Re: Lucky Mojo (Formerly "What happened to...")

David wrote:
>
> catherine yronwode <cat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >David wrote:
> >>
> >> catherine yronwode <cat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>

> > The only idea i have contrary to yours is that you -- and others
> > as well -- refer to this as google's preference for AGE. I think
> > that is a simplistic view.
>
> It wasn't meant to be read that way. Is it the "Google Moves the
> Goal Posts, Again" section?

I think so.

> Does read a little like I think it's an age factor per se, think I
> need to reword it as it was meant to just discuss the concept not
> be read that I think it's the age of a domain (the tests later on
> suggest it isn't the age of the domain but the links).

Right -- and even if both (domain name AND links) are factored in,
it's the stability (trust) factor google is looking for, not mere
age. Using age as a way to measure trust / stability is cool, but in
time google techs may come up with other algos for that same
paradigm, and then you couldn't say that age was the only factor --
because the paradigm is not age, it is trust / stability.

> >You also referred to a TRUST FACTOR -- and i
> >like that term better. Later in the article you referred to STABLE
> >SITES and LINK STABILITY -- and these are the terms i use myself.
>
> I think those help in the general understanding as well.

I recall hearing that google was changing the name Page Rank to
Trust Rank. That accords with what we are saying here as well.

> >Look at it from google's designer's point of view -- there is no
> >way to rank for the TRUST FACTOR, for STABLE SITES, or for LINK
> >STABILITY unless and until you watch the site in action for a
> >year. This is not "ageist" or 'pro-age" -- it is simply google's
> >practical response to the problem of how to deal with "instant"
> >affiliate sites and other untrustworthy and unstable commercial
> >sites.
>
> Yes, but the fact is almost any site can be given stable links for
> a year, so almost any site can reach a point where it can get a lot
> of traffic.

In practice, yes, but the scamsters rarely want to wait a year.
Although, as the web ages, they may have to live with that, starting
a new scam site each day until each one de-sandboxes or gains trust
at year one and then running a rip-off and ditching each site in
turn -- but, heck, that is a lot of work, and google can always move
the goal posts again, to a TWO year sandbox. Google can also tinker
with the trust-ranking algo in non-age-related ways. It's a game of
cops and robbers. and google has tons of smart people working on the
problem.

> However, for most ""instant" affiliate sites and other
> untrustworthy and unstable commercial sites" as you put it they
> don't gain long term high quality links and so won't rank well.
>
> Even when they pay for text links they won't see a ROI for at least
> 6 months and that's too long for most of these types of sites. Then
> there are reciprocal links that tend to come from low quality link
> pages making the links practically worthless.
>
> If this was what Google wanted they seem to have succeeded, it's
> difficult to get a new domain to rank well and it takes time and
> links. Long term though a quality site will rank well since it will
> gain stable links etc...
>
> Looking at it from another perspective of what does a webmaster
> have to do to rank well. Seems the main factor is gaining and
> maintaining long term links that add up to a reasonable PR. This
> will then say to Google this site is trustworthy since a bunch of
> other webmasters have added these high quality links for a long
> period of time.
>
> Makes sense and it's what I've been seeing.

And, truthfully, all google-gaming aside, it's what i personally
would want to see in a site that i bought from. I have been burned a
few times by online merchants (took the money but shipped no
products) and i never could recover what i sent -- so now i only buy
from sites that have telephone numbers, street addressees, and zip
(postal) codes.

It would be EASY for google to suddenly start sorting on the basis
of whether a telephone number, street addressees, and zip (postal)
code appears. They couldn't check the numbers for accuracy (too many
sites), but it would be very difficult for SEO testers to even GUESS
that this was part of a new google also.

If i were google, i'd give telephone numbers, street addressees, and
zip (postal) codes TRUST VALUE.

Or, here's another one -- sites that accept major credit cards or
Paypal generally display little images of the logos of the payment
services they accept. Scam sites may not have the ability to take in
credit cards -- so google would sort for that -- while Paypal is
easy to scam, so google could downgrade the trust factor of those
sites that ONLY accept Paypal but not credit cards through Paypal.

Other key terms that indicate a REAL business (as opposed to a scam
site) might be as follows:
M-F or Mon-Fri or Monday-Friday
M-S or Mon-Sat or Monday-Saturday
Business Hours
Location or Located
Store
Retail
Wholesale

And if i can think of testing these trust ranking factors for
suitability of inclusion in a new algo, someone at google can think
of it too.

> Obviously you also need some content to rank, without the content
> it's like having a great cart (the links) without a strong horse
> (content) to pull it. Maybe not the best analogy I've used, but I
> think it makes the point.

Well said. I like that analogy.

> >Google has positioned itself not merely as a server of
> >information, but also as a server of COMMERCIAL POINTERS TO RETAIL
> >SITES -- and, as such, it would be opening itself to legitimate
> >criticism if it ranked new and untested commercial sites as highly
> >as stable ones.
>
> Good point.

Thanks. There have been a number of articles in B2B web and
catalogue mags that indicate people are becoming leery of buying
online due to having been ripped off. What once seemed like a
wonderful novelty has been shown to be prone to flaws and misuse.
Google needs to position itself as the arbiter of TRUST. Ebay has
successfully exploited this issue with its feedback system (which
is, admittedly, liable to corruption and targeted attack, but is
still favoured by BUYERS, even if SELLERS grouse about it). Now
google needs to come up with a selling point based on its ability to
deliver not only quality CONTENT, but a quality SHOPPING EXPERIENCE.

> >> >Note that i am not a Dave groupie or anything -- it's just that
> >> > his (and Guy Macon's) theories describe my experiences more
> >> >accuratelythan others' theories do.
> >>
> >> Awww, I've always wanted a groupie :-)
> >
> >Would you settle for a chela?
>
> I had to look up what a chela is :-))
>
> http://www.answers.com/chela&r=67
>
> If you meant "A pincerlike claw of a crustacean or arachnid, such
> as a lobster, crab, or scorpion." I think I'll pass thanks :-))
>
> Or are you "a Hindu disciple of a swami"?
>
> I can live with the latter :-)

Good choice, Swami Dave!

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Free Magic Spells
http://www.luckymojo.com/spells
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Google "Secure Access" FAQ + Download link
    ... in that they will not do business with anyone they even suspect is ... I tend to trust everyone and treat them ... Google qualifies. ... Most ISP's generate statistics on their overall customers traffic ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... Would he be willing to trust ... >> you have been very careful to hide your true identities. ... pretty free with leaks that would allow google searching. ... My Ph.D. dissertation was on myxos, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Getting a web site listed well for search engines ?
    ... There is one dominant factor in Google credibility and rank you can't ... ranked highly from genuine content and age). ... You have a Google PageRank of 4. ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: Getting a web site listed well for search engines ?
    ... There is one dominant factor in Google credibility and rank you can't ... ranked highly from genuine content and age). ... You have a Google PageRank of 4. ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: The Babbling of the Loon
    ... to take on vandals ourselves; if we were, ... Free speech does not mean freedom from disturbing materials. ... MI5-loon will sue google for violating his civil rights if google ... Effectiveness is a product of trust ...
    (sci.med.vision)