Why Most SEO Case Studies are BS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 969102
  • Start date Start date
You are still confused about the correlation not equals causation thing.

You said:

* correlation != causation
* but causation -> correlation
therefore maybe correlation == causation after all.

Which is, like, no.

Simple thing. Correlation does not alone logically conclude causation. Never. Not even once. Period.

Not confused at all... Most causal things correlate. Not all correlations are causal. No confusion at all. Your "therefore" assertion is total BS and I never said any such thing.
 
I agree totally, that name just bugs me as well.

-ThopHayt

Aren't they all named after Google workers.

Next one is going to be Chardonnay-Buttercup III
 
Whenever I hear Fred, I think of the movie Drop Dead Fred... I hate it.

fred.png


-ThopHayt
 
Every man and his dog trying to reverse engineer the algo. What they do, is throw shit at the wall and if it sticks, somehow, they post it as a case study.

You are right in the fact at there a lot of bullshitters out there with case studies, BUT, there is no way to reverse engineer or even attempt to study an unknown algo, simply because there is way to may variables that will certainly be unaccounted for.

It's a moving target and attempting to snapshot it with some science formula will always yield inaccurate results for a; not all variables taken into account and b. it has already changed by the time the study results are available.

You make a good point though.
 
The only truths we know about Google is that having good content, natural traffic, solid on-site, and lots and lots of pages guarantees you attention from Google. The main trick is getting a website that first jolt of natural visitors to get the ball rolling... hence SEO. Google is an odd duck these days. It's almost like you need to already be successful in order for Google to consider you. Hence why big boys are ALL OVER the top 5 spots.

-ThopHayt
 
Back
Top