News Source: http://www.northsouthmedia.co.uk
Published: Nov 09, 2007 - 12:17 pm
Story Found By: nowsourcing 1656 Days ago
Category: SEM
Q: ...if you could get your hands on Google’s algorithm for a day, what would be the top 5 things that you would like to be considered before it determines a pages seeding in the search engines.
A: 1. Some basic logic
if (site = Wikipedia) {
SERP position = –10
}
16 Comments
Comments
Wow, what a great interview with Tim!! Sphunn and Stumbled.
This was a very informative interview. This guy is worth watching.
Thanks for the sphinn, nowsourcing, Tim was a pleasure to interview.
@nsmseo: no problem. It was a good interview.
Great interview. Tim always have some cool ideas when it comes to SEO :)
Well, am I the only one who found that sometimes the words in this interview just don’t add up to meaningful sentences? A couple of times I didn’t even understand what was meant by Tim Nash.
Probably not Sza which sections did you have problems with maybe I can attempt to reword it in plainer english?
"I think the fall out will be greater then the event, Googles use of PageRank as a means of punishment was I think and about time the last death nail for that metric.""To put it another way an overriding command into the algorithm trust does not equal authority without relevancy."With many other sentences, you have to put in quite an effort to understand, not because the topic is hard to grasp, but because of the lack of punctuation (whole paragraphs without any) and spelling errors. I am not usually one to dwell on such things, but in this case it was really confusing.
Interesting interview."weight links not entirely on Authority but Authority plus relevancy."Google’s been attempting to do that since Hilltop.
What happens after the paid link debate will be of greater importance to the future then the argueing over paid links. But what has perhaps changed forever is people and by that I mean webmasters are realising that using PR as a metric for ranking sites is no longer a good idea.---Within the Google ranking system their shouldn’t be a trust rank system that is based entirely on authority but one that combines both authority and relevancy.---I’m sorry if the grammar was an issue for you, though I personally thought the above when placed within the context of the questions made reasonable amount of sense. However knit picking by some one is always nice it means they took the time to read the article in the first place.
@ sza -- I’ll re-edit the interview to make sure of any grammatical errors are therefore undone.As for spelling mistakes - please understand that we use English in its proper form.
@nsmseo - shouldn’t you ask me first ;) by the way I would say no, once published its published I’m sure if people are really that put off, well they will happily comment here or on the blog, if they are commenting they are attracting readers. But you have done enough work and its now peaked in terms of traffic the vast majority seemed to not find an issue with it.
"their shouldn’t be a trust rank system that is based entirely on authority"If you’re referring to TrustRank, Tim, that’s not based on authority.Authority (aka total domain PageRank) is one way Google can filter all the crap from search results. For example, when running backlink analysis, its easier to just filter out sites with home page TBPR 0 than run more complicated algos to check if a backlink belongs to a spam site or a legit site. Yes you can hook alot of false positives that way, but the method is efficient.A bigger problem with that scheme is you can game PageRank. There are alot of spammy TBPR 6 sites out there. That’s what motivated some people to come up with TrustRank, which can be used (if its used at all) to flag high PageRank spam sites.BTW I enjoyed the interview; I don’t really care about a few grammatical untidiness here and there.
I was really reffering to the current system where Google uses Authority over relevancy when determine results a good example is Wikipedia which while the page may be relevant it ranks based only on the overall authority of the site. The term TrustRank which has been banded for a while, was not what I meant but I don’t think that would assist, again it comes down to the whole relevancy thing which is really hard to do, ranking a site is not simple. I think many of us tend to forget that, Google on the whole when not chasing and threatening its user does a damn good job as does the competition. Given the amount of pages they need to classify and the number factors they now need to take into account spam is bound to get in and some sites are always going to end up in the wrong position.
"it ranks based only on the overall authority of the site."SEO/SEMs like to simply everything into one factor. Google doesn’t fit in a box. <a href="http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/2007/03/20/free-seo-course-offering-expert-training-overestimating-domain-authority.html">Domain authority is overrated.</a>After you read that (if you decide to read it :D), run a search for [free seo course] and [seo course] and see where my site stands against v7n.
@ Tim -- it stands the way it was intended.