Big G's Algo In Plain Sight?

Wow, I feel really stupid. I am pissed at myself, because I have wasted the last 2 years of my life trying to learn the art of SEO. Thinking it was this convoluted complex mathmatical formula that was shrouded in secrecy and no one knew the specifics of how it actually worked.

When in reality, it is out there in plain sight, for the entire world to read. Am I the only one who didn't know about this?

If I would have had this 2 years ago, it would not have taken 8 months of IM just to get my first site ranked #1.

I just cannot get over how hilarious it is that there are all these SEO questions out there, and the answers are all in plain written text, in a nice neat little 50 page PDF you can download. IF you know where to look.



EDIT: Due to heckling from the peanut gallery, I have decided to just give out the link, as it is readily available on the net anyways:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6n8ka8xduq6a55c

march 18 2008, yeh google didnt update the algo at all since then, why make such a dumb thread, either give the pdf, or dont make the thread,

what is this teasing shit? you want a cookie for finding some 3 years old document that is probably BS anyways?

lol @ U bro

edit: just looked more at the document, it looks like a BH kid made that pdf, probably to sell it to newbs, just included Matt cutts name, and included a couple of google headings lol, zzzzz

i was under the thought that this is what it looked like

Cnotey, You started the thead , go ahead and post the pdf to download, I assure you that nothing is going to change .
BTW, all the smart people out there already know this, including all the most respected members here.

...hehehe...but SEO is now more "practical" than paper-written theory nowadays....

btw, they did change their algo, about... 4 or so months ago

CyrusVirus said:

btw, they did change their algo, about... 4 or so months ago

Click to expand...

oh i know, was being sarcastic

aldragon said:

Cnotey, You started the thead , go ahead and post the pdf to download, I assure you that nothing is going to change .
BTW, all the smart people out there already know this, including all the most respected members here.

Click to expand...

You're right aldragon. Everything in the data is supported by common knowledge. If you read the forum enough. This document just takes the mystery out of it. I had to "guess" who was telling the truth, and who was full of shit. I guess there is no harm in sharing with the world.

Just because I am such a nice guy, here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6n8ka8xduq6a55c

2008? good luck with those docs. if you do not have something from the last 2 weeks you are pretty much in the dark.

Well done!
Cyrus you are right, the algo had some minor changes and these are related to link popularity and link quality.
Here it goes :

In the long term even though people say the atribute no F0llow its not important for the ranks, it is extremely important not to get ranks fast but in the mid long term.
Why is this? becuase if a website lets you drink the PR juice it's considered as a strong link; a good example of this is forexrate.co.uk check the links and the serps,it will give a really nice Idea of how this whole thing works.
Regards,

Al

lexblast said:

2008? good luck with those docs. if you do not have something from the last 2 weeks you are pretty much in the dark.

Click to expand...

How do you know I don't have something from the last 2 weeks that I'm not sharing?

I just provided the old algo to prove I had the data.

Cnotey said:

How do you know I don't have something from the last 2 weeks that I'm not sharing?

I just provided the old algo to prove I had the data.

Click to expand...

Well, if you do, you can see how most of the data in the doc you are sharing (which was proof of concept seeking protection, and not necessarily clear cut methods) has been deprecated due to vast changes in the methods that many people (including some of those in this forum) have been using to rank inside that system.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you sharing the data, but its important to keep it in the context of what it is as well as what it isn't...

if you have something from last 2 weeks ,then just share it

lexblast said:

Well, if you do, you can see how most of the data in the doc you are sharing (which was proof of concept seeking protection, and not necessarily clear cut methods) has been deprecated due to vast changes in the methods that many people (including some of those in this forum) have been using to rank inside that system.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you sharing the data, but its important to keep it in the context of what it is as well as what it isn't...

Click to expand...

Well said, you have to know what you are reading to make sense of it. But SEO makes a lot more sense if you read the document.

I read it.

Quite interesting.

Google plots a "link graph" using the anchor text of backlinks over time.

It says that a spammer will show a spiky graph with overly coherent or overly diverse anchor text.

A natural website will show anchor text that varies but which is related tot he topic and a more stable graph.

I already knew this but it explained it more clear and confirmed the fact.

The bit which I found really interesting is that when the Google algo detects a website that is being spammed for backlinks it will SCALE DOWN the scoring of the website accordingly. What this means is that you will need more links to move the site in comparison to a non-spam site.

I've had numerous arguments online in the past where I tell people that you can reach position 1 in Google with 100 backlinks. People did not believe me and showed examples fo sites with up to 10k backlinks that are ranking poorly. Now we know why. Theyr site was flagged as a spam and the weight of their backlinks scaled down.

Also, the "trust" of the sites link from is a factor for scoring and even the quality of sites you link to in your advertisements on your website.

So maybe running poor CPA offers for dating sites may impact our sites score(ranking).

Do you have an earlier document?

...and even the quality of sites you link to in your advertisements on your website.

Click to expand...

This is something that's long bothered me. Basically, it raises the question in my mind "does Google possibly penalize sites with advertising that's in competition with AdSense or the GAN?"

It seems for ages there have been debates over whether using AdSense might help your site get indexed or rank better, but never really any solid proof of the concept; just a few isolated hints here or there that suggest it could be a possibility.

But, could it actually be that instead of being indexed or ranked better, sites with AdSense or GAN links are simply reaping the benefits of penalties being placed on other's sites with competitor's affiliate advertising on them?

Every time I see an eZA article page about an affiliate product outrank the product's actual site for the product title keyword this idea floats through my head, because there's really no honest reason that should ever happen. But if you factor in that eZA pages are running AdSense and the product site is monetized external from Google, then it seems fair to question the validity of the rankings.

Just some food for thought I suppose...