Is the importance of backlinks highly overrated?

Sometimes...trying to make heads and tails (I wonder where that phrase came from?) of all this makes me want to go back to flipping burgers for a living LOL.

Carlos

Hi dburk,

First, my use of "multiple algos" is simply a way to say that Google doesn't treat all pages or queries the same.

If Google did only use one algo, it would be way too easy to reverse engineer?

Now we can use your definition that it is one algo, with many variables applied in different ways. But the end result is the same.

The way you put it, is that a single algo has multiple varibles...But is applied to each and every query/page the same way. My choice of words should imply that not all pages and queries are treated the sane and the concept easier to visualize.

The point is, IMO it's very unlikely that Google treats each search or each page in its index the same.

And if I over-simplify, it's because my method of SEO, which I've used for 13 years, means I don't concentrate on one SEO method or belief. Instead, I try to cover every reasonable variation.

Plus, if you consider that Bing and Yahoo can also give traffic, we can assume there's at least three algos. I have just proven we have to deal with more than one algo. So it seems obvious to me that we should perform SEO with the thought that even if there's just one algo/one variation, then we should be prepared for it to change.

As far as page rank, we don't know the true PR, only the little green bar Google tells us is the PR. What about Google's internal PR?

Actually, many advanced SEOers believe, myself included, that the more popular the search query, the more likely google uses more off-page elements. However, the more obscure the query, the more likely Google uses more "on the page".

This is because there are many searches, estimated between 40-60% of all searches that are so obscure/one of a kind, the engines struggle to return any relevant results.

Compare the SERPS for "computers" and "cheap computer boxes for sale in jackson hole wyoming". Google's going to struggle to find anything close to being relevant to the later. And if it does, I'll bet it uses more "on the page" than off.

Back to reverse engineering...Let's be honest, this is a great security risk for Google. Not only from SEOers, but internally. Their entire fortune rests on protecting their algo.

How would you protect your SERPs from both of the above? I'd do it using multiple algos, because there are many that will return good results, and none are perfect.

I doubt Google does this just like my following example, but the theory is important...

Instead of a single algo, let's say Google has come up with a few, or to please you, different variations of the same algo.

There's no doubt they have tested numerous algo, or multiple variations. Some that rely on On Page. Others on PageRank. Others on Trust Factors. Others on human bahavior.

All these listed can achieve good results, in most cases. So why not use them to protect reverse engineering and from anyone internally from stealing the "secret sauce"?

Let's say you have these basics (plus others):
1. On page
2. PR
3. Human behavior
4. Linking relevance/anchor text

And, all the possible combos.

These aren't random algos/variations. They are the ones that have withstood Google's testing. And they could be variations of the same algo, each giveing more "weight" (priority) to different elements in the algo.

Let's say that Google now has 10 algos, just for conversation. Each is lettered A B C D E F G H I J

Again, each algo A - J has been tested. And while none is perfect, each is good and will bring up a different "flavor" of site.

Now, Google RANDOMLY assigns letters for different queries. For example:

Computers - Uses algos A G D F F E A H C B

Dogs - Uses algos J I D A C H D J B G

With each letter representing a different algo, with different priorities. And each algo would apply to a different results in the SERPs.

For "dogs", the #1 result would use "J", #2 "I", etc.

Assuming each algo was legit in the first place, each would return viable results for "dogs" and "computers", yet use totally different ranking "variations" in different orders. This would make it just about impossible to reverse engineer.

We know my example isn't accurate, as the same page will drop/raise a few positions. However, my point isn't to explain the exact process. It is to show that there are many ways of incorporating different algos, with the end result being to protect their money-maker, their "algo". They may even apply some random elements to their algo, simply to protect it.

Has it ever occured to anyone that if there were truly one method of ranking pages, that the logical outcome would be that the pages would be more similiar? Similar in size, similar in links, similar in content, etc. But they are not? Why?

Now back to why I simplified this...All this SEO doesn't matter. We know there are at least 3 major algos, one for Google, Yahoo and Bing. We know each has changed. We can assume each will change again in the future.

Instead of worrying about all this mess is to concentrate on what the engines must do: Return relvant results. And this will be based on:

Words on a page
Words on pages that link to the page (inlcuding anchor text)
Human actions

This is really it. It's just how they tweak the "knobs".

So instead of worrying about tweaking, knowing every Google update, etc, I find it far better to create as many pages, sites and links, using as many variables as possible.

Instead of using 2% keyword density and early prominence in the page title, I say make a bunch of content that uses 0-10% keyword density. I say use keywords early, late, repeated and not at all in page titles.

Of course, "weigh" your efforts using the most excepted principles of SEO more often, but the end goal is pure numbers:

How many pages use your keywords? How many of those are your's?
How many links to those pages are there? How many are your's?

In other words, set up a site, and try some of the spammy linking methods. Create another and aquire only "quality" links. Create another and use a little of both.

Create pages on sites with authority. Create low-medium quality pages that are high risk to test, (keeping them away from sites that have produced money). Create high content sites for linking and affiliate programs.

I've done SEO for 13 years and virtually every method I've heard about has had people saying it worked for them (at least for a while) and others at the same time saying "That doesn't work".

We can either study and plot according to the lastest SEO discovery, or we can simply make sites and pages that use different blends of what is considered "reasonable" SEO.

PS..Concerning this:
Sorry, but logic doesn't dictate that we use a multiplier, nor does it assume anything is a "zero".

Actually, if you read the forumula for PR, relevance isn't a factor at all. The questions really are, how much is PR a part of the total outcome, and is real PR anything close to what the little green bar says it is?

PR was never meant to be a way to determine relevance. Instead, it was meant to judge a "popularity contest".

And while we're knit-picking about stuff:

Actually, this is a little mis-leading...If you remember in the early days, Hotbot/Inktomi either beat or was tied with Google in every major independant SERP study for relevance. Google's rise had more to do with other marketing factors, as Hotbot was every bit as relevant, and a case could be made, it was more relevant.

And a trip to "back in the day", Google was the easiest SE ever to spam. All you had to do was create a page using the keyword in the anchor text in tons of links....As a matter of fact, I had sites that literally held 18 out of the top 20 spots in Google for some competitive, money making keywords.

But their algo has changed a lot since then.

Carlos, everything you're saying is great in theory, however unless it brings in paychecks it's not much use, and backlinks will bring you in paychecks from rankings.

Some very experienced SEOers have given you some great advice, but it's obviously up to you now how you want to do things.

Good luck with your strategies.