Google's Algorithms

fadlirizal

fadlirizal

Registered Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
68
Reaction score
64
Google's Algorithm 2010 Revealed

Google's Score = (Kw Usage Score * 0.3) + (Domain * 0.25) + (PR Score * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) + (User Data * 0.1) + (Content Quality Score * 0.1) + (Manual Boosts) - (Automated & Manual Penalties)

Search Engine Optimisation Key Word Usage Factors

* Keyword in title tags
* Rich Header tags
* Documents rich with relevant text information
* Keyword in alt tag
* Key words in internal links pointing to the page
* Key words in the domain and/or URL
* The order key words appear

Domain Strength / Speed

* Domain Strength
* Domain Speed
* Local/specific domain name
* Quality Hosting

Registration history

* When the Domain was registered
* Strength of the links pointing to the domain
* The topical neighborhood of domain based on the in bound and out bound links
* Historical use and links pattern to domain
* Inbound links and referrals from social media
* Inbound Link Score

Age & Quality of links

* Quality of the domains sending links (non paid)
* Links from Authority Websites
* Quality of pages sending links and relevance
* Anchor text of links
* Link quantity/weight metric (Page Rank or a variation)
* Subject matter of linking pages/sites
* User Data

Historical CTR to page in SERPs

* Time users spend on a page
* Search requests for URL/domain
* Historical visits/use of URL/domain by users

Content Quality Score

* Duplicate content filter
* Order of key words in content
* Content update frequency
* Highlighted and visibility of keywords
* Usability and W3C rules
 
Advertise on BHW
may I ask where you found this? Seem interesting and might help bust some myths for example

Duplicate content and google banning you for it.
"(Content Quality Score * 0.1)" <<< Only 0.1 ranking from Content compared to Keyword and Links its nothing.
 
Last edited:
its from google guys...
 
Come on man, you can't just post something like that and not give information on the source. Did you have a vision and Page/Schmidt/Brin appeared to you and told you their secrets? Is this what you hope the algo is? Something else?????
 
HTML: 
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/id//webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf
in here guys
 
no.. its real..
HTML: 
http://www.whitehatworks.com/google_latest_algorithms.asp
 
may be usefull but still vague, each topic you mentioned has 1 - 10 things to go bad

nothing but general guidelines to follow, i can discuss for 1 year about each specific topic
 
That article just says that ... Many SEO Gurus have attempted to give a rough outline of what the Google algorithm might look like. Based on research and suggestions this might be how the formula basically could look .....

How does that constitute revealing the algorithm?
 
Thanks, fad.

Do you have also some information about the following term in your equation :)

- (Automated & Manual Penalties)
 
I can't see how some points have any impact. For example like Quality Hosting or Domain Speed? What's domain speed anyway? :)
 
Is there a tool where you can enter a URL in and it runs a check against this criteria?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
fadlirizal said:
Google's Algorithm 2010 Revealed

Google's Score = (Kw Usage Score * 0.3) + (Domain * 0.25) + (PR Score * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) + (User Data * 0.1) + (Content Quality Score * 0.1) + (Manual Boosts) - (Automated & Manual Penalties)


Click to expand...


Hmmm....So if I go by this info then the on-page factors are really much more important than the links and anchor text. That flies in the face of every test I have ever personally done, and pretty much every one that that others have done that I have seen. While content and setting up your pages and site properly does help we have see time and time again that links make the biggest impact on rankings.

Not to mention the manual part. You seriously think Google applies manual boosts to websites? The same goes to penalties, what you have to do to get a manual review of your site is pretty out there and I doubt very many of us are even anywhere near that neighborhood.
 
fadlirizal said:
Google's Score = (Kw Usage Score * 0.3) + (Domain * 0.25) + (PR Score * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) + (User Data * 0.1) + (Content Quality Score * 0.1) + (Manual Boosts) - (Automated & Manual Penalties)
Click to expand...


It is a good example of how to use articles for viral link building.

As far as being useful math it is totally bogus. The source of the coefficients isn't cited or explained so they are probably the original author's opinion. The definitions of the variables aren't present.

Debunking This equation:

Strike 1:

Fake algorithm's usually fail to account for "keyword match type" aka exact match, phrase match, partial match, etc... you see these in the serps when google make kewords in singular and plural forms bold.

Strike 2:

(Domain * 0.25) come on... what about the rest of the URL. Keywords in the CNAME of the host? Keywords in the path? Keywords in the document name? Keywords in the parameters? Keywords in the anchor? We see these parts ranking in searchings without having keywords in the domain.

Strike 3:

(PR Score * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) Holy double counting batman. At least they are weighted the same.

Ok... and a bonus strike:

Strike 4:

+ (Manual Boosts) - (Automated & Manual Penalties)

Lets write this like an academic would

+ M - A - M

lets face it... "Manual Boosts" could be a positive or negative number... The equation doesn't need a variable for positive only manual adjustments AND another one for negative ONLY manual adjustments. There is no way the coke bottle nerds at Google would do it that way and feel proud. In addition a mathematician would cancel like terms in the algorithm prototype so it would never have left the marker board.


If a post is too good to be true it is.
 
Last edited:
At least I see one thing right in the list of relevancy: *Usability and W3C rules is the last "FACTOR."
Considering the number of Outdated websites (code and style) in top positions I think this S**T is absolutely right! :pirate14:
 
Lol, calm down :D

Nobody here takes that post for serious.

ipopbb said:
It is a good example of how to use articles for viral link building.

As far as being useful math it is totally bogus. The source of the coefficients isn't cited or explained so they are probably the original author's opinion. The definitions of the variables aren't present.

Debunking This equation:

Strike 1:

Fake algorithm's usually fail to account for "keyword match type" aka exact match, phrase match, partial match, etc... you see these in the serps when google make kewords in singular and plural forms bold.

Strike 2:

(Domain * 0.25) come on... what about the rest of the URL. Keywords in the CNAME of the host? Keywords in the path? Keywords in the document name? Keywords in the parameters? Keywords in the anchor? We see these parts ranking in searchings without having keywords in the domain.

Strike 3:

(PR Score * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) Holy double counting batman. At least they are weighted the same.

Ok... and a bonus strike:

Strike 4:

+ (Manual Boosts) - (Automated & Manual Penalties)

Lets write this like an academic would

+ M - A - M

lets face it... "Manual Boosts" could be a positive or negative number... The equation doesn't need a variable for positive only manual adjustments AND another one for negative ONLY manual adjustments. There is no way the coke bottle nerds at Google would do it that way and feel proud. In addition a mathematician would cancel like terms in the algorithm prototype so it would never have left the marker board.


If a post is too good to be true it is.
Click to expand...
 
cooooookies said:
Lol, calm down :D

Nobody here takes that post for serious.
Click to expand...

That's what I hope, but there are a lot more beginner's in the forum these days... can never be too sure.

I'm not worked up or offended or anything like that. I actually found the post, its sources, and the debunking entertaining. I just wanted to point out that it is a great example of viral marketing (which it is, and even I can stand to learn from it myself) AND demonstrate to novices how to sniff test SEO posts, which can be tricky sometimes even for the pros.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top