Category Archives: SEO

Support for purchasers of our GGG software

The GGG (Great Gateway Generator) project was born in 2002 as a gateway page generator. Over the years there were 2 spinoff softwares: Keyword Thief (a keyword retrieving spider) and Synonymizer (a content generator). There are also some beta-stage PHP scripts that complemented the main product: Octopus Link Quadrangulator, Search Engine Optimized FAQ System, and Delinker.

Over the years we collected several testimonials from customers who succeeded in improving their SE rankings using GGG, and we used it to provide service to our customers. Several buyers requested special features and appointed custom programming from us. Most of those improvements were incorporated into the products.
Continue reading

Results of the Antolinez Family Experiment

In only 10 days I got results for the experiment that tried to detect Goog penalization. It turned out that 2 domains are penalized with a -20 fall.

The other result refers to the extent of indexation. It seems that penalized sites receive only superficial indexation. For instance, if a site is well indexed, all the word strings will be indexed, and searching for phrases within quotes will find them. If the site is badly indexed due to penalization, only individual words will be indexed, and the strings will not be detected. Interesting…
Continue reading

Detection of Google Domain Penalization

Sometimes the effort we make to position a website is fruitless, and the client and the SEO wonder why.
A full penalization is obvious: the website disappears from the search engine under every keyword, even under its own domain name. It won’t have a Google PageRank, not even zero. And it is common for a domain banned from Google to rank perfectly well in Yahoo and the other search engines, more lenient penalizers.
Continue reading

Google’s algorithm (or close to it)

First of all, the algorithm is the mathematical formula that Google uses to decide which website goes first. Knowing this formula would be of great value, as it would make our web positioning job easier, but it is a very well kept technical secret.

I have been collecting clues on the algorithm for a while, and running some quiet experiments. The latest non-official disclosure of the algorithm is from Rand Fish, in his seomoz.org site, obviously very well positioned under the SEO keyword. The article’s name is “A little piece of the Google algorithm revealed”.

And the formula is:

GoogScore = (KW Usage Score * 0.3) + (Domain Strength * 0.25) + (Inbound Link Score * 0.25) + (User Data * 0.1) + (Content Quality Score * 0.1) + (Manual Boosts) – (Automated & Manual Penalties)

The different factors are calculated as follows:

KW Usage Score
• KW in Title
• KW in headers H1, H2, H3…
• KW in document text
• KW in internal links pointing to the page
• KW in domain and/or URL

Domain Strength
• Registration history
• Domain age
• Strength of links pointing to the domain
• Topical neighbourhood of domain based on inlinks and outlinks
• Historical use and links pattern to domain

Inbound Link Score
• Age of links
• Quality of domains sending links
• Quality of pages sending links
• Anchor text of links
• Link quantity/weight metric (Pagerank or a variation)
• Subject matter of linking pages/sites

User Data
• Historical CTR to page in SERPs
• Time users spend on page
• Search requests for URL/domain
• Historical visits/use of URL/domain by users GG can monitor (toolbar, wifi, analytics, etc.)
Content Quality store
• Potentially given by hand for popular queries/pages
• Provided by Google raters
• Machine-algos for rating text quality/readability/etc

Automated & Manual Penalties are a mystery, but it seems they lower the ranking by 30 entries or more.

The mentioned factors are generally known in the experts’ forums, but the relative value that Rand gives them is useful. Rand’s conclusion is that little we can do to apply this algorithm, but to improve the content quality.

Some factors are too basic for Rand to mention, and relate to selecting a good domain, writing with a reasonable density of keywords, intelligently programming links, good code, sensible writing, etc.

Surprisingly, there are very few companies publishing results on the Google algorithm. However, competing search engines do very well their research, because they were able to copy almost the same ranking features as Google. Most of the times when I get a good ranking result in Google, Yahoo follows. A clear difference between both algos lies in the penalties, being Yahoo more lenient.

Most algo crackers show only a small sample of their knowledge, to prevent their competition to take advantage of their findings, and to avoid identification and possible penalizations. However, some of us are a bit more open, trying to use distributed thinking in order to achieve our algo cracking goals.

Site-specific stop words in Google: what they tell us about the indexation quality

This is the 4th article in the Googleometry Project Series.

Saturation is usually defined as the number of indexed pages in a website. However, supplemental results can be a significant part of the indexed pages, with no ranking value whatsoever. So, a deeper analysis of saturation and indexed pages is needed.

We define 3 kinds of poorly indexed pages:

– Foreign Pages: pages not assigned to any known language, so it show only if the searcher uses “all the Web” in the Language Preferences.

– Pages non associated to keywords: the only appear in the listings when you request site:domain.com, but they have no keywords associated with them. So, they are useless.

– Pages in the Reduced Indexation Set. Those pages are shown when a Stop Word appears in the search query. This indexation is probably limited to the page Title alone.
We researched the effect of combined searches such as:

site:domain.com keyword1 OR keyword2

Experiments were performed along several days, but data sets need to be obtained in the same day, because there is some day-to-day variation.

We found these consistent indicators of website indexation quality:

– number of pages within English filtered pages, versus pages for all the Web. This setting is modified in the Preferences section of Google. Google not only supplies English pages, but also quality-filtered pages. Most pages in any Web search are discarded in the English-only search, although they are in perfect English. These works equally for Spanish or French pages.

For some reason, the English searches tend to place the Supplemental results inside a link, the well known: “In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries….”, while the Web searches directly add the Supplementals at the end of the regular organic results. 

Stop Words are specific for each site.

Ask us for specific experiments that you want us to run…

Why I have 2 accounts in each of these 80 social networks

I want to be able to test every social network for its promoting power for my stories. Some of them are going to be more receptive than others, depending on its size, difficulty, subject and to the importance they give to old, reliable accounts.

Social networks give a value to each user, sometimes called ‘karma’, and that value is useful for promotion of stories, either the own user stories or stories from ‘friends’ and strangers.

I am sticking to 2 accounts per network because it is well known that they detect some features that could point to spam, namely IP. Of course, IP can be defeated by using a navigation proxy, but that needs information, expertise and a potentially self-destructive desire to spam the sites. The second account is used if the first one loses value, or to start polemic discussions that are often followed with more attention.

I read about a “snowball” effect while promoting stories in the Digg-like sites, started from a minor network, where it should be easier to get noticed, and bringing users/friends/voters to the other sites. It would be useful if the home of your stories included the links pointing to the other social networks where the visitor can vote you. For that, I included a couple of plugins in my WordPress blog.

Stories are improved by user feedback and testing as they pass thru networks.

I am starting to test the power of this promotion technique, not too fast because I need my accounts to be mature enough. An account is mature when it had some time and healthy activity in the networks. As in real life networks, you cannot arrive, post your story and expect everyone admire you.

It is also good if your stories refer to the same subject, and if you develop virtual ‘friends’ that show their trust in you. It is important to complete a profile and include a photo.

This is the partial list of the networks where I am now. If this story gets enough Diggs, Propellers, Reddits, and so on, I plan to add the age, votes and karma of all the accounts, to help value them.  Continue reading

I want to get my ideas across the Web, and make money from them…

I have been studying the way to communicate my good bizz ideas across the Web, and maybe find a buyer, a partner, an investor or other kind of supporter.
I have some expertise in SEO, so I can rank my sites quite well in Google and Yahoo. However, there are social networks that are faster and probably more targeted.
So, I am experimenting with Digg, Meneame and many others.
It is not easy to get a news promoted by those sites, unless you have a lot of time to spend increasing your karma.
This is done by reading many news every day and voting the best ones.

The links that I obtain by publishing in those sites are very helpful for my medium-term efforts of ranking into Google. So, both strategies are concurrent.

——
Ask us about our Website Development Service – We create website content, either writing or programming.
Contact us for a viral marketing proposal.

A keyword-independent measure of search engine positioning

So far, it is not possible to compare multi-keyword positioning (ranking) results in google or yahoo. Positions are not additive, because every keyword has a different difficulty. Obviously, it is better to be 1st of 100 than 1st of 10.

However, is it better 1st of 100 or 2nd of 1000? How about any other non-obvious pair of rankings?

Moreover, things get complicated when there are more variables: in addition to position (rank) and total number of SERP (search engine result pages), the search engine and the specific keyword.

The ideal measure of search engine positioning should have these properties:

– easy to calculate

– additive

– representative of the difficutly and merit of the positioning

– correlate with commercial results for the ranked site

– reflect the habits of the search public

It is known that most people search Google or Yahoo for the first 5-6 results. However, to cover the whole population, we need an idea of the math explaining this behavior, like an asymmetic Poisson distribution curve.

When several SEO companies want to compete, they create a contest with a single keyword or keyphrase: ‘mangeur de cicogne’, ultramarine nigritude and other nonsensical, unique, rarely sought phrases. This method is cumbersome, takes time, and otherwise useless. And it is completely separated from real life situations.

It would be much better to have a method to compare existing positioning results.

Thus, I proposed the SEPI, Search Engine Positioning Index, as:

 SEPI = Total SERP x Keyword Difficulty ^2 / Position ^2

Keyword Difficulty can be estimated by the PageRank of the tenth page for a Google search on the keyword. 

You can use this online calculator

This index is useful for:

– comparing results of SEO software or SEO campaigns

– comparing SEO companies.

– charging customers by SEO results

– measuring the effectivity of tools and techniques, applied to the same or different web sites.

We need consensus from the SEO webmaster community, or suggestions to improve this index.