Ranking Factors In Google October 2012

Scritty, Expertpeon and Mad Octopus in 1 thread...AWESOME! Thanks for the breakdown and by all means keep talking!

Wow great read buddy. Thanks

Scritty, thank you for great post: thanx and +rep given!

One question: Would you be so kind and clarified to me what means backlinks with stop word, please?

dan777 said:

Scritty, thank you for great post: thanx and +rep given!

One question: Would you be so kind and clarified to me what means backlinks with stop word, please?

Click to expand...

Stop words are common words such as "a", "the", "and", etc. They're called "stop" words because it was or still is believed that search engines stop crawling your headings or titles when they encounter them. This only applies to titles and headings, not to the content of your pages where you should be writing naturally. (You must have stop words when writing naturally or it would sound really dumb.)

The OP is saying that you should include these common words in the anchor text of both your internal and external backlinks. This indicates to google that "everything's fine here...just naturally getting links big guy..."

This is why I come here, great post.

Getwhatchuwant said:

Scritty, Expertpeon and Mad Octopus in 1 thread...AWESOME! Thanks for the breakdown and by all means keep talking!

Click to expand...

Thanks,

I've been thinking about what is missing. For me the 3 biggies are domain age, pr and "size" . Does anyone else have any other K.P.I that they think might be important for January's update?

alright, i got dissy while scrolling down to see how long it is. gunna get a coffee and dive right in to this Behemoth!

EPIC post man! Seriously, thanks for this in-depth analysis.

madoctopus said:

That would be impossible. Hence, Google either does not detect duplicates like this or it uses a different approach (i suspect the latter) which is possible because of the nature of their reverse index storage system.

From my experience the problem of detecting computer generated content is unfeasible though. Yes, you can find shitty auto-generated content but you can't find properly generated content. The computational resources required to generate content that is grammatically correct and is made of real-world n-grams (n-gram based Markov chains) are not very high. Not to mention that depending on the requirements you have, even simple sentence mixing/randomization gets indexed and ranks even though each sentence in the article is copied from some other article.

Badly/insufficiently spoon content actually can perform far worse than sentence mixing. Won't go into the technicalities of why that is so. Properly spun content however is and will be for the foreseeable future, completely fine. The point is not to spin blindly or superficially but to do it properly so that what results is an article that is unique enough and also is readable, makes sense and is useful just like a hand written article would be. I have wrote some threads and posts on spintax uniqueness, including a case study on a 500 words spintax at different spinning complexity. You may want to look it up if you're interested in the numbers (uniqueness % and number of articles that can be generated safely).

Click to expand...

I've written in the past about spinning as well, with you and we've had this discussion. Your resources in this regard far outstrip my own (in generating this content using software, since you've designed it yourself).
I will comment on something however.
I generally generate master articles of sorts, that have 60 sentences (written specifically) for each of 5 paragraphs (300 total) grouped into 6 groups/paragraph. Each sentence can come before or after another, and make sense. The articles are then generated paragraph by paragraph, 3 sentences/paragraph, with all permutative possibilities and hand spun synonyms which make sense. The results are unique (all unique sentences) with extremely good grammar as the end result. If you're talking about uniqueness percentages, after 10s of thousands of uses of this article, a random n-gram of >7 will not generally show up in Google beyond a single instance. I'm unsure if this actually has a workable limitation or not, at least if it has a meaningful one for real use. I'm thinking that google would struggle majorly with identifying such a thing as spun.

I use these for tier 1, and they are quite time consuming to produce (though I do at least 100k articles out of them). Articles are usually around 10mb in text files when done up this way.
I've tried such articles for tier 1 and another such article for tier 2 and achieve absolutely identical results (and perhaps worse when it comes to updates etc, though who knows since google spit out 3 at once) than when I use mismashed and auto-spun sentences as you describe that are only moderately readable for tier 2. As such, I've abandoned this for tier 2 work and am back to using 1 hour spun content rather than 15 hours or more of work.

I do some funky things with tier 2 nowadays, such as linkwheeling at least 50,000 web 2.0s/articles etc with each other and with links to tier 1, then injecting thousands and thousands of blog network posts as tier 3 etc.
I haven't seen any indication that even n-gram issues on tier 1 actually affects much unless it's literally duplicated... so this method is likely overkill

Considering how well footer farms and crap are doing again, makes you wonder what the point of all this even is.

Subscribed without even reading, Saw an intresting title and author scritty. Its a No brainer

@Expertpeon

I do something similar too. I build ultra-spun articles and spin them thousands of times. I am calculating using 3-grams not 7-grams so mine are even more complex. I use them for either support sites or I make several seeds and use a madlib approach where I have placeholder variables and generate articles for tens of thousands of related keywords from one seed article. I don't find it overkill though because first it is cheap to produce considering the number of articles generated and it covers my ass against a manual inspection, not to mention they convert better.

Scritty said:

I've been thinking about what is missing. For me the 3 biggies are domain age, pr and "size" . Does anyone else have any other K.P.I that they think might be important for January's update?

Click to expand...

It looks like the trend is for "authority" and usability for quite some time. So I would think that some kind of signals that support this trend will be used or if they are already in use, will be tweaked. An example of a signal that support authority is that there are brand searches. Also a combination check of the number of referrals (links) to estimated traffic from other indicators (alexa, chrome...).

Expecting scritty's seo blueprint.

tedchang8592 said:

Expecting scritty's seo blueprint.

Click to expand...

i already blog everything I find on my seo site.
the cupboard is bare for blue prints. But it's a thought.

Amazing post!

Great share Scritty. Things are definitely changing, glad to see someone is staying on top of it :rofl:

From what I understood this title character length < 48 is not so vital at the moment ? Because I have titles with more than 48 characters, but for the next articles I will have it in mind and keep the titles under 48 characters.

Great topic !

ivanpenev said:

From what I understood this title character length < 48 is not so vital at the moment ? Because I have titles with more than 48 characters, but for the next articles I will have it in mind and keep the titles under 48 characters.

Great topic !

Click to expand...

No it's not imperative. I don't know whether it is on a sliding sclae either (so 49 is ok, 60 is worse etc etc) but any figure below 48 seems to offer no disadvantage at all.

Scritty

Great use of research. Love seeing that kind of effort when it comes to our field.

While I cannot verify anything said in the OP, this is a nice contribution. I would warn against using any single pattern as your "blueprint" as the landscape is ever-changing though.