Ok, so upon reading someone's comments here, I grabbed Google Detonator WSO to see if anything there was worthwhile or that I could add to my knowledge tree. Whilst nothing there was new or could be dwarfed by the knowledge found in this fine forum of BHW, the overall concepts I could see have intrinsic value. The thing that irked me was that the writer of the WSO had these 'formulas' in the document, which showed a dangerously low level of statistical interpretation Granted, the author is from Nigeria and a self-made IMer from age 14 so I can appreciate the context that he may not of been formally trained in statistics. However here is an example of one of his formulas: Calculate the Overall Backlink Value The simple formula is: average backlink PR x total number of backlinks Site A: 4.3 x 37 = 275.2 backlink value Site B: 0.11 x 400 = 44 backlink value Now, this obviously does not compute, his next example is even more irksome. So let's say I got 14 PR8, 6 PR7 backlinks, 30 PR6 backlinks and 12 PR5 backlinks all laser targeted on my keyword, I will have just about 19 backlinks but I'm already winning because I have a higher backlink value of 394. a) The writer put to much emphasis on PR as the be all, end all for authority of link b) He underestimates PR value. If you have 14 PR 8 backlinks, you'd rank for anything He makes this mistake more often, in particular in Keyword Conversion estimates earlier in the piece. With his updated GD2 formula, he concedes his first formula over-estimated the expected conversions in his first WSO. In his example, the first formula for profit calculation would yield expected amounts $3,908 for his estimate, under his advised formula (which merely added more factors) his profit estimation was around $469-$560 monthly for page #1. I wanted to yell at the PDF because I am a formerly trained Project Manager, and for estimates like this you generally use a three-point estimate for things like expected cots/expected profit, or a monte carlo analysis to simulate different iterations of ranking on the page (Instead of focusing just on the first result). Granted, I'm complaining about a WSO I grabbed on the Downloads section so nothing stopping me from just moving on to a business book or something, but I really hope many of you do not fall under the same failings and misunderstanding of statistics, estimates and expected profits if you aren't formally trained in the field.

Well it's not like it's a bad WSO per se, he put the effort in for 159 pages, it's just plain wrong. So WSOs are good, like the Squidoo one which was excellent (that guy knew what he was talking about) but most of them are absolute garbage. You could probably package the best posts from here into a WSO and it'll be a best seller.

WSO's are written to a really, really stupid target audience, the barrier to entry to the WSO market is very low, and the standards are even lower. I actually considered trying my hand at WSOs at one point and wrote a (if I say so myself) really good guide on listbuilding with coregistration, but I don't want to market my real information alongside crap like Wags' "it's already in you" 7 paragraphs of bullshit $7 PDF.