  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
blakekr
Joined:
17 Dec 2003
Posts:
265
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:04 pm
Post subject: Hmm... just reading about an interesting strategy
|
 |
|
Someone at somewhere (as part of their general affiliate strategy) sugguested you use PPC to drive traffic to your site until your PR rises to above three or so. Then, he suggests, the search engines will start to drive traffic of their own.
Does this really work? I thought it was backlinks, not PR, that really shaped search engine rankings.
_________________
- blake
Day Job Killer -- an ebook I actually bought, actually read and actually liked. |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:58 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, but backlinks shape PR so it's all related.
I've never thought of that strategy of using PPC ... sounds odd because you can get traffic with traffic generators ... I don't see how PPC affects the PR or traffic, except that it can bring you qualified traffic to start you earning money while you wait on the SE's.
Do you have a link so we can check out the article/post?
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blakekr
Joined:
17 Dec 2003
Posts:
265
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:02 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Okay, found it -- it's Kim Thomas' review of Jim Straw's ebook, lol
http://www.kim-thomas.com/articles.php?articleId=255
Interesting concept but I don't have near enough experience to evaluate it.
_________________
- blake
Day Job Killer -- an ebook I actually bought, actually read and actually liked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:10 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I think she missed a couple steps there in her review. She talks about getting links into her site earlier, but then didn't include that in the list of things to do at the bottom where she mentions the PR3.
I read a lot of newsletters etc and never saw anything about PPC and getting PR from it. Maybe Sean will check in on this thread and tell us what he thinks.
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:09 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I believe she means you should use PPCs until your site starts getting traffic, which may pick up once you have a PR of 3. Didn't seem like she implied using PPCs to increase PR to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:44 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
PPCs don't increase PR.
| Quote: | | I believe she means you should use PPCs until your site starts getting traffic, which may pick up once you have a PR of 3. Didn't seem like she implied using PPCs to increase PR to me. |
That's correct I think. It's something that Phil Wiley recommends for mini sites. If you link to a new site from one of your existing sites, it'll start getting free rankings in a week or so (sometimes sooner). Until that happens, he uses PPC. That seems to be what Kim does as well.
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Hmm... just reading about an interesting strategy
|
|
|
| blakekr wrote: | | I thought it was backlinks, not PR, that really shaped search engine rankings. |
| Debs wrote: | | Yes, but backlinks shape PR so it's all related. |
I thought Hilltop was gaining greater influence in the Google algo (at the expense of PR) nowadays. It strikes me as a good idea - for reasons of relevancy if nothing else...
Would you attach much importance to the opinion of the world's greatest expert on DVD players if you were looking to buy a house?
Just a thought,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:33 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | In a nutshell, PR determines ?authority? of a web page in general.
Hilltop (LocalScore) determines the ?authority? of a web page related to the query or search term.
Bharat formulated that instead of using just the ?PR value? to find the ?authoritative? web pages; it would be more useful if the ?value? has topical relevance. As such, counting links from ?topic relevant? document to a web page would be more useful. He called these ?topic relevant? documents as ?expert documents? and links from these expert documents to the target documents evaluated their ?authority score?
From: "Analysis and implications of Hilltop..." http://www.seorank.com/analysis-of-hilltop-algorithm.htm |
Linking is a major part of the Hilltop algo, just in a slightly different way than before. Also, from the same article ...
| Quote: | What is the new ?ranking? weight distribution?
If you notice in the above new formula, Google has taken significant weight off the on-page factors. The only on-page variable in the formula is now the ?RelevanceScore?
Our analysis of the above formula and Google behavior indicates that the total weight distributed to the 3 components (RS group, PR group and LS group) is as follows ?
RelevanceScore = 20%, PageRank = 40%, LocalScore = 40%
Where:
RS is the translation of all SEO efforts
PR is the translation of Link-building efforts
LS is the translation of links from the expert documents |
Note: Expert documents are determined by the Hilltop Algo.
I take this as meaning PR is still playing a major part in the way results are returned. Also, take into consideration, if links from expert documents are not found for a particular search, then the results returned will be the result of RS and PR, without any value being passed from LS, so then PR again becomes the predominant factor in SERPS.
Debs[/quote]
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:15 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sincere apologies for the delay in replying.
I have been held hostage by my ISP for the last week - let's hope things are right now...
| Debs wrote: | | I take this as meaning PR is still playing a major part in the way results are returned. |
I hope that the algorithm does move away from PR...
Why should an important but irrelevant (in the sense off-topic) site have a more important voice than a smaller but more relevant site in the context of incoming links?
PR says it should, Hilltop says it shouldn't.
Ideally, could PR be modified to include some form of topic relevancy to justify the expertise it is being afforded by Google.
| Quote: | Also, take into consideration, if links from expert documents are not found for a particular search, then the results returned will be the result of RS and PR, without any value being passed from LS, so then PR again becomes the predominant factor in SERPS.
|
I wonder if PR will really dominate searches like these...
Surely the searches not having associated expert documents will typically be less optimised (due to lack of popularity), so the on page factors will actually retain considerable importance (due to the lack of off page optimisation for the primary phrase).
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:30 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Charlie
| Quote: | Why should an important but irrelevant (in the sense off-topic) site have a more important voice than a smaller but more relevant site in the context of incoming links?
|
Because it works - Google are #1 with searchers.
Hilltop is over four years old so Google would almost certainly have started using it before now if they thought it would improve results - maybe they have and we didn't notice.
Hilltop is almost certainly not responsible for the recent changes at Google. Even if they did implement it in that update, rankings changed on a wide range of keywords - many of which Hilltop wouldn't touch.
BTW, on that original page that discussed Hilltop, the link to the paper and the patent are for two different things. Hilltop refers to expert documents whilst the patent looks at the inter-connectivity between a set of results - someone does a search and all matching documents are returned and then re-ranked according to which ones have the most links from that set. In my opinion, it's this, rather than Hilltop, that was introduced.
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:34 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello Sean.
Sorry for the delay... again...
| Quote: | | I have been held hostage by my ISP for the last week - let's hope things are right now... |
They weren't...
| Sean Burns wrote: | | Quote: | Why should an important but irrelevant (in the sense off-topic) site have a more important voice than a smaller but more relevant site in the context of incoming links?
|
Because it works - Google are #1 with searchers. |
That doesn't mean there isn't a better way though...
Assuming popular people are experts on everything sounds like an invitation for an improvement, if you ask me. (I don't have that problem.)
Don't get me wrong, Google is always my first port of call when I'm searching. I don't only think their results are the best, but also very good, generally, if you see what I mean.
| Quote: | | BTW, on that original page that discussed Hilltop, the link to the paper and the patent are for two different things. Hilltop refers to expert documents whilst the patent looks at the inter-connectivity between a set of results - someone does a search and all matching documents are returned and then re-ranked according to which ones have the most links from that set. In my opinion, it's this, rather than Hilltop, that was introduced. |
Oh dear...
And just when I thought I was starting to understand something... 
Thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:19 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | That doesn't mean there isn't a better way though...
Assuming popular people are experts on everything sounds like an invitation for an improvement, if you ask me. (I don't have that problem.) |
I agree. The problem with Hilltop is who is an expert? Do they get paid to list sites (like Yahoo)? Do they list new sites quickly (unlike DMOZ)? Do they list new sites at all (unlike many College, Government & Library sites)?
The only way they could really do it is to create their own list of expert pages manually and check them regularly. I would imagine that the difficulty in doing that wouldn't be worth it because it won't change the rankings too much - in theory, an expert page would already have an effect on the rankings.
| Quote: | Oh dear...
And just when I thought I was starting to understand something...
Thanks for pointing that out.
|
I didn't notice it when I first read the page. I knew Google had received an Inter-connectivity patent but I didn't realise that the author had confused that with Hilltop - as far as I can tell, there is no Hilltop patent.
BTW, the Hilltop & Inter-connectivity algorithms are both written by the same person.
Basically, LocalRank (The Inter-Connectivity one) favours pages that are linked to from other pages in the same set of results. This will theoretically help information pages and harm commercial listings - commercial sites will tend not to list to a competitor whilst non-commercial pages will often link to references and other relevant sites.
It sounds like it would work OK but, like everything else, has flaws.
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:52 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok, I have a theory that relates to this ... somewhat 
With my SBi site, I have a lot of links in from sites I've never requested, or received requests, for links. When I visit the page linking to me, it is quite obvious they are in the style of Traffic Equalizer pages. Bold link titles, short paragraph description taken from the meta description tag or first paragraph of the page (I didn't pay close attention to which it was).
Now, it appears to me as if these programs (TE, and maybe a few others that use this method), are creating "authority" for themselves by having these links go out to direct competitors.
I had been wondering about this in relation to Hilltop (now suspected to be local rank). Since quite a few haven't seen problems with using these pages, and actually swear by the traffic they bring in, it appears as if Florida either bypassed them, or boosted them. (I am thinking in particular about Roselind Gardner's review of TE in her last newsletter).
What are your thoughts?
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:19 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Debs
The links from TE pages help you more than they help them. TE pages rank well for uncompetitive keywords simply because they target them. You or I could have a page set up on our sites in 10 minutes that would rank better than a TE page within a few days.
The TE pages that have the links "turned off" rank just as well.
Basically, a page doesn't get any "points" for linking to other pages. Like all other pages, TE pages rank well because of anchor text (incoming) and title - and because no-one else is usually targeting those exact phrases. That's why you'll never see a TE page rank well for a competitive phrase.
In terms of traffic, it's just a numbers game - set up 1000 pages that get 1 visitor per day and you get an extra 1000 visitors. Unfortunately, every site I've seen using TE is targeting keywords that don't relate to their products. Also, offering visitors a page that links to other pages (for no reason) and requires an extra click to get to what you are promoting is not the best way to do things.
Having said all that, as far as quick fixes go, it's better than nothing and I'm happy to have a few thousand extra pages linking to me 
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:50 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello again Sean.
| Sean Burns wrote: | | Quote: | | Assuming popular people are experts on everything sounds like an invitation for an improvement, if you ask me. (I don't have that problem.) |
I agree. The problem with Hilltop is who is an expert? Do they get paid to list sites (like Yahoo)? |
The question of buying a link from a high PR page has caused problems before...
I remember a case of a company brokering this, but it all seemed to die a natural death - I am guessing because Google objected to people "creating PR artificially by buying it", but what's so different about links from Yahoo?
| Quote: | | Basically, LocalRank (The Inter-Connectivity one) favours pages that are linked to from other pages in the same set of results. This will theoretically help information pages and harm commercial listings - commercial sites will tend not to list to a competitor whilst non-commercial pages will often link to references and other relevant sites. |
One problem might be cartels formed by the top ranking sites in each niche. Surely they could easily monopolise the SERPS just by linking to each other.
At least with PR, it isn't this easy.
I think a good solution might be to combine a topic relevancy weighting to the current PR set up. That way, links from relevant sites could carry more weight, but with enough influence from a large number of other incoming to links to prevent any closed shops developing.
At the end of the day, surely a large number of links from "unimportant" sites on the same topic would be better than a few from "important" off topic ones - considering impartiality. The less people to persuade, the more the scope for "corruption".
How about adding in the opinion of the searcher, too...
Maybe one day search results could add extra weight to the opinions of sites that the searcher already trusts. That would certainly be interesting.
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
