How Does G Determine Relevancy

InsanelySane

InsanelySane

Power Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
574
Reaction score
116
My concern is regarding PBNs. Its always better to get a domain more relevant to whatever your niche is your linking out too.

How does google actually determine relevancy when linking two sites together? Im not talking about anything on the site, like the post titles or content. I'm talking about determining how each site is relevant to each other. It seems to be clearly implied the more relevant the sites are the more ranking boosts you will get.

Why?

Does google look at each sites anchors and go, okay they're all on a similar topic; +3 ranking points.

What exactly in the algorithim determines relevancy and what exactly gives it any more of a "boost" then two sites on completely different topics linking to each other?

Unless theirs a specific answer to this, I'm starting to think its all hearsay. And G is more robotic than we may think, as it comes down to pure metrics more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Advertise on BHW
InsanelySane said:
What exactly in the algorithim determines relevancy and what exactly gives it any more of a "boost" then two sites on completely different topics linking to each other?
Click to expand...

That's a good question to know the answer to, but I'd be surprised if a credible one is given here.
 
nobody here can give you the answer because we dont work for google and we dont know what the hell they are thinking.
but my guess is that each website is put into a category. so lets say http://www.example.com is a law website. Google knows that because http://www.example.com has a bunch of legal terms on it, and it has backlinks from lawyers.com and statebar.gov or whatever.
It also checks your competitors and compares them against you. if all your competitors have backlinks from lawyers.com and you have a backlink from petco.com then your backlink gets less value.
But I agree with you that it's all hearsay. I think it would be a waste of time to try to get relevant links only.
 
InsanelySane said:
What exactly in the algorithim determines relevancy and what exactly gives it any more of a "boost" then two sites on completely different topics linking to each other?
Click to expand...

Hang on, let me give Larry Page a call and ask him!

FFS, some people...
 
I'm ranking pretty well for some terms to do with this at the moment (I think I'm 3 or 4 globally for "Establishing Keyword Relevancy") not a tough one, but nice for a few dozen visitors a day.

Anywho - empty bragging aside, the post in question is quite recent and answers the question the best I can. It's how I do it, and to the extent that I make a decent living from what I do - it works. Not saying it's gospel. No-one really knows the full treatment Google give a keyword on a site, but this is my stab at it.

http://www.demondemon.com/2014/03/13/establishing-keyword-relevancy-in-2014/

Scritty
 
Ignore me i'm stonned!
 
Last edited:
DamageX said:
Hang on, let me give Larry Page a call and ask him!

FFS, some people...
Click to expand...

you need to relax there garfield, and realize I dont mean ExAcTlY; even though I said it.

Relevancy seems to be what everyone is harping about and besides the common sense of it and the fact its less of a footprint or more future proof I am just wondering if there is actually any real reasons why. Like if G takes anchors into consideration or something like that.

Im sure, in fact I'm positive there are SEOs who have tested both sides enough to make an accurate assumption

@scritty ty Im gonna look into your site more
 
Last edited:
The general approach is always the same. Google may have its own tweaks, but I doubt they have algorithms that are not known to the academic community. With 99.99% probability they do it like this both for text and images:

1. Extract huge number of features (signals) from from the page
2. Transform the features to their canonical form.
3. Store that canonical form in the database
4. Measure distance from that canonical form to other canonical forms in database
5. Those with smallest distances are related
 
InsanelySane said:
you need to relax there garfield, and realize I dont mean ExAcTlY; even though I said it.

Relevancy seems to be what everyone is harping about and besides the common sense of it and the fact its less of a footprint or more future proof I am just wondering if there is actually any real reasons why. Like if G takes anchors into consideration or something like that.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you haven't answered your own question by now? ;)
 
Determining relevance is the basic core of its search engine, if they can rank which website is relevant for each search query, can't they make out which website is relevant (authority) about a certain topic.
 
Scritty said:
I'm ranking pretty well for some terms to do with this at the moment (I think I'm 3 or 4 globally for "Establishing Keyword Relevancy") not a tough one, but nice for a few dozen visitors a day.

Anywho - empty bragging aside, the post in question is quite recent and answers the question the best I can. It's how I do it, and to the extent that I make a decent living from what I do - it works. Not saying it's gospel. No-one really knows the full treatment Google give a keyword on a site, but this is my stab at it.

http://www.demondemon.com/2014/03/13/establishing-keyword-relevancy-in-2014/

Scritty
Click to expand...

I just bookmarked your blog. interesting read!
 
lancis said:
The general approach is always the same. Google may have its own tweaks, but I doubt they have algorithms that are not known to the academic community. With 99.99% probability they do it like this both for text and images:

1. Extract huge number of features (signals) from from the page
2. Transform the features to their canonical form.
3. Store that canonical form in the database
4. Measure distance from that canonical form to other canonical forms in database
5. Those with smallest distances are related
Click to expand...

Interesting. Edges and vertices from graph theory. Possibly workable. Every rule has its exceptions. I will examine this a little more closely.
 
Google does take anchors into account. You can push your site money keywords by sculpting the anchors on your second tier. Tested.
 
Matt Cutts is seen sitting there in the front office and tossing up a coin a million times a day (night including). Heads: link relevant, tails: not relevant. His assistants take relevant notes, but most of the times they are half-asleep. Everything is fed inside a 55-ton computer, inside which matt also sits to do his daily natural work, sometimes like 99% times, his assistants also take their natural calls inside that huge computer and all that is also mixed with the what-once-was some important data. MC does tap dancing on the whole muck-colored ingredients during the mixing process in a step by step manner, and the process is called the famous Galgorythm. Only MC handles that expertly while his assistants don't dare to go anywhere near it. Hence MC is irreplaceable and the Galgorythm untouchable and unfathomable...

2404645.jpg


Attribution: Whoever's image is that, thanks to that person for the most appropriate expression! :D
 
Last edited:
srb888 said:
Matt Cutts is seen sitting there in the front office and tossing up a coin a million times a day (night including). Heads: link relevant, tails: not relevant. His assistants take relevant notes, but most of the times they are half-asleep. Everything is fed inside a 55-ton computer, inside which matt also sits to do his daily natural work, sometimes like 99% times, his assistants also take their natural calls inside that huge computer and all that is also mixed with the what-once-was some important data. MC does tap dancing on the whole muck-colored ingredients during the mixing process in a step by step manner, and the process is called the famous Galgorythm. Only MC handles that expertly while his assistants don't dare to go anywhere near it. Hence MC is irreplaceable and the Galgorythm untouchable and unfathomable...

2404645.jpg


Attribution: Whoever's image is that, thanks to that person for the most appropriate expression!
biggrin.png
Click to expand...

haha..wut?

pug.gif
 
Last edited:
I doubt anyone other than Google themselves could give a concise answer, but if you look at how a site is structured, its content, its backlink anchors and a range of other secondary stuff, you would know where to categorize it, so why couldn't Google?
 
The biggest misconception of link building is that relevancy is needed to rank.

Take a look at the top search results and specifically sites that are ranking well with blatant link building. You'll notice that the links are coming from every sort, SAPE links, paid links, link networks and everything in between. Guess what you'll notice. Sites are ranking and banking hard without any type of "relevant" link.

Google doesn't give a crud about relevancy and they sure as heck doesn't analyze links that in-depth. Consider for a moment what that would mean in terms of analyzing links for relevancy and how much more their servers would be hit to analyze links on that caliber.
 
wizdorf said:
The biggest misconception of link building is that relevancy is needed to rank.

Take a look at the top search results and specifically sites that are ranking well with blatant link building. You'll notice that the links are coming from every sort, SAPE links, paid links, link networks and everything in between. Guess what you'll notice. Sites are ranking and banking hard without any type of "relevant" link.

Google doesn't give a crud about relevancy and they sure as heck doesn't analyze links that in-depth. Consider for a moment what that would mean in terms of analyzing links for relevancy and how much more their servers would be hit to analyze links on that caliber.
Click to expand...

I'm on the fence.

You're exactly right. Of all the testing that SEO's have done, no one has actually came out with the data that relevancy is a key factor in ranking. From http://moz.com/blog/6-changes-google-hasnt-made-to-seo-whiteboard-friday:

number one, a lot of people in the SEO field, and even outside the field, think that it must be the case that if links really matter for SEO, then on-topic links matter more than off-topic links. So, for example, if I'm linking to two websites here about gardening resources, A and B, both about gardening resources, and one of those comes from a botany site and the other one comes from a site about mobile gaming, well, all other things being true, it must be that the one about botany is going to provide a stronger link. That's just got to be the case.


And yet, we cannot seem to prove this. There doesn't seem to be data behind it or to support it. Anyone who's analyzed this problem in-depth, which a number of SEOs have over the years -- a lot of people, who are very advanced, have gone through the process of classifying links and all this kind of stuff -- seem to come to the same conclusion, which is Google seems to really think about links in a more subject/context agnostic perspective.
Click to expand...

Yet for some reason, I still find myself putting an emphasis on relevancy. If its true that Google doesn't care about, or hasn't figured out how to properly gauge relevancy today, then who's to say that they won't figure it out tomorrow. I'm just planning for the future.

What I look for when it comes to relevance:


  • On page content, of course
  • Incoming links to my backlink sources. Are they on topic?
 
Last edited:
If anyone how Google determine relevancy exactly he will surely have $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
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 Networking Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting Hosting Images, Logos & Videos Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Misc

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping

BlackHatWorld

BHW Merch Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge Dispute Resolution

Other

Domain Name Forum IM Journeys Web Hosting Newsletter
Back
Top