SEO relevancy amplifiying method [GIVEAWAY]

tar729 said:

Why Google discontinued PageRank and why DA/PA or TF/CF is not very accurate (Part 2)



So let’s go back to the weight on a link and how it is calculated, that very same numerical value of usefulness that determines the power of a link that effects the positions your page in SERPS. All search engines use the same methods to calculate the value of a link in the same way but the quality of data gathering and analysis can differ.

With time the precision and quality of data analysis improves but the factors being analysed remain the same and, most likely, will always remain the same. This is because this factors and metrics of usefulness are fundamental and are based on fundamentals of human interaction in any society.

Let’s look at them in more detail:

A factor usefulness of a link for a user can be determined by the links click through rate. Obviously, if an anchor is relevant to the donor and receiver pages the click through rate will be greater. The position of a link within the donor page also makes a difference. So when users visit a donor page and click on a link they are hoping to find potentially useful information. Therefore, CTR is a great indicator of how relevant and useful the link is, or at least perceived to be.

On the other hand, CTR can only indicate perception but not the actual relevance. If, for example, you visit a site selling hardware and tools and click on a link with anchor “electric drill” and land on the page about dog food, most likely you will be disappointed and confused. Therefore, the second metric of usefulness is the relevancy of the anchor text to the content of the receiver page. However, if the content of the donor and receive pages are very similar the user is unlikely to receive much benefit. Even if the receiver page is more relevant to the anchor then a donor page the user will not receive the information they seek and quality of their search will suffer.

With this in mind, search engine algorithms attempt to not only measure the relevancy of the anchor to donor and receiver pages but also to determine the differences in the information presented there. It is at this point that the ability of a search engine to accurately measure the usefulness of a link directly depends on the ability of the algorithm to extract meaning from both donor and receiver documents

If some of you still think that Google is unable to understand the meaning of a page, I will not try to prove you otherwise here. I will just say that this is not the case. I might at some point cover this topic in more detail and talk about semantic graphs and automatic translation algorithms (that by the way use the very same technology rather than simply replace words with translations individually).

Another important metric while measuring the quality of a link is traffic on the donor page. No matter how relevant the link is it is not very useful if the donor page has no visitors. However, it must be said that SE algorithms do not measure actual traffic but estimate it based on the position of a page within SERPs. Any data Google might have related to actual traffic of a page are not used as a ranking factor. This information forms the main body of statistical data which is used by the search engines to improve automated learning and correct any inaccuracies in traffic estimates.


Of course, this process of weighing up and assigning a numerical value to each link is a very complex process and currently the margin for error is still quite high. However, over time it will improve.

Needless to say, DA/PA and TF/CF are not related to this metric in any way, shape or form which makes those indicators incomplete and somewhat outdated.

In Russia SEO specialists already have tools that allow them to measure links’ weight using the logic and methods described above. No doubt this technology will make its’ way here too but it might be few years before it does.

I hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Iconoclast said:

hi

I really like your thread and most of your information is very new. Btw I have been asking people this question and most just skip it, or say they do not know

So I am gonna ask you

My question is,

is google leniest on seo in third world countries (there is lots of money to be made in 3rd countries with seo) but my question is, is it easier?

Further, I see lots of low pa da tf cf sites getting ranked for terms on page one spot 2 3 4 5. So my question nn is,

would gsa blast >>>> tier one or sape >>>> money site = rank in #1/ #2 / #3??

Regards

Click to expand...

GWM3rd said:

LOL. Never used a PBN on an enterprise site, but link buys - absolutely. You'd be shocked at the mega sites you can buy contextual links on. I had a 5 figure budget! I bought some individual links for $2500, and holy crap are they worth it.

I have discovered reputable, well known competitors using what looked like SAPE links on tier 2. Word around the campfire is that there are a lot of big brands that cheat, but they've got the budget and savvy to avoid penalties. You're not going to get penalized for buying links on a site like nytimes.com (I didn't buy from them, but equivalents). Plus, if you've got a trust flow over 60 you can get away with murder. Google has definitely stacked the deck in favor of big brands. SEOs at major brands don't worry about negative SEO. If you're a brand, you could get bombed with negative links, and Google will ignore it.

I just started a new gig, and for the first time in my SEO career back links are not the problem. The site's TF/CF is 58/52 and is 100% natural. Our company is used as the backdrop for a number of reality TV shows including 2 episodes on a prime time show hosted by a current presidential candidate. We have brand mentions out the gazoo. We are going to be featured on a major network morning show in Times Square next week, and the station's call sign ends in 'C' and we are getting a link. I explained how important back links are to the owner, so he picked up the phone, called the network, asked for a link and got it. Sick, sick, sick. The owner guaranteed me a link going forward every time we do a TV show, and we average one every 2-3 weeks. I've found at least 7 instances where our site shows up at the top in Google's knowledge graph for commercial search terms with greater than 20,000 searches. The site is grossly underperforming because of major, but easily fixable internal issues. My target keyword list has over 200 keywords that get over 18,000 searches per month. Without any tricks, we should be able to get every one of our keywords into the top 3 and quadruple our organic traffic simply by executing the fundamentals. We only have one competitor with better link metrics. I got lucky. I stepped in shit. I got hired to do a tuneup on a Lamborghini. I digress.

I'm a technical SEO geek who gets his jollies reading Google patents and experimenting with expensive SEO toys, and I believe it's only cheating if you get caught. It's all about risk and reward. If I were to do anything underhanded at a major website it would never point directly at the money site. If we ever got penalized, my career is over.

In the current environment, black hat SEO is brutally hard. The days of blasting and ranking a site with GSA SER are over. PBNs are effective, but building a good one that's semantically themed is expensive and resource intensive. In my current corporate niche, a black hat affiliate site could never crack page one for a major head term. Google would never let it happen. Blackhatting is effective at informational terms, but brutally hard at transactional terms.

The black hat guys that are making money these days are awesome, and I would hire one in a minute. Google has made SEO really, really hard. The good black hats make the best white hats.

I've been lurking here for years, and this OP really got my interest because I am a huge proponent of Silo Architecture and this approach appears to be a highly refined evolution. The effects I've seen with silos are likely a subset of this technique, assuming the OP is telling the truth. Once I get the mess cleaned up, I am definitely going to do a little experimenting.

I've been working on a vanity SEO blog I've been keeping out of Google's index. When I get it where I want it, it's fodder for my resume. If you want the URL, PM me.

Click to expand...

ibmethatswhoib said:

So my question is, when there are different niches, say a private PBN that's like about Dogs for one post, then power drills on another, then candles on another post but not a paid public PBN. Does it diminish the power of the links even though a whole post was deticated to a subject. So, the whole site is about different subjects, but the post linking to a dog related post is dog related, does that still have the same power? I'm sure it's speculation, but would love to hear people's opinions on that.

Click to expand...

seoscientist said:

Everyone can confirm that Multi-Niche blog works. Thats why most of the PBN sellers are still in business and seeing good reviews. My pbns are built in this manner too and they work.

The key question is whether Tar's transistor method with focused semantic terms work better?

From my experiences and official research : http://backlinko.com/search-engine-ranking, the answer is likely no.

Referring unique domains, anchor text and onpage are still the primary ranking factors.

If all you need is some new domains to beat your competitors, then our Multi-Billion-Google will likely patch it up.

No reason why an aged PBN with hundreds of backlinks will lose out to a new domain. Yes the new domain posts will age but so does our PBN posts right? Not to mention the backlinks age too.

I really like Tar's method if PBNs were as expensive as in 2011.(few hundreds for a high pr domain)

Now? The whole thing looks like an "unique" idea to sell his own product.

There are probably many ranking with the transistor's method but I am sure even MORE are ranking using PBNs with hundreds of backlinks.

Click to expand...

GWM3rd said:

LOL. Never used a PBN on an enterprise site, but link buys - absolutely. You'd be shocked at the mega sites you can buy contextual links on. I had a 5 figure budget! I bought some individual links for $2500, and holy crap are they worth it.

I have discovered reputable, well known competitors using what looked like SAPE links on tier 2. Word around the campfire is that there are a lot of big brands that cheat, but they've got the budget and savvy to avoid penalties. You're not going to get penalized for buying links on a site like nytimes.com (I didn't buy from them, but equivalents). Plus, if you've got a trust flow over 60 you can get away with murder. Google has definitely stacked the deck in favor of big brands. SEOs at major brands don't worry about negative SEO. If you're a brand, you could get bombed with negative links, and Google will ignore it.

I just started a new gig, and for the first time in my SEO career back links are not the problem. The site's TF/CF is 58/52 and is 100% natural. Our company is used as the backdrop for a number of reality TV shows including 2 episodes on a prime time show hosted by a current presidential candidate. We have brand mentions out the gazoo. We are going to be featured on a major network morning show in Times Square next week, and the station's call sign ends in 'C' and we are getting a link. I explained how important back links are to the owner, so he picked up the phone, called the network, asked for a link and got it. Sick, sick, sick. The owner guaranteed me a link going forward every time we do a TV show, and we average one every 2-3 weeks. I've found at least 7 instances where our site shows up at the top in Google's knowledge graph for commercial search terms with greater than 20,000 searches. The site is grossly underperforming because of major, but easily fixable internal issues. My target keyword list has over 200 keywords that get over 18,000 searches per month. Without any tricks, we should be able to get every one of our keywords into the top 3 and quadruple our organic traffic simply by executing the fundamentals. We only have one competitor with better link metrics. I got lucky. I stepped in shit. I got hired to do a tuneup on a Lamborghini. I digress.

I'm a technical SEO geek who gets his jollies reading Google patents and experimenting with expensive SEO toys, and I believe it's only cheating if you get caught. It's all about risk and reward. If I were to do anything underhanded at a major website it would never point directly at the money site. If we ever got penalized, my career is over.

In the current environment, black hat SEO is brutally hard. The days of blasting and ranking a site with GSA SER are over. PBNs are effective, but building a good one that's semantically themed is expensive and resource intensive. In my current corporate niche, a black hat affiliate site could never crack page one for a major head term. Google would never let it happen. Blackhatting is effective at informational terms, but brutally hard at transactional terms.

The black hat guys that are making money these days are awesome, and I would hire one in a minute. Google has made SEO really, really hard. The good black hats make the best white hats.

I've been lurking here for years, and this OP really got my interest because I am a huge proponent of Silo Architecture and this approach appears to be a highly refined evolution. The effects I've seen with silos are likely a subset of this technique, assuming the OP is telling the truth. Once I get the mess cleaned up, I am definitely going to do a little experimenting.

I've been working on a vanity SEO blog I've been keeping out of Google's index. When I get it where I want it, it's fodder for my resume. If you want the URL, PM me.

Click to expand...

Iconoclast said:

hi

I really like your thread and most of your information is very new. Btw I have been asking people this question and most just skip it, or say they do not know

So I am gonna ask you

My question is,

is google leniest on seo in third world countries (there is lots of money to be made in 3rd countries with seo) but my question is, is it easier?

Further, I see lots of low pa da tf cf sites getting ranked for terms on page one spot 2 3 4 5. So my question nn is,

would gsa blast >>>> tier one or sape >>>> money site = rank in #1/ #2 / #3??

Regards

Click to expand...

ComputerJunkie said:

What don't people understand from the OP, the entire point of this method in comparison to PBNs is that these new domains have no links pointing to them thus making the trust compensation work with the exchanging of links from 1 new domain to another new domain, I believe OP said that the effect of this "Trust compensation" decreases if your transistor sites receive back links from other sources hence the complete differences from a PBN to one of these Transistor pairs, Site1 never receives a link to its' own domain therefore is compensated for the outbound link pointing to Site2 and this continues in a loop until "fully matured" whereby no more compensation or "trust" is given for free, because Site1 never receives a link as it passes all of its' own trust+juice to Site2, Site2 begins to rank, this leaves Site1 behind because it has no backlinks and essentially is a worthless piece of shit, but wait no, how can Site2 begin to rank with backlinks coming from Site1? Site1 must be resourceful so it is awarded the trust compensation and ranks alongside Site2 but always lacking behind from the trust it has first passed to Site2, as the loop of compensation happens, links get stronger and rankings continue to move up for both sites.

The transistor sites lose their free compensated trust when they receive back links because the search engine thinks it doesn't need the free compensation anymore, could be considered a little like the "honey moon" effect when you purchased a brand new domain and just put an SEO optimised article on it, out of no where you would see it rank in the top 50, some cases top 30 but as soon as you start to back link the domain, poof, it vanishes for a couple of weeks before settling in the top 100 if you're lucky, thus your SEO begins.

A Transistor is awarded FREE trust from the search engine algo, a PBN receives trust from the BACK LINKS it already has, so these are two completely different things.

What needs to be addressed is how much "Trust/Power" can be harnessed from a 1 pair of transistors which would need to be tested to see if it is worth it or not... and also to actually see if this works at all.. I've seen people doing this strategy so I'm not sitting on the fence, I'm putting it to practice.

If 1 transistor pair can give you the same amount of trust that a $200 PBN package could give you then hey, for the price of 2 domains you're laughing really.

Click to expand...

josedata said:

Certainly enterprise won't use PBNs, they just have real money sites that they harness like PBNs.

For a dirty little example check Hearst Communications' site http://www.bestproducts.com. They have a fantastic PBN consisting of http://www.cosmopolitan.com, http://www.esquire.com, http://www.marieclaire.com, and others under the Hearst umbrella.

These are real money sites of course, in fact, they're full-on brands, but they are used just like PBNs to prop up bestproducts.com.

I'll only out them because there case has already been written about, but there are many others like it.

Have a peak at their silos, some pretty fantastic SEO going on.

Click to expand...

Bladharkje said:

To be honest, I am testing this thing myself at the moment. I have set up 5 transistors (10 sites) . All setup based at common sense; site 1 is informative and site 2 is "commerical". I have not used any graphs as the OP is suggesting (or trying to sell, but I only used my brains). I have indexed all the sites at the same time and they are linking to a site which haven't got any links the last 6 months at all.

I think that the OP isn't talking bullshit at all as it makes sense, I juse don't believe the graphics stuff etc. Perhaps it might be true, but I doubt it. But hey, that's why I am testing it.\

PS: the domain names are also related to the keywords I try to rank for, I dunno if that matters, but it's just an addition to this test. Also the all the 2nd sites (5 in total) are linking to my moneysite with the keyword I try to rank for.

Click to expand...

maxlogov said:

Very interesting, but how often those updates happens that OP mentioned, if it happens once a year then it would take couple years just to test it out

Click to expand...

tar729 said:

Relevant PBNs work much better.



Just because it works good, doesn't mean it can't work better. Relevant PBN is much more better than multi-niche PBNs.



Thanks.



Would never recommend GSA or sape.



If a transistor gets links, it might become unstable and fall out of rankings. That's the only reason why you shouldn't link to transistors.



I will, thank you.



Success!



Every few weeks.

Click to expand...

Iconoclast said:

hello

i should have gone straight to the point

What i wanted to know was whether google is lenient on seo when it comes to third world countres.

Click to expand...

Bladharkje said:

To be honest, I am testing this thing myself at the moment.

Click to expand...

lion1978 said:

@Daivanas switch site 1 and 2 and you've got it

Click to expand...

Daivanas said:

Thanks just read page again and you are right.. So this is just simple as that? OP just overcomplicated so much this simple scheme..

Click to expand...