Quantcast
Channel: unstuck digital» SEO Tactics
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Linkscape Helps To Demystify Google’s Algorithm

0
0

There was a lot of buzz a few weeks back when Rand Fishkin “outed” an SEO company, citing what he called their “spurious” tactics in building links with a heavy emphasis on anchor text – tactics that had clearly worked well for them. He called this an embarrassment for Google and other search engines. A lot of the discussion that followed was focused on whether Rand had violated some ethical code or blogged out of bitterness. I think anybody that got caught up in that missed something important.

Whatever Rand’s intentions were in focusing his post on NationalPositions.com, the example he used illustrates a pretty massive weakness in Google’s algorithm – and, having read Rand’s blog posts quite regularly for several years now, I can attest that he doesn’t throw the word “embarrassment” around lightly.

I haven’t been active in the SEO field terribly long (although few have), just over three years now.  The first days of research are still fresh in my mind.

I started the way probably most newcomers are starting now – reading blogs written by people who seemed to know more than I did.

Among the things I read about links was that the following link building tactics had perhaps once held the power to influence rankings but had since been devalued by Google’s algorithm:

  • Free-for-all directory links
  • Reciprocal links
  • Three-way link schemes
  • Site-wide footer links
  • Paid links that are “above the radar” and detectable
  • Heavy-handed anchor text optimization for a given keyword

The tough thing about reading blogs and other sources of SEO theory is that much of what you learn is based on hearsay and anecdotal references.  Someone told someone else that they ran a test and it confirmed that this factor or another either holds weight or doesn’t.  If it’s espoused and reported by the right players, it becomes common-knowledge.

Rand himself sought to achieve consensus on some of these issues by surveying 37 of the industry’s top players on a number of factors and compiling the results in a well-polished report – Search Ranking Factors.

My problem with this approach?  Consensus doesn’t constitute fact.  It’s a nice report, but I found myself with many more questions than answers having read through the responses in detail.

Much of the consensus on link building theory has been that the above bullet points are true – that Google has learned how to algorithmically devalue the “easy” links, that they’re getting better at this all the time and there fewer paths every day to easy rankings through links.

So how is it that a company like National Positions was able to rank so well for such a competitive keyword as “SEO company” using tactics that, as the general consensus would have it, lack all value?

Because these tactics still work.  Google has not effectively rendered them useless.  National Positions, in fact, has built a business (and we can assume at least a moderately profitable one) on these very tactics.

Linkscape isn’t perfect, but it’s taken us almost instantaneously from theory to fact on the central role links play in ranking web pages. It’s also clarified Google’s ability, or the lack thereof, to algorithmically negate links that add no value for users and exist for no reason but to pass PageRank.

This will likely change in the future – it’s in Google’s best interest to correct the flaws in their algorithm, especially when tools like Linkscape expose them so clearly.  We’ll likely see a turn to less “gameable” factors in 2009, but links, undoubtedly, will still be central.

And now we’re seeing a little more clearly through the smoke and mirrors.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images