Google Algorithm Updates - 2024 Ongoing Discussion

Darth said:
Thanks. Just seems like all those other tools that tell you how many times you should use "cars", "honda" "engine" "comfort" etc in your copy, along with headings, etc etc? They've always seemed much the same and not helpful at all IMO. Always keen to try something new if this has some secret sauce though.
Click to expand...
I've used and tested POP as well as Kyle's agency, HV SEO.

IMO POP is just another on-page SEO tool like Surfer SEO, but with a much nerdier and "worst" UI. It's way too confusing and ugly AF with too many buttons.

In my test of POP, we found no change in rankings or traffic due to following POPs suggestions. Hiring HV SEO for SEO work will result in them using POP to optimize your on-page, which was quite dumb IMO.

I've read the test and I think the "recovery" is due to either:
1.) The query being Query-Deserves-Freshness and the edits bumped the freshness of the page up temporarily.
2.) If the content was missing an important subtopic and the update added a whole new subtopic to the article, making it relevant to a whole new set of keywords, then I see this working too.

I don't think matching some recommended keyword frequency suggestion helps with rankings, as TF/IDF is a long dead algorithm.

With that being said, Fat Joe's Query Hunter seems to be good. Here the keywords it suggests come from your webpage's GSC queries. The reasoning is that, if you are getting traffic for this keyword but the keyword does not appear on the page, Query Hunter will suggest it. Going from no keyword on the page to the keyword appearing will be a ranking boost. I'll be testing this next quarter.

As for content updates, I'm of the opinion that it's better to just read your 9 other competitors on the top 10 and evaluate their content qualitatively. If they have elements that are helpful, steal it. I actually give my editors parts of the Google Core Update checklist and have them review the article with it, to see if there's anywhere we can improve compared to other ranking sites.

Ryuzaki said:
Everyone needs to be planting new seeds right now in different sectors, especially ones not rooted in SEO. And anyone who's taking issue with this statement should read this very short business book, that has so many copies in print you'll find multiple at your local used book store:

eEZX93I.jpeg

​
I'll also save you $3 by giving you the entire story:

Two mice and two miniature mice-sized people live in a maze. Every day they navigate the maze the same way to find the cheese that's always replenished in the same spot.

One day, the cheese is moved to a new location in the maze. The mice waste zero time thinking and "hemming and hawing" about it. They just go find the new spot. The humans sit there and think, cry, whine, theorize, be stubborn, resist change, try to optimize their path to the now-empty cheese spot, and so forth. They get mad, sad, fight harder, negotiate in their minds, give up, get excited again, but they never go find the new cheese spot until waaaay later.

The book then talks about how to shorten or eradicate this "human process" of accepting large changes in business and life and celebrates the rewards of things changing and you changing.

Again, like above, I'm not saying for certain things have changed this hard. But it certainly has for 75% of SEO's, at seemingly random with that number growing with each update, hitting all levels of authority and skill and content volume. No amount of negotiating with Google or the universe is changing this, and no amount of blowhard nonsense from survivors will protect them from their turn, as everyone is eventually finding out. No amount of lashing out at others, depression, or anything will change this new reality.

It very well may be the case that the cheese has moved. Those who accept this earliest will get the biggest chunks in the new location before everyone else catches on. Eventually advertisers are going to catch on too, and ad spend will move to the new locations as well. If you don't agree with all this (and I'm uncertain myself), we can all agree that it'd be best to start diversifying and setting up shop in these other channels.
Click to expand...
I thought about this. His argument is super basic so that the book can be popular but, let's take a step back. What problem does your business solve, who is the customer, and how big is the market? These questions will tell you where your "cheese" is so to speak.

If you're the people on here who have an amazon affiliate site, your cheese is moving. You can't make a living from Google traffic with affiliate content anymore. The problem you are solving is now being solved by an LLM.

My product solves a burocreatic issue and the problem existed pre-Internet and the industry is growing as governments are digitalizing their services. 10 years from now, people will still need this service. It's just more convenient to get it from an agency than to do it yourself from the gov. We're betting on laziness and consumers are lazy AF. Market size is 5 billion.

Thanks for the summary.
 
BakerStreet said:
It's way too confusing and ugly AF with too many buttons.
Click to expand...
As someone who has used POP and given it to my team as a core tool for their workflow, I literally LOL'd at this statement. Well said, haha.

BakerStreet said:
we found no change in rankings or traffic due to following POPs suggestions
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's hard to say whether a tool drives SEO results, which is why "getting results" isn't my goal. Instead, I use POP to give my team an easy-to-follow framework for outlining content.

Most of these tools use the same basic mathematical equations with a few different bells and whistles thrown on. And that's the framework, regardless of the tool, that I want my team to use when outlining content. Not writing content. Outlining!

BakerStreet said:
Hiring HV SEO for SEO work will result in them using POP to optimize your on-page
Click to expand...
I'm not too keen on outsourcing writing. But, I did speak with the HV SEO sales team... they seemed reasonably priced, have a decent track record, and I like their methodology.

But there's no way I could reach my content production goals with an agency, it's too expensive and too slow no matter who you go with.

BakerStreet said:
I'll be testing this next quarter.
Click to expand...
It would be great to see a thread on this after you've completed your test.

BakerStreet said:
10 years from now, people will still need this service
Click to expand...
Not knowing what your service does... I'm curious whether this service still exists in more technologically advanced countries? Thinking of Singapore or maybe Estonia? Basically, is the bureaucracy guaranteed or is it something that could disappear as systems become more integrated?

Steve Brownlie said:
were obviously just going to become part of chatGPT
Click to expand...
They were creating features, not products. I think about this a lot in my business... always make sure we're creating products and not a feature that a competitor can quickly replicate!
 
Having a framework to direct writers at keywords targets and get outlines is helpful.
Getting there with bullshitware is just as helpful as solving depression with a placebo.
If it works and you didn't pay to much nothing wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
Everyone on Twitter is complaining that sites have been hit.

I guess I'm interested to know about the people not saying anything and experiencing an increase in traffic lol.
 
CCarter said:
I think we need a new Traffic Leak bootcamp, 9 years later I need another 9 - cause I'm losing hope in a lot of ya'll ability outside Google.
Click to expand...
It's funny you say that because I almost started a thread yesterday called SMDG (Social Media Discovery Growth, or S**k My D**k Google)

To discuss strategies for increasing traffic from social media channels. But I decided to experiment with buying upvotes instead
 
devise said:
I guess I'm interested to know about the people not saying anything and experiencing an increase in traffic lol.
Click to expand...
Why should they talk when G is literarily going after SEOs with manual actions, and the SEOs themselves are publicly outing each other's sites & tagging Google to get them penalized?

Why would you want to share your wins with such people?

These days, there's absolutely no benefit to publicly sharing tips/wins/secrets.. Except you're selling a course or looking for clients. The community is too toxic to encourage healthy sharing.

I've got some winners (and a loser) so far. From my observations, i suspect only the spam & core algos have been deployed so far, and google is yet to re-run the HCU classifier.

My only loser so far was initially hit by the September HCU, as also observed by twitter SEOs. The winners weren't HIT by HCU and are likely surging due to core update factors..

I think this also aligns with what Google-obsessed SEOs on twitter (the "white hat", play by the rules people) and Google themselves are calling for; Patience, as the update is still rolling.
 
On mobile. Someone else asked for example sites that are doing well. My reply is that person is at their wits end. To survive you need to go back to the fundamentals.

Look at the SERP. What is ranking now? What was ranking before? What’s the search intents and how did it change?

For my niche, the LLM allowed Google to realize that a lot of queries are better served if it was navigational intent instead of informational. For example “Florida drivers license renewal fee military” could been served with articles explaining the Florida drivers license renewal process and cost for military members. Now the imaginary ranking pages are the Florida DMVs page for license renewal. Google understands search intent better with LLM.

My takeaway from this is to have my guys check keywords to see if top three is gov sites. If so we’ll conclude Google changed query intent to navigational and skip that keyword now. We’ll focus on information keywords since that’s what our team can do.

Let me know what you guys see in serps. Google has to show its cards.
 
Yeah, that is a good example.

This is what I'm seeing first for "Best gym shoes":

https://www.gearpatrol.com/fitness/a433299/best-gym-shoes/

They have unique images of the shoes, but there's zero proof at all that they used them and there's zero proof of EEAT or even names of those who tested the shoes.

There simple isn't the things Google claim there should be. Only thing is that Gearpatrol for some reason has trust with Google and thus can do everything they want.

That said, if you want to see how a similar site raised the stakes and basically did what was asked check out https://www.garagegymreviews.com/.

500.000 youtube subscribers, 8 years Youtube channel.

He's still outranked by those shitty magazines though and that's really a problem.

In a better SERP, these kind of niche sites should be top and maybe 1 or 2 of the magazine sites, so that people can get the "big brand" opinion if they trust that more.

I also want to point out the difference in professionalism when comparing these two sites. Thatfitfriend.com is nothing but reviews, Garagegymreviews.com has a lot of DIY and info content and it is displayed prominently on the front page.

These two sites are fundamentally the same, but one is simply better executed. In a better world, these would both be the sites in the top, because they're just better than Gearpatrol, but I also feel as if it is quite easy to see why Google would prefer Garagegymreviews.

The level required to match Google's current long term good graces is extremely high and likely requires a significant capital investment.
 
Last edited:
I feel like 80% of SERPs would improve if G would just de-rank Forbes, GQ, NYMag, USA Today, CBS etc for things they are not obvious authorities in. The fact they haven't done so, even with previous "hiDdEn gEm" and SERP diversification-oriented updates means that these sites are apparently beyond reproach.

Given the rise of widespread online censorship in recent years part of me wonders if this isn't a moat building strategy, to only rank the big corpos who will eagerly comply to whatever mainstream narrative the state is in approval of. I imagine it has to be hard to fine tune an algorithm built around meritocratic principles of rewarding the true best most relevant content when you also have to incorporate features that have to weed out anything deemed "unsafe" or "counter narrative".

As the G monopoly moves towards being an answer engine they want to be sure they aren't sourcing any inaccurate or "dangerous" information to be pulled direction into their SGEs. If Google is promoting "unapproved thoughts" then they could be held liable. So instead of picking through the entire apple bucket to weed out the good from the rotten they simply pick out 7 good apples and bring those to the market for sale.

Only 7 you may ask? That's not enough apples! Well, if they have a monopoly on fruit vending then yes, there are only 7 and you will like it!

So just like the Magnificent 7 publicly listed tech companies exceed earnings of all other countries and account for some 40% of the entire stock market's value, so these few big publishers seem to be the "chosen few" to represent an internet that big tech and gov't partnerships (Alphabet) find compliant and safe.

This "hall pass" might have been applied to all rankings not just those in politics or YMYL, explaining the objectively absurd rankings these Forbes type sites hold steady for keywords entirely outside of their traditional "lanes".

If I remove my tinfoil hat then perhaps this is just a staggered update, separating the wheat from the chaff first (why everyone is seeing declines) before more confidently elevating what remains.
 
Encrypted said:
I've got some winners (and a loser) so far. From my observations, i suspect only the spam & core algos have been deployed so far, and google is yet to re-run the HCU classifier.

I think this also aligns with what Google-obsessed SEOs on twitter (the "white hat", play by the rules people) and Google themselves are calling for; Patience, as the update is still rolling.
Click to expand...

Spam update has been completed. Now, we wait for the final lap of the core update: https://searchengineland.com/google-march-2024-spam-update-done-rolling-out-438505

Buckle up! I think there's gonna be a lot of movements/recoveries!
 
bernard said:
https://www.gearpatrol.com/fitness/a433299/best-gym-shoes/

They have unique images of the shoes, but there's zero proof at all that they used them and there's zero proof of EEAT or even names of those who tested the shoes.

There simple isn't the things Google claim there should be. Only thing is that Gearpatrol for some reason has trust with Google and thus can do everything they want.
Click to expand...
You must be very biased in your perception because it was easy to find out. They have a methodology which they outline here https://www.gearpatrol.com/about/how-we-evaluate-products/ and state how their writing style is and how it's better than other sites. Instead of simply reviewing products, they do that too and also give you information about that product's development and how consumers have responded to that product line from the company and so forth.

On the actual ranking article, you can just go to the end of the section about the recommended shoes and you'll see "For an in-depth look, read our review of the ..." (https://www.gearpatrol.com/fitness/a433299/best-gym-shoes/). Here it'll give you that writer's usage of the shoe and its review https://www.gearpatrol.com/fitness/a42220818/nike-metcon-8-review/.

As for "EEAT"... there's no formal education for shoe reviews, the usage of the shoe is experience, and the site has a rigours writing guideline, which makes it trustworthy. The site's UX is pretty good too.

If you want to drill his expertise more, here's his bio "Ben Emminger is an associate editor for Gear Patrol’s fitness desk. A former athlete, it’s hard to think of a fitness discipline he hasn’t tackled at least once. Nowadays, he keeps things balanced with weekly runs, strength workouts and the occasional slowpitch softball game, always looking for the latest and greatest to make training more effective, efficient and enjoyable." He isn't a couch potato.

As for the #1 site for me, it is GQ and they had journalists write this article. I can tell. They fucking have quotes like “Wearing the right pair of shoes for your workout is a game-changer, not just because you’ll be able to perform better, but you’ll also reduce your risk of injury,” says physical therapist Dan Giordano, co-founder of Bespoke Treatments . That's good writing! Also " F45 head trainer Michael Hornig always recommends trying on shoes in person or getting fitted by in-house to find a size that fits securely while alleviating ankle rolling and injuries. "One size (or type) does not fit all," Hornig adds."

So, no, GQ didn't test the shoes themselves. They had their journalists interview people with EEAT, collected the recommendations, and made a review article. That's baller! Check this out "For those who clock their miles on the treadmill rather than the pavement, personal trainer Dan Castillo, the head of brand strategy at Sole Treadmills, recommends On's Cloudswift running shoes. "

So, instead of getting 1 guy's opinion, you get a rigous process with GearPatrol or you get opinions from multiple experts in the GQ article!

I hate to say it to you guys, but I find it more trustworthy to read an article written by a journalist, where they interviewed trainers and so forth, on which shoe is best for each usage. As for GearPatrol, they have rigor. The only thing FitFriend has is that they used it personally but that experience only goes so far.

You guys need to level up your writing skills. On one hand, it sucks to be told that your writing sucks. On another hand, it is easier to change stuff with a pencil than fixing a flat tire, for example. It is 100% within your control.

Actually, I'll go even one better. If you can't improve your writing, JUST COPY WHAT THEY'RE DOING! Here's my ideas from this quick write up:
1.) Have a style guideline for your brand and include the methodology for your reviews. I do this for my site as well. We make an internal content writing SOP and make an external guideline for readers. This editorial guideline gives us more trust.
2.) Interview experts and quote them in your article. Their authoritativeness will transfer to you. You'll be more trustworthy too.

The days of solo-entrepreneur testing shit and earning a living from it is over.

On a positive note, I googled "best travel backpack" and PackHacker is ranking well at #2. Check out this guy's site. They did backpack reviews good! They even took them on international trips and told you how it was like to carry it on carry-on! Bravo!
 
Shoot and a miss bro.

Gear Patrol is just not a great review, there isn't a single image of anyone using these shoes, cause they most likely never did and just had someone take the photos. The quotes you mention are broad and just leeching of authority.

That is a great way to get authority though.

I've used quotes from experts in all my current review sites. I've also routinely stressed how these can be used exactly to mimic the "we talked to an expert" signal, that Gearpatrol is using and that includes linking out and yes that works.

You can pay people as expert reviewers, people who are actual experts. Most people will be fine giving a quote or five for $100-$200 if you give them a call and explain and your site doesn't look like shit. You can also just quote other people and share the linkjuice. People trying to not link out is one of the clearest signals of an unnatural site.

It's still no guarantee that you will rank well, in the beginning you will, but over time, it all defaults to links anyway.

The only true way to become an authority in Google is to get editorially given links from newspapers and .edu sites and the likes. The closer you can get to the seed sites like NYT or Harvard. How many degrees of separation from them is the link you're getting?
 
bernard said:
Shoot and a miss bro.

Gear Patrol is just not a great review, there isn't a single image of anyone using these shoes, cause they most likely never did and just had someone take the photos. The quotes you mention are broad and just leeching of authority.

That is a great way to get authority though.

I've used quotes from experts in all my current review sites. I've also routinely stressed how these can be used exactly to mimic the "we talked to an expert" signal, that Gearpatrol is using and that includes linking out and yes that works.

You can pay people as expert reviewers, people who are actual experts. Most people will be fine giving a quote or five for $100-$200 if you give them a call and explain and your site doesn't look like shit.

It's still no guarantee that you will rank well, in the beginning you will, but over time, it all defaults to links anyway.

The only true way to become an authority in Google is to get editorially given links from newspapers and .edu sites and the likes. The closer you can get to the seed sites like NYT or Harvard. How many degrees of separation from them is the link you're getting?
Click to expand...
Right now, none. My site was started less than a year ago. Well, in a month it'll be a year. But we're planning a digital PR piece for this summer for those newspaper links. I highly recommend everyone do digital PR for their brands. You first need a real brand and you then need to build a PR piece that is "on brand." Read Primal Branding https://www.primalbranding.co/ . You can find it on Amazon or, if you're cheap and lazy, you can ask GPT to summarize book for you (lol). GPT already knows (lol). I think its ironic that people complain about GPT stealing their content but, hey, if you're that upset by it, use GPT to steal a fucking copyrighted book! ROFL! That is actually intellectual property and you are actually stealing it! hahaha

So, for like that FitFriend guy, a piece can be something like "8 top crossfit injuries and how to prevent time, from our community of 493 crossfitters." You gotta tie your brand in with a news trend. Then outreach to journalists and write a press release. You can reverse engineer it, by seeing what target journalists write about, and crafting a piece that fits for them.
 
I pray this will be in the next update but doubt it.

I have a feeling Google did a secret deal with these big publishers.

Probably something similar to the Reddit deal to scrape all the content.

harrytwatter said:
I feel like 80% of SERPs would improve if G would just de-rank Forbes, GQ, NYMag, USA Today, CBS etc for things they are not obvious authorities in. The fact they haven't done so, even with previous "hiDdEn gEm" and SERP diversification-oriented updates means that these sites are apparently beyond reproach.
Click to expand...
 
BakerStreet said:
Right now, none. My site was started less than a year ago. Well, in a month it'll be a year. But we're planning a digital PR piece for this summer for those newspaper links. I highly recommend everyone do digital PR for their brands. You first need a real brand and you then need to build a PR piece that is "on brand." Read Primal Branding https://www.primalbranding.co/ . You can find it on Amazon or, if you're cheap and lazy, you can ask GPT to summarize book for you (lol). GPT already knows (lol). I think its ironic that people complain about GPT stealing their content but, hey, if you're that upset by it, use GPT to steal a fucking copyrighted book! ROFL! That is actually intellectual property and you are actually stealing it! hahaha

So, for like that FitFriend guy, a piece can be something like "8 top crossfit injuries and how to prevent time, from our community of 493 crossfitters." You gotta tie your brand in with a news trend. Then outreach to journalists and write a press release. You can reverse engineer it, by seeing what target journalists write about, and crafting a piece that fits for them.
Click to expand...

If I were to build a site to last and I had time and money to wait, I would build a site that wasn't an affilate site first.

I'd build an actual blog, Facebook page, Youtube and whatever. No product or affiliate content at all, just the kind of linkworthy research content like you mention. Just have fun with it. Know your niche, get to know people, create the content they want.

Figure out if it is on the rise in popularity. If it's an introverted time like covd, then focus on the peace and quiet benefits. If it's an extroverted time, then focus on the social benefits etc.

The goal is to have something that is unique, a study you did on getting your nails done, is it cheaper with chinese or vietnamese? That's the first step of your digital outreach, but it can also just be content you keep having around until a journo discovers it and links to it.

This is very situational and hype dependant as that's how journos operate. Something is hyped and they need a quote, an angle, something to write about and fast, that's where you'll get those links. You don't need a lot. Just a handful of legit top level links makes a huge difference in trust.

This isn't new by the way, I remember some affiliates 10 years back, recommending this method, build it was a non-commercial blog first etc. Of course many things have changed now with video and SoMe, so in order to seem legit, you probably need to be there first.

----

I'd like to believe that Grindstone is still a top SEO expert, but it's difficult when it's cryptic tweets and not much practical advice.
 
bernard said:
I'd like to believe that Grindstone is still a top SEO expert, but it's difficult when it's cryptic tweets and not much practical advice.
Click to expand...
It's an in-detailed 20 minute video, and he posts here all the time with his exact advice. According to his own words, which I take as gospel, he's recovered every site he's used with this technique. Get on his mailing list.

I'm realizing the conversation here is like 2-3 cycles behind the current solutions. People are recovering and getting rankings back.

The problem is, like the fitfriend site - that's not newbie or intermediate level analysis you need. You need to be able to look at the basics of Google, which starts with links, backlinks and internal - if that's fine then you work on the richer stuff like EEAT etc, but a simple analysis of the guy's pages that are dropping shows he's got tons of backlinks from domains with zero traffic (Something I've been harping on for years - you need backlinks from that get traffic FROM Google). Some of this I learned by watching Grind's video on that specific website.

@bernard Are you not a member of the Platinum Inner Circle Gold Club? Did you pay your Committed to Success dues?
 
bernard said:
If I were to build a site to last and I had time and money to wait, I would build a site that wasn't an affilate site first.

I'd build an actual blog, Facebook page, Youtube and whatever. No product or affiliate content at all, just the kind of linkworthy research content like you mention. Just have fun with it. Know your niche, get to know people, create the content they want.

Figure out if it is on the rise in popularity. If it's an introverted time like covd, then focus on the peace and quiet benefits. If it's an extroverted time, then focus on the social benefits etc.

The goal is to have something that is unique, a study you did on getting your nails done, is it cheaper with chinese or vietnamese? That's the first step of your digital outreach, but it can also just be content you keep having around until a journo discovers it and links to it.

This is very situational and hype dependant as that's how writers operate. Something is hyped and they need a quote, an angle, something to write about and fast, that's where you'll get those links. You don't need a lot. Just a handful of legit top level links makes a huge difference in trust.

This isn't new by the way, I remember some affiliates 10 years back, recommending this method, build it was a non-commercial blog first etc. Of course many things have changed now with video and SoMe, so in order to seem legit, you probably need to be there first.
Click to expand...
I understand those downsides of digital PR. That's why I found an evergreen PR topic that I can renew every year. Also, I can set a google alert up and contact any new news source that mentions the keyword, as that journalist will be interested in my piece too.

This isn't a real example but it illustrated the fact that there is such a thing as Evergreen PR pieces. There's a satirical newspaper called The Onion and every spring they run a story about how Adderall was given an honorary diploma this year. It's funny and they recycle the piece every year around college graduation time. That newspaper recycles a lot of stories.

These type of stories exist. It might be weight loss following NYE, something about the election every 4 years in the US, or even grilling tips every summer. It doesn't have to tie with a calendar date. Mine doesn't.
 
CCarter said:
The problem is, like the fitfriend site - that's not newbie or intermediate level analysis you need. You need to be able to look at the basics of Google, which starts with links, backlinks and internal - if that's fine then you work on the richer stuff like EEAT etc, but a simple analysis of the guy's pages that are dropping shows he's got tons of backlinks from domains with zero traffic (Something I've been harping on for years - you need backlinks from that get traffic FROM Google). Some of this I learned by watching Grind's video on that specific website.
Click to expand...
That was what the original PageRank algorithm was supposed to figure out. The PageRank of a webpage was your likelihood of finding that page, from simply surfing the web at random. Let's claim that Facebook is PR9. Kinda make sense that you'd end up at facebook if you randomly surf the web. Facebook links are everywhere.

Does Google use user data from Chrome and Android and so forth to figure out where people surf to? IDK but they can. Or, does Google nullify spam links, ones that have backlinks but no one visits? Might be this too. I see it both ways. Still better to get links where it has value to humans and not just robots.
 
BakerStreet said:
I understand those downsides of digital PR. That's why I found an evergreen PR topic that I can renew every year. Also, I can set a google alert up and contact any new news source that mentions the keyword, as that journalist will be interested in my piece too.

This isn't a real example but it illustrated the fact that there is such a thing as Evergreen PR pieces. There's a satirical newspaper called The Onion and every spring they run a story about how Adderall was given an honorary diploma this year. It's funny and they recycle the piece every year around college graduation time. That newspaper recycles a lot of stories.

These type of stories exist. It might be weight loss following NYE, something about the election every 4 years in the US, or even grilling tips every summer. It doesn't have to tie with a calendar date. Mine doesn't.
Click to expand...

Great example.

It can also be things that happen regularly like natural events, animal sightings, unusually hot or unusually cold etc.

I would guess that digital PR will not work unless you are transparent and personal. It's much easier to get a link as an influencer, blogger or even local business, than to some affiliate site.

BakerStreet said:
That was what the original PageRank algorithm was supposed to figure out. The PageRank of a webpage was your likelihood of finding that page, from simply surfing the web at random. Let's claim that Facebook is PR9. Kinda make sense that you'd end up at facebook if you randomly surf the web. Facebook links are everywhere.

Does Google use user data from Chrome and Android and so forth to figure out where people surf to? IDK but they can. Or, does Google nullify spam links, ones that have backlinks but no one visits? Might be this too. I see it both ways. Still better to get links where it has value to humans and not just robots.
Click to expand...

Knowing PageRank it's also fairly easy to figure out how a hypothetical TrustRank would work, because they both would work essentially with a few seed sites, the main containers.

Where as PageRank has a cumulative value, lots of low PR ranks will increase pagerank too, if I were to create TrustRank, I would simply choose 1000 of the most trusted websites on the planet and assign them TrustRank 10 and then otherwise let the trustrank filter down through the links, but I would not let it accumulate upwards.

Meaning, in order to get max trust, you'd get a link from Harvard, but to get a trustrank 9 link you could get a link from someone that has a link from Harvard and to get a trust 8 you get a third separation link from Harward. Of course this would be logarithmically like PageRank.

It's really a very simple concept that I think would work very well and I really do think most of what is EEAT is simply getting these top tier links from context that is "editorially given" what linksellers would call "niche edits".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back