July 2010 Tag Rankings

[ipopbb]

As requested:

July 2010 Tag Rankings

java -cp . decodeTags -h -d 20100602.txt 20100710.txt
RANK	CHANGE		TEST
1	u + 5		title
2	u + 11		samp
3	u + 7		cite
4	u + 4		pre
5	      		textarea
6	d - 2		table > caption
7	u + 21		bdo
8	u + 1		sub
9	u + 28		abbr
10	d - 3		h3
11	d - 9		dl > dt > dd
12	d - 11		linking to relevant pages
13	new   		code
14	u + 3		table > tr > td
15	u + 24		dl > dt
16	d - 4		s
17	d - 14		body
18	      		del
19	u + 14		strike
20	u + 24		ins
21	d - 1		sup
22	u + 20		big
23	u + 2		kbd
24	u + 16		font
25	d - 1		dfn
26	u + 15		tt
27	d - 4		h1
28	u + 7		i
29	u + 1		u
30	d - 16		(meta-description).value
31	      		html comment
32	d - 5		(input-input).value
--	was 32		strong
--	was 34		(meta-author).value
--	was 43		b
--	was 15		(meta-keywords).value
--	was 22		h5
--	was 21		h4
--	was 38		a.href
--	was 29		img.alt
--	was 16		table > tfoot > tr > td
--	was 11		acronym
--	was 36		small
--	was 19		q
--	was 26		select > option

If you don't know what this is then please read the original post:

Big changes in Google content scoring

 

[Deleted member 107938]

This is great. I imagine after a few months, I'll stop having to google movers and shakers. I was wondering why samp was so high with code not ranking, now I don't have to.

 

[ipopbb]

Pretty serious hit to meta description... I've also been noticing google's use of CITE tags more and more. I'm starting to get the impression it might have special significance like title when used properly. Just a hypothesis... so untested, but Google loves using that tag a lot more now.

 

[Lupusadvice]

Been following your posts since you started posting the tag lists.

The reasoning you gave by adding obscure tags makes sense to me, and I've made changes to my site using your posts and it seems to have helped over the last few weeks.

But 'bdo'? that one is just plain strange. Don't think I can realistically put that one in discreetly. lol

 

[goawayplease]

I've been following along and noticing that since your threads have started to really garner some attention, there has been abit more variability in the results.

It's quite possible that the effects we see are part of some form of statistical frequency analysis in the Google Algorithm... IE "if this tag isn't used across a lot of cites, pay attention because it's there for a reason" or "This tag only tends to be used on highly authoritative, trustworthy content."

If that's so, it's also possible that when everyone rushes out and applies your data, Google's algorithm shifts and dances around to compensate. Any thoughts?

 

[insanedragonz]

Very nice. I have been google for this LoL
+thanks!

 

[TheTRUTH]

I've been following along and noticing that since your threads have started to really garner some attention, there has been abit more variability in the results.

It's quite possible that the effects we see are part of some form of statistical frequency analysis in the Google Algorithm... IE "if this tag isn't used across a lot of cites, pay attention because it's there for a reason" or "This tag only tends to be used on highly authoritative, trustworthy content."

If that's so, it's also possible that when everyone rushes out and applies your data, Google's algorithm shifts and dances around to compensate. Any thoughts?

A few hundred sites(thats being generous, because most people even if they do read this, wont test it) wont be enough to make google change its algorithim