antonjones
Regular Member
- Aug 5, 2014
- 304
- 298
Has anybody ever bothered reading the Google Patents? I just have and I'm really surprised at the information Big G is giving away.
1)
When a spammer tries to positively influence a document's rank through rank-modifying spamming, the spammer may be perplexed by the rank assigned by a rank transition function consistent with the principles of the invention, such as the ones described above. For example, the initial response to the spammer's changes may cause the document's rank to be negatively influenced rather than positively influenced. Unexpected results are bound to elicit a response from a spammer, particularly if their client is upset with the results. In response to negative results, the spammer may remove the changes and, thereby render the long-term impact on the document's rank zero. Alternatively or additionally, it may take an unknown (possibly variable) amount of time to see positive (or expected) results in response to the spammer's changes. In response to delayed results, the spammer may perform additional changes in an attempt to positively (or more positively) influence the document's rank. In either event, these further spammer-initiated changes may assist in identifying signs of rank-modifying spamming.
TL;DR
When a SEO is building links to his money site google purposely negatively affects the SEO's ranking to dishearten them and make them remove the links
2)
The time line shown in FIG. 6 may be represented in days in one implementation consistent with the principles of the invention. In other words, it might take approximately 70 days for a change in a document's link-based information to change the rank of the document to its steady state (target) value (e.g., 1.0 in FIG. 6).
TL;DR
When the SEO builds his links it can take up to 70 days for the links to have a positive effect on the SERP ranking.
3)
In another implementation, a rank transition function may be selected for the domain/site with which the document is associated, the server on which the document is hosted, or a set of documents that share a similar trait (e.g., the same author (e.g., a signature in the document), design elements (e.g., layout, images, etc.), etc.). In any of these situations, the documents associated with the domain/site/set or hosted by the same server may be subjected to the same rank transition function. In yet another implementation, a rank transition function may be selected randomly. In a further implementation, if a document is identified as ?suspicious? (described below), a different rank transition function may be selected for that document
TL;DR
I think this says that if the your links to your money site all have the same styling, host, author then the rank transition function will be selected randomly
(look familiar??)
4)
For example, if the damped response transition function is selected, the document's rank may slowly increase over a period of time, such as several days, before settling in on the target rank. If the initially-inverse response transition function is selected, the document's rank may initially be caused to decrease (negative influence) before seeing the 10% increase. In this case, the negative influence may last several days as may the increase to 0.66.
As explained above, the delayed and/or negative response to the rank-modifying spamming may cause the spammer to take other measures to correct it. For example, for a delayed response, the spammer may subject the document to additional rank-modifying spamming (e.g., adding additional keywords, tiny text, invisible text, links, etc.). For a negative response, the spammer may revert the document and/or links to that document (or other changes) to their prior form in an attempt to undo the negative response caused by the rank-modifying spamming.
When signs of rank-modifying spamming exist, but perhaps not enough for a positive identification of rank-modifying spamming, then the ?suspicious? document may be subjected to more extreme rank variations in response to changes in its link-based information. Alternatively, or additionally, noise may be injected into the document's rank determination. This noise might cause random, variable, and/or undesirable changes in the document's rank in an attempt to get the spammer to take corrective action.
TL;DR
I'm guessing this means when building links you should be CONSISTENT and build the same amount of links no matter what rank changes you see
Interesting stuff...
http://www.google.com/patents/US8244722
1)
When a spammer tries to positively influence a document's rank through rank-modifying spamming, the spammer may be perplexed by the rank assigned by a rank transition function consistent with the principles of the invention, such as the ones described above. For example, the initial response to the spammer's changes may cause the document's rank to be negatively influenced rather than positively influenced. Unexpected results are bound to elicit a response from a spammer, particularly if their client is upset with the results. In response to negative results, the spammer may remove the changes and, thereby render the long-term impact on the document's rank zero. Alternatively or additionally, it may take an unknown (possibly variable) amount of time to see positive (or expected) results in response to the spammer's changes. In response to delayed results, the spammer may perform additional changes in an attempt to positively (or more positively) influence the document's rank. In either event, these further spammer-initiated changes may assist in identifying signs of rank-modifying spamming.
TL;DR
When a SEO is building links to his money site google purposely negatively affects the SEO's ranking to dishearten them and make them remove the links
2)
The time line shown in FIG. 6 may be represented in days in one implementation consistent with the principles of the invention. In other words, it might take approximately 70 days for a change in a document's link-based information to change the rank of the document to its steady state (target) value (e.g., 1.0 in FIG. 6).
TL;DR
When the SEO builds his links it can take up to 70 days for the links to have a positive effect on the SERP ranking.
3)
In another implementation, a rank transition function may be selected for the domain/site with which the document is associated, the server on which the document is hosted, or a set of documents that share a similar trait (e.g., the same author (e.g., a signature in the document), design elements (e.g., layout, images, etc.), etc.). In any of these situations, the documents associated with the domain/site/set or hosted by the same server may be subjected to the same rank transition function. In yet another implementation, a rank transition function may be selected randomly. In a further implementation, if a document is identified as ?suspicious? (described below), a different rank transition function may be selected for that document
TL;DR
I think this says that if the your links to your money site all have the same styling, host, author then the rank transition function will be selected randomly
(look familiar??)
4)
For example, if the damped response transition function is selected, the document's rank may slowly increase over a period of time, such as several days, before settling in on the target rank. If the initially-inverse response transition function is selected, the document's rank may initially be caused to decrease (negative influence) before seeing the 10% increase. In this case, the negative influence may last several days as may the increase to 0.66.
As explained above, the delayed and/or negative response to the rank-modifying spamming may cause the spammer to take other measures to correct it. For example, for a delayed response, the spammer may subject the document to additional rank-modifying spamming (e.g., adding additional keywords, tiny text, invisible text, links, etc.). For a negative response, the spammer may revert the document and/or links to that document (or other changes) to their prior form in an attempt to undo the negative response caused by the rank-modifying spamming.
When signs of rank-modifying spamming exist, but perhaps not enough for a positive identification of rank-modifying spamming, then the ?suspicious? document may be subjected to more extreme rank variations in response to changes in its link-based information. Alternatively, or additionally, noise may be injected into the document's rank determination. This noise might cause random, variable, and/or undesirable changes in the document's rank in an attempt to get the spammer to take corrective action.
TL;DR
I'm guessing this means when building links you should be CONSISTENT and build the same amount of links no matter what rank changes you see
Interesting stuff...
http://www.google.com/patents/US8244722
