new pages last year (2014), since public PR wasn't updated. Page authority still exist (strong link profile).

                      Besides, a ranked page doesn't need to show any PR, even when PR was being updated.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815719].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Dele View Post

              What seems to be stated is that your page needs to have been around for a while to rank high and not the other way round. i.e. your page could have been around for a while and yet not rank.
              I think what you have to do is go back to the basic concept of a search engine and concentrate on those first things . the number one thing is that search engines like Google want is a relevant page to show up

              You start there. You make sure your content and your titles and H1 tags etc are telling Google this page is about the subject the search is looking for.

              in broad terms this is why you are seeing pages with lower Pr beat top pr pages, why you are finding pages with even less quality links homepage or even direct to a page beat ones with more. A lot of the time people want to look at a metric or amount of backlinks etc. The overriding thing is on page first and then the links. You can rank a page without content and on page but its then more of an uphill climb than it needs to be
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814098].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by Dele View Post

          One possible ranking factor that i have read about of recent and that i seem to observe at play is the "age of the particular webpage".

          I observe that despite throwing backlinks at a page one is trying to rank for and it becomes obvious that it has higher unique domains and quantity and quality of backlinks pointing at the webpage in question than many of its competitors, the page still fails to rank high enough. The explanation may well be the age factor which i understand Google now incorporates to sift out the "flash in the pan" pages.
          I really do not think that webpage age is much of a factor, if any at all.

          I have seen some evidence, but it is nearly impossible to test because you cannot create a vacuum in the SERPs, is that link age plays a role. The older links are to a page the more value they have. This could lead to a correlation that makes it look like webpage age is playing a role, but it really is because the page has a lot of more mature links.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815718].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Dele View Post

      Not much influence of the home page backlinks on the particular page's ranking.
      A Home page doesn't matter for ranking an internal page. You could noindex a blank HTML Home page & still rank internal pages all day long.






      Originally Posted by Dele View Post

      I don't think quality of the backlinks will account for such wide disparity.
      Quality as far as external links is really all about things like:
      • Will the backlink stick for months/years?
      • Is the backlink page indexed in Google SERPs?
      • Does the backlink page have 100s of spammy links pointing at 100s of spammy domains that will draw attention (manual slap link profile snooping).
      • Spammy links will rank pages but there's a trade off, you risk getting a manual review, tripping a spam filter, getting deindexed, etc... So..., If the domain is disposable you have nothing to lose. If the domain is a branded business name like a small business, you have everything to lose If the domain is slapped/deindexed.

      Backlinks are not one size fits all, you want to rank a page/domain for days/weeks/months (spammy links) or years (relevant links)?






      Originally Posted by Dele View Post

      Another deduction i can make is that PR of the particular page is not of much importance.
      Correct, the PR for the money page doesn't matter because:
      • Public PR is no longer updated.
      • Even when public PR was updated it was quarterly at best, so a page could go months before showing an increase in PR while ranking in the SERPs those same months.
      • PR is/was for inbound links (authority votes).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813997].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Dele View Post


      What other deductions can you make guys as to the most influential google ranking factors?

      Thanks as usual.
      Hey Dele unfortunately your example really isn't related to anything we have been discussing except that many factors rank a site not just one. It is highly unlikely any of the sites are targeting that term, get much anchor text links for that term or even have pages optimized to rank for it

      Overall google tries to serve up the most relevant page it can find when there are few other indicators like links that it is relevant. In those cases links won't matter much and neither will a lot of the other metrics.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LV1203
    With time and experience, we all figure out which factors are most important to Google..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814044].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author deezn
    Originally Posted by Dele View Post

    We all know Google utilizes probably as many as 200 ranking factors for its SERPs.

    The major ones may include
    - originality of content
    - pr of webpage
    - pr of homepage of site

    - age of domain
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to particular page
    - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site

    - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
    - unique linking domains to page
    - unique linking domains to website
    - edu. domain links
    - gov. domain links
    - dmoz
    - yahoo directory ( though heard it is now no more in existence)
    - On page factors e.g. meta tags

    and so on....

    Can you please
    1. rank these factors in order(highest ranking --> lowest ranking) you believe they weight with Google
    2. add other factors not included here
    3. delete/identify any you believe is no more or never was a significant ranking factor.

    The objective is to try and arrive at what may be near to the Google algorithm.

    What motivates this is the realization that some absurdity seems to play out in the SERPs when you see a site you do not expect to rank higher, ranking higher than another site, apparently because of the "unknown Google algorithm"

    Many thanks.
    You guys are arguing over this, fail to refer back to the original post. MikeF is saying, you don't need to write both of those out. Look at what is bold. You don't need to list:

    - pr of webpage

    And

    - pr of homepage of site

    MikeF is saying, the homepage doesn't get any extra consideration. Saying PR of webpage, or - quality & quantity of backlinks to particular page is enough.

    You don't need to say webpage and homepage. A page being the homepage doesn't create extra juice on its own.

    Hypothetically speaking, if you can point 100 quality links at a particular page, if you decide to point it at the homepage, that fact doesn't magically create extra juice then if you decided to point those same links at an internal page. The authority of those 100 links will pass the same to an internal page as it would homepage. There is no magic because it's a homepage. It's just a page.

    From there it's your internal linking that takes over.

    Another hypothetical. You have a homepage that has NO navigation, and NO internal links whatsoever. Nothing. Just text and links to external websites. If you point 100 quality links to that homepage, it will help that homepage rank, but will not help any other page on your site, right?

    Because the homepage isn't more special than any other page.

    1,000 links to the homepage doesn't help an internal page unless there is a link trail to that internal page. But it didn't have to be the homepage.

    1,000 links to an internal page, that then linked to the final internal page is the same thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814136].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by deezn View Post

      MikeF is saying, the homepage doesn't get any extra consideration. Saying PR of webpage, or - quality & quantity of backlinks to particular page is enough.
      Nope Mike is saying they are not direct ranking factor at all regardless and its not just the home page he's wrong about but links to entire site and unique linking domains which he doesn't even qualify by saying it has indirect value either.

      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I am not going to rank these, but these ones are not factors.

      - pr of homepage of site
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site (this can help to rank pages though based on the structure of the site, but is not a direct ranking factor)
      - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
      - unique linking domains to website
      .

      If mike had said you can rank on links to the page alone no one would have disputed it. Its when he said it was not a direct factor in the algo where he blew it. Internal juice flow within a site is a ranking factor. Pretty direct too in many cases. MIke says no even when the links are there its only indirect.

      You don't need to say webpage and homepage. A page being the homepage doesn't create extra juice on its own.
      No one in this thread claimed that Deez or that it was magical or special or any of the things you just wrote. Mike made that up. Its utterly false. All some of us said was the home page and any other page with authority on a site linking to the site you are trying to rank IS a factor and frankly SHOULD be used to maximize ranking ability.

      let me explain why this is important in link building. At some point everybody should want to get natural links to their site and right now even spam links are utilizing naked url for anchor text . A HUGE part of links you will get are just straight domain URLs. WF gets tons of these - warriorforum.com

      You can end up with a LOT of link equity on your home page (AND OTHER PAGES as I have added SEVERAL times). telling newbs when they are doing SEO that the home page has no direct part to play in the ranking of their internal pages makes them overlook a way that MANY webmaster get pages to rank.

      As I have tried to say and has been rejected. Say its a ranking factor and explain that it depends, doesn't always apply and the distance from the pages with authority affects it but don't tell newbs its no direct factor when it often is. Internal link juice is third only to on page content relevancy and exterior links and yes in many cases the home page is where that authority is most built up.

      Look at his list of what doesn't factor at all - he ended up denying even factors for quality and quantity of all links coming in to the entire website (which help to determine the strength of the internal link juice flowing) even besides the home page. Thats wrong. you should be aware of the overall links strength coming into to your entire website and utilize that link juice - not claim its not a factor.

      So its not just a home page issue . Mike denied as you can see from above list that the overall link profile to a website is a potential ranking factor in doing SEO.

      Its just plain wrong.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814189].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Nope Mike is saying they are not direct ranking factor at all regardless and its not just the home page he's wrong about but links to entire site and unique linking domains which he doesn't even qualify by saying it has indirect value either.
        Links to any page of a site are a ranking factor to the extent that you can trace a link path to the target page.

        If you find a site, somedomain.com, that has 300,000 links to the entire website, that doesn't mean that those 300,000 links are all a factor for somedomain.com/pageA. For 50,000 of them, you might not be able to trace a path from the pages being linked to back to pageA. If you can trace a path, then they are a factor to some extent. The extent of which they are a factor depends largely on how many hops you have to go through to get to the page.

        That is what I have been saying.

        According to MajesticSEO's historic index, there are 619,524 links pointing at scrapebox.com (the entire site). The site contains no link path from scrapebox.com (or any of its other pages) to scrapebox.com/bhw, so scrapebox.com/bhw is not getting any benefit from those links.

        There are tons of examples of orphaned pages like this across the internet, especially in the IM niche where sales pages and special offer pages often have no link path coming from the rest of the site.

        Q&A sites are another example. They often have entire sections of their sites that are only accessible through a search, but no link path to speak of. You can find what are basically silos of related questions, but they are often cutoff from the rest of the site.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815711].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          Links to any page of a site are a ranking factor to the extent that you can trace a link path to the target page.
          Yep thats why in the algo the home page and any other page with authority is a direct ranking factor. Welcome to sensible SEO. have you finally made progress in understanding?

          If you find a site, somedomain.com, that has 300,000 links to the entire website, that doesn't mean that those 300,000 links are all a factor for somedomain.com/pageA. For 50,000 of them, you might not be able to trace a path from the pages being linked to back to pageA. If you can trace a path, then they are a factor to some extent. The extent of which they are a factor depends largely on how many hops you have to go through to get to the page.
          Umm...Duh..... all I can think is you cannot grasp the concept of the algo. Its already conditional computer code. If it doesn't find a page title of course it can't use it. If there are not internal links it can't use them but second time....does that mean the code that rewards it if it finds it vanishes??

          For goodness sake THINK

          The purpose of trying to figure out whats in the algo is to utilize it. if I understand the algo allows me to rank by using internal link juice from my home page (AND OTHER PAGES - since I apparently have to cap it every time for you) then I will fix my links in order to use it. It WORKS when I do BECAUSE IT IS IN THE ALGO to reward such use.

          OF course some effect is lost as link flows through the pages but YES the overall quality of the links coming into my entire website will TEND to rank pages with proper SEO. It doesn't have to rank every single page in order to say its a ranking factor and as a SEO I can determine at any time to use it to rank a page I select by changing my structure..

          So I guess you can just go ahead and cite again some page on the internet that doesn't have internal links as if you are refuting anything when all it means is that that site is not utilizing what the algo allows it to rank with

          I (or nik0 who tried too)apparently will never get through to you that citing an exception to normal site structure doesn't change whats in the algo. You continue to essentially claim that if you can find some site or sites on the internet that do not use one of the 200+ factors in the algo that the factor does not exist in the algo.

          Its all to use a word you started throwing around a few months ago - silly

          but if thats how you think about it it hey.....

          That is what I have been saying.
          I'm just happy that at least that post you stopped lying about my position. I guess the fourth time correcting you was the charm.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815820].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Yep thats why in the algo the home page and any other page with authority is a direct ranking factor. Welcome to sensible SEO. have you finally made progress in understanding?
            My position never changed.

            Links to a website (home page or other) are not an automatic direct ranking factor for any given page on the site. They are only a factor to the extent that you can trace a path from where the links enter the site to the page in question. That is what I have been saying all along.

            If there is no link path, they provide no benefit. If that link path is buried 20 hops deep on the site, the benefit decreases tremendously and in most cases is pretty much negligible.

            Pretty common with local news sites. They do not have the authority or link volume coming in like the New York Times or Washington Post, but they are often not that much smaller in total page size. So while the NYT home page might bleed some authority to a news item 12 hops deep, littleshittownnews.com is not going to pass any authority that deep from the home page. Same would apply for any other links coming in to any other page on the site that you have to pass through that many internal links to get to the page in question.

            Wikipedia would be another example. I could create a new Wiki page today. It is not going to automatically benefit from the whole Wiki website. It is only going to benefit from the external links it attracts and any internal links that get built pointing to it. And that benefit is going to be dependent on how close those pages are to another internal page with good links.

            I have never seen any proof that or heard anyone from Google state that links to a website are a part of the algorithm. Links to a particular page (wherever they come from) are a part of the algorithm. That is clear to see. But seeing that a website has XXX of links to the entire domain does not tell you which ones, if any, are benefiting the page you are looking at.

            So like I said in my first post, none of these can be said to be ranking factors for a random page on a website without looking at it closer. And even then, unless they are one hop away from the point where all the links are coming from or the exact page where all the links are pointing to, at best they are an indirect factor.


            - pr of homepage of site
            - quality & quantity of backlinks to homepage of site (this can help to rank pages though based on the structure of the site, but is not a direct ranking factor)
            - quality & quantity of backlinks to entire website
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815930].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post


              Links to a website (home page or other) are not an automatic direct ranking factor for any given page on the site. They are only a factor to the extent that you can trace a path from where the links enter the site to the page in question. That is what I have been saying all along.
              Mike I am bored. You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Of course if there is no internal link from a home page it will not help to rank an internal page. IF there are no external links to a page it will not help it rank either

              does that mean that external links to a page are not a factor in the algo????

              Sigh....... such rank silliness .

              .
              So like I said in my first post, none of these can be said to be ranking factors
              So like I said in my first response you need to go learn some SEO because you don't even understand what ranking factors IN THE ALGO means. It doesn't mean every site has to have those factors but whats is i n the software algo that can potentially reward a page with rankings. The majority of sites with authority pages have links to other pages and can and do directly help sites rank.

              Its truly sad you don't understand something so basic as what the algo is.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SusanHayden
    For me the most important factor to get ranking over search engine is to have quality contents, on paging and overall representation of the website. Off paging factor are equally responsible, but the important one is to have a perfect on paging of that website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814708].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ashwaniseo
    The ranking factors Google uses for its SERP are categorized under 10 different categories.
    These categories are Domain Factors, Page-Level Factors, Site-Level Factors, Backlink Factors, User Interaction, Special Algorithm Rules, Social Signals, Brand Signals, On-Site WebSpam Factors and Off Page Webspam Factors.

    If ON page of Website is implemented in proper way and if you follow Your best OFF page strategy then there is no doubt to rank best such website in Google SERP's
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814729].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author theresamitch713
    Google Changes Search Algorithm to Oust Content Farms - This is the headline for the first link below. We, as have others, have used RSS to copy content and make webpages for clients look more current and change more often. Even if this used to give us a bump, google's approach is to say NEVER MORE !!

    1. Maybe google cried uncle to bing and yahoo here. The other SERP's always did this.
    2. Sometimes I can find websites that actually will take a webpage and look for duplicate content
    3. Google has never put much into any meta tag, except description. Title I agree still matters. This is an interesting insight, and if true, makes my life easier.
    4. Google has at least added heuristics to compare anchor text to actual target page content to prevent google wacking.

    If anybody is learning about SEO, your assertions are a good place to start building an understanding.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nicoli
    Whoever thinks PR is still a factor is somebody to ignore in all areas of SEO advice. PR died ages ago and people from Matt Cutts through to SMX hosts have all said the same thing. Good gravy, there some clowns around here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814827].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by nicoli View Post

      Whoever thinks PR is still a factor is somebody to ignore in all areas of SEO advice. PR died ages ago and people from Matt Cutts through to SMX hosts have all said the same thing. Good gravy, there some clowns around here.
      Sure 15-20 years of internet history all changes in slightly over a year that PR hasn't been updated.

      I bet Facebook will be a PR1 now internally.

      Enjoy relying on Ahrefs, Majestic and Moz for the strength of backlinks to a domain
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815014].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nicoli
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Sure 15-20 years of internet history all changes in slightly over a year that PR hasn't been updated.

        I bet Facebook will be a PR1 now internally.

        Enjoy relying on Ahrefs, Majestic and Moz for the strength of backlinks to a domain
        No thanks
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815024].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Sure 15-20 years of internet history all changes in slightly over a year that PR hasn't been updated.
        As an external metric its fading fast. The best example I have seen recently comes from I think Terry Kyle's brother (or some relative). Every few weeks he releases a bunch of domains for sale which are probably the world's most crappy domains for sale. All PR3 the last batch (filled with chinese spam, no longer live links and assorted nonsense). A good bunch have lost all PR3 juice but he can continue to release them while there is no update

        In Terry's defense when he emails them out he does say he hasn't verified them and people must do their due diligence but considering how crappy the domains are I really don't know why he even associates with it at all. Its a good example of how iffy PR as a metric is right now

        I think most people are talking about toolbar so to me at least it s a legit point. I'll admit freely I still use toolbar PR for examining links for a domain (because its unlikely all the links would have lost their real Pr ) but as time goes by thats going to get iffy too.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815859].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          As an external metric its fading fast. The best example I have seen recently comes from I think Terry Kyle's brother (or some relative). Every few weeks he releases a bunch of domains for sale which are probably the world's most crappy domains for sale. All PR3 the last batch (filled with chinese spam, no longer live links and assorted nonsense). A good bunch have lost all PR3 juice but he can continue to release them while there is no update

          In Terry's defense when he emails them out he does say he hasn't verified them and people must do their due diligence but considering how crappy the domains are I really don't know why he even associates with it at all. Its a good example of how iffy PR as a metric is right now

          I think most people are talking about toolbar so to me at least it s a legit point. I'll admit freely I still use toolbar PR for examining links for a domain (because its unlikely all the links would have lost their real Pr ) but as time goes by thats going to get iffy too.
          Just had a small discussion with my broker about it and asked him what metrics he used to evalulate the domains, he said the PR of the backlinks and I'm quite happy with that of course.

          I also asked him how he's gonna do it in 1-2 years from now and his answer was a dry: "I sell what my buyers ask from me".

          For now the PR of the backlinks is still the most reliable factor, it will get real hard in a few years from now.

          Thing is, DA/TF/Ahrefs URL rank becomes more reliable the higher the numbers (under the condition that we weed out the spam obvious), a total crap domain can be DA25 but a solid one can be DA25 as well, once you come in the range of DA35-40 (and once again when you weed out the spam), it sure is an indicator of strength, same applies to Ahrefs Rank 50+ or Ahrefs URL rank of 20+, but then you're in the higher end of domains so when everyone is forced to focus on such domains the prices will really go through the roof.

          You know yourself a solid DA40+ (PR4/PR5) domain easily go's for $500+ on auctions, not to mention that those domains are pretty rare.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815895].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            I also asked him how he's gonna do it in 1-2 years from now and his answer was a dry: "I sell what my buyers ask from me".

            For now the PR of the backlinks is still the most reliable factor, it will get real hard in a few years from now.
            .
            I doubt your broker will have the option. Its been over a year and if google really intends never to do an update again it is very unlikely they will continue to serve PR data through their API or toolbar.

            Its going to be a thing to behold when domainers, PBN owners and link buyers wake up one morning and every single domain and page on the internet shows a PR n/a.

            LOL...I'd like to see the faces of those in the middle of auctions when that happens.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815938].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              I doubt your broker will have the option. Its been over a year and if google really intends never to do an update again it is very unlikely they will continue to serve PR data through their API or toolbar.

              Its going to be a thing to behold when people domainers, PBN owners and link buyers wake up one morning and every sing le domain and page on the itenrnet shows a PR n/a.

              LOL...I'd like to see the faces of those in the middle of auctions when that happens.
              That's something most (me included) haven't thought of....
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815945].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                That's something most (me included) haven't thought of....
                I think its because none of us want to think about such a scary thought...lol.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815995].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gdccashflow
    Thank you for the list, do you have a list of .edu list? I will highly appreciate it. Is it true that 1,000 - 2,000 words on content are ranking well on SERP?
    Signature

    Visit my blog today - Return On Investment and Tips in Paying Insurance Premium. Thank you!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815767].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Karlb
    One SEO guy I heard from was adamant the most important thing a person can do to rank high with Google is to post great content CONSISTENTLY. He told me this would take care of most of my SEO results. I found it to be an interesting idea but have not tested it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815848].message }}

Trending Topics