15 Responses to: Classic case of Authority SEO

1. December 12th, 2007 at 11:57 am

   1

   Oi! That’s a bit unfair! I run the ipod.org.uk domain and I’m jolly well going to defend it!

   The site has been running for over two years and has gradually worked its way up the Google rankings. It has the best and liveliest UK iPod forum, it has the best Tips & Tricks on the net, together with free music downloads and other stuff. Yes, I run other sites off subdomains but that’s only to save hosting costs (my quantum mechanics site will never bring in any revenue) so you’re inaccurate to say my iPod site gets any benefit from the other sites I run.

   So I’m sorry to spoil your conspiracy theories, but the other sites have nothing to do with the ranking of my iPod site (Google won’t be fooled so easily anyway). I doubt the iPod site gets any lift from the other site rankings as Google sorts according to topic, and off-topic sites would not benefit an iPod site. So the site is purely there on merit (and my other sites are rather good as well, may I add!).

   There’s no substitute for quality …

2. December 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

   2

   Glad to have you here Andrew.

   Let me start off with – I have no desire to get into the ‘best’ argument Everyone has their choice, and what one person may find as gold another may find as crap.

   Not to mention I find no reference to ‘forum’ on your home page.

   I never said your other sites will bring in money. But the reality is they are on your existing domain. And they are getting *high quality* links. And to Google’s eyes, that means your domain is more authoritative/valuable. That part is undeniable.

   What pushes it from ’smart’ to ‘hrmm’ is the fact that ALL of your high quality links (as researched from Yahoo) to go your maps and physics website – *none* go to your homepage. And that is enough of a flag for moi.

3. December 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

   3

   Hi Ahmed.

   The reason I got a bit narked is because I’m really anti any search engine optimisation, and it’s something I never do myself. So I wasn’t keen on people thinking I do it. Too many people think SEO is a free ride to a good ranking, but it isn’t. It’s all about content.

   You make an interesting point about incoming links: I have very few quality incoming links to my site. The sole reason it is high in the rankings (and it was high in the rankings before my other sites came online) is through feedback to Google through the toolbar – generally, people bookmarking the site. I suspect this is now the main factor in Google rankings because the incoming link thing has been so abused by SEO & link farms. People spending time on the site and bookmarking it is a far better measure of quality.

   I do no SEO, I solely try to improve the content. Google has untold brilliant PhDs working full-time to spot SEO, so why do people keep thinking they can fool Google? I only ever focus on content. I have other sites as well as the ones you mentioned, and they are all high on Google (www.walesinfo.com – top in searches for “wales tourist information”). It’s purely down to the quality of your content in the long run.

4. December 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

   4

   You can be anti-SEO and still do it yourself. Jason C and his constant whining comes to mind

   As for Google toolbar etc – sorry, I don’t believe that is the main factor. I can show you 20 examples of *top top* keywords with absolutely terrible sites in the top 20. Sites that would never get bookmarked. So that isn’t it.

   As for Google and their brilliant PhDs – I’m sorry, dumbest argument ever. Just because they have smart people working for them doesn’t mean they are infallible. It doesn’t mean they are God. It doesn’t mean they know what is right.

   With the way you talk about Google, if tomorrow they told you how to vote and how to eat, you seem like you would instantly listen.

5. December 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

   5

   Just to add one more thing to defend my site: I have never once done reciprocal link swaps (perhaps one of the reason I have so few incoming links!), even though I get a lot of requests. I think reciprocal link swaps stink even though many SEOs recommend it. It’s fake. You’re adding a link to your site purely to improve ranking. How on earth is adding a few crappy links to your site going to improve content? If anything, it’s going to make your site cluttered and less readable.

   You simply don’t need SEO tricks to get your site up there. Just concentrate on content, no tricks or link swaps or incoming links needed.

6. December 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

   6

   I am making *zero* judgment on your website and its content. I am not saying you have done any SEO nor that you have done reciprocal links or anything shady – grey, black, or even white.

   ALL I am saying is that all these authority links have boosted you in Google’s eyes, and have sent you skyrocketing to the top

7. December 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

   7

   “Just because they have smart people working for them doesn’t mean they are infallible. It doesn’t mean they are God. It doesn’t mean they know what is right.”

   A lot of people moan about Google along the lines of “Oh, my site has dropped down three pages”. People blame Google, and they don’t look at the quality of their own site. It’s a very competitive world out there – if your site drops it’s undoubtedly because better sites have come along. I find Google do a superb, accurate job generally. Bloody good company.

8. December 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

   8

   Well I agree in part there. Bitching and moaning about non-guaranteed spots (organic) is an exercise in wasteful whining. I don’t necessarily agree that it is because better sites have come, but I do agree that it is Google’s prerogative to do WHATEVER they want.

9. December 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

   9

   [...] Little discussion on authority SEO. The owner of the site I mentioned found this [...]

10. December 13th, 2007 at 5:59 am

    10

    >>You simply don’t need SEO tricks to get your site up there. Just concentrate on content, no tricks or link swaps or incoming links needed.

    Utter utter rubbish. Another self appointed SEO expert steps up to the mark.

11. December 14th, 2007 at 8:49 am

    11

    reports. Well, Google has some nifty big brother spyware installed on
    tons and tons of people’s browsers in the form of the “Google
    Toolbar.” In order to use certain functions of the toolbar, users
    have to agree to allow data to be transferred back to Google, which
    includes which sites they’ve visited, and how long they were there.
    Now, this isn’t any cause for alarm if you’re a Google toolbar user,
    as they’re not actually identifying you personally (as far as I know).
    They are simply taking the aggregate data that they receive and then
    using it for whatever purposes they see fit. It actually makes
    perfect sense that they’d use this data to perfect their ranking
    algorithm. Highly trafficked sites are popular sites, and Google
    would want to ensure that their searchers easily find popular sites.”

    Yes, I think the Google toolbar is excellent – it’s the best way of finding quality sites – by looking at user behaviour. Much more accurate than incoming links.

12. December 14th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    12

    My last post got cut in half!

    Andy, I’m not talking rubbish (thanks!). I’m merely repeating what Google said themselves in their 2005 patent:

    “You might be wondering how they get information about your site’s
    traffic since you’re not providing them with your log files or traffic
    reports. Well, Google has some nifty big brother spyware installed on
    tons and tons of people’s browsers in the form of the “Google
    Toolbar.” In order to use certain functions of the toolbar, users
    have to agree to allow data to be transferred back to Google, which
    includes which sites they’ve visited, and how long they were there.
    Now, this isn’t any cause for alarm if you’re a Google toolbar user,
    as they’re not actually identifying you personally (as far as I know).
    They are simply taking the aggregate data that they receive and then
    using it for whatever purposes they see fit. It actually makes
    perfect sense that they’d use this data to perfect their ranking
    algorithm. Highly trafficked sites are popular sites, and Google
    would want to ensure that their searchers easily find popular sites.”

    Yes, I think the Google toolbar is excellent – it’s the best way of finding quality sites – by looking at user behaviour. Much more accurate than incoming links.

13. December 14th, 2007 at 8:58 am

    13

    Oh, by the way, Andy, a well-reasoned argument is a much better contribution than one line of abuse.

14. December 14th, 2007 at 11:31 am

    14

    Andrew – I am SURE Google uses that data. Most definitely. Why do you think Google Analytics is free? To accumulate user behavior.

    Yet – with all this info they have now (they are tracking your search engine clicks too, and a lot more – adsense?) – there is still a ton of spam in the SERPs. Obvious obvious spam – ie blogger pages that redirect and so forth.

    So again – while your site’s quality is not being questioned, I believe the fact that you have a ton of authority sites linking to you (and thus driving your rankings up) is a no-brainer.

    I’ve had sites with 100+ DMOZ listings – I’m not saying its a viable and smart strategy

15. December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    15

    Ok, fair enough. If I’m honest, I must admit that a part of me thought “If I have my domain name over many sites, I might get a lift from other links”. Actually, I don’t think it has proved to be such a big deal. But you can never tell.

    100+ DMOZ listings? That’s impressive. I know the DMOZ links gave me a big lift. I think Google likes human editing – anything that’s been checked-over by a human. Hence DMOZ and Wikipedia external links are important, and I still insist that people’s browsing behaviour (gathered via the Google toolbar) is very important for that same reason: it means a real human being likes the site, as opposed to some automated algorithm.