|
The Web We Weave, Linking for Google: April 2005
By Jim Hedger, StepForth News Editor, StepForth Placement Inc.
April 13, 2005
» Click here for  PDF &  Word
Versions
Over the past week, SEOs and SEMs have noted some significant changes
in the search engine results delivered by Google. Google appears to be
actively cleaning its listings by targeting sites using suspicious link-building
techniques. A couple of well-known search engine marketing sites have
vanished from Google results under keyword phrases they dominated just
last week.
The sudden disappearance of these sites, along with a notable difference
in search results under other highly competitive phrases has led many in
the SEO/SEM industry to conclude Google has implemented some of the spam-link
busting filters outlined in their 63-point patent
document published two
weeks ago. After examining results displayed at Google since Friday April
8, we too are drawn to this conclusion. In other words, something has changed
in the way Google ranks sites. Given a lack of any other credible information,
we are looking toward the sorting methods and ranking techniques Google
has protected under U.S. and international patent laws to provide details.
As stated in previous articles, one thing to be very clear about is that
nobody except a very small number of Google engineers can claim to know
the exact variables Google uses to populate its ranking algorithms. We do
know how Google and other spider-driven search engines operate, how they
operated in previous months or years, and the outcomes those operations
have produced historically over time. Having watched search engines for
years, experienced SEO and SEM firms can make such predictions and assumptions
with some degree of accuracy. After all is said and done, the proof is always
in the pudding, so to speak, and our predictive assumptions are either proven
or shown false in the search engine results pages.
This time, the big “trigger target” for Google appears to be
links. As anyone who has followed search engine optimization techniques
knows, Google puts a lot of stock in the value of links between documents.
PageRank remains the core concept of Google’s general algorithm though
the weights and measures used to determine “page rank” as we
understand it have changed radically over the years.
Back in the earliest days, one link equaled one positive vote, a rather
clean sorting concept that worked extremely well in a much cleaner Internet
environment. As Google rose to become the dominant search engine, the search
marketing industry started to focus on Google. An amazingly vast pool of
brainpower started to deconstruct every nuance in the basic algorithm, making
changes, shifts or additions to the algorithm cause for lively discussion
and analysis at any one of a dozen search marketing discussion forums. A
very small number of Google search engineers, no matter how extraordinarily
intelligent they are as individuals or collectively, simply can’t
keep up with the SEO/SEM industry without resorting to making sweeping change
to the core-algorithm periodically. If Google ever loses its dominance in
the sector, the next search firm to dominate will, without question, face
similar concerns. We have seen similar algo-updates in the past, the greatest
being the Florida Update of November 2003. This week’s update was
not nearly as severe as Florida, at least not yet. Given that this suspected
update is based on measuring the value of specific links, it might be weeks
or even months before we see the full results.
If you or someone you know has been engaged in a link-building plan that
relies on link trading between multiple sites that don’t actually
relate to or do business with each other, you might want to take a few hours
to examine your link-building strategies.
About four weeks ago, an article appeared in Wired
Magazine telling the
world how simple it was to game Google by bulking up on links. The article
became a focal point for discussion in many circles and might be inadvertently
responsible for a notable rise in the number of link-trading email spam
offers. It may have also alerted Google that it was high time to implement
a number of new link-evaluation filters designed to separate the good from
the bad. This idea has been the subject of a few recent articles and is
backed up by several sections of the 63-point patent document.
To recap the central theme of the patent document, Google compiles document
profiles based on the historic data of several elements relating to every
URL in its index. The historic data included in that profile plays a determining
factor in various scores, or points Google assigns documents when generating
keyword driven search results. It is therefore easy to extrapolate the concept
that the recent update is based on historic data in regards to links.
It is also easy to extrapolate another assumption, though this one is a
bit of a stretch. There has not been a visible backlink or subsequent “PageRank” update
in months. Together these two thoughts might indicate that Google’s
index has become a lot more fluid with micro-updates that affect unique
sets of document profiles as opposed to massive updates that could put the
entire index in flux for weeks at a time.
Link building is and should always be an essential part of the search engine
optimization process. All spider driven search engines find new documents
by following links. This is the underlying concept of the “world wide
web” analogy. Linkage between documents is actually what the web was
built for. Google will therefore value these links as long as the web exists.
In this way, Google is a victim of its own success. It is the world’s
most popular search engine and it values links more than any other search
engine. It stands to reason that the hyper-brainiac forces of the SEO/SEM
world spent a lot of time figuring out elaborate link-generation schemes.
These schemes, by the way, are pretty far from the spirit of the evolving
web, as I understood it a decade ago. Good links made a useful web. Links
designed primarily get attention under multiple keyword phrases are not
so good. Perhaps the “O” in SEO should also represent “organic”.
Google really appreciates links that develop ORGANICALLY.
Bob links to Jane because Bob thinks Jane has information relevant to viewers
of Bob’s document. As it turns out, Bob was right and the anchor text
he used to phrase the link accurately represented the content found on Jane’s
document. Bob was not paid to link to Jane. As a matter of fact, Bob expects
nothing in return except perhaps a better environment for his site-visitors.
Both Bob and Jane score good points in their document profiles and everyone
lives happily ever after in a naïve representation of an intellectual
nirvana. As the web works today, Jane is almost certainly selling something
to pay for the high cost of providing good information while retaining the
ability to pay her mortgage. Jane therefore benefits from a link provided
by Bob and wants to get as many as she possibly can knowing that if she
ranks higher than anyone else, she will likely make more sales. The moment
Bob sees Jane building links for financial benefit; he starts to think of
what he can get in return for a link. An industry built to game Google is
thus born and Google engineers start to worry about how their link-driven
results are perceived by the search-surfing public.
Google is using a number of logical measures to both predetermine and actively-determine
the value of each and every link it follows. Google is interested in the
long-term behaviour of links and compiles a life-cycle analysis of links
as part of the document profiles associated with all documents in its index.
Here are a few observations and questions for performing link analysis.
While there is no proof Google will or will not consider these points in
relation to a document at any given time, there is plenty of evidence that
webmasters and search marketers should at all times. According to a number
of sections of the patent, (particularly those numbered in the 50’s)
Google is capable of taking a much wider analysis of links and their purpose
than previously thought.
When new links are added, Google examines how their appearance or disappearance
affects other links associated with the document. When a link appears is
important to Google. If a number of links appear to a new or existing document
at once, Google would like to be able to easily gauge the value of each
of those links. One of the ways it does that is by date. When did the link
appear? What other links were present on the document the link came from
when the link appeared? How does the presence or disappearance of various
links on that document affect the relevancy of the document or the perceived
relevance to the document it points to?
How do documents networked by links relate to each other over time?
Links can change over time. Google wants to be able to judge if a link
is seasonal or time driven as part of its weighing criteria. One of the
ways it judges time, seasonal or event driven linkage is by trends associated
with documents connected by links. Are there similar link-trends shared
by documents that are linked together?
What date did fresh link appear?
When did Google notice a fresh link exists? The date Google becomes aware
of a link is a benchmark date. Google compares a number of other factors
against that date in the profiles of documents associated with that link.
What anchor text was associated with the link?
Google uses anchor text as a relevancy determinant. A link using “blue
widgets” as its anchor text should therefore link to a document
directly associated with blue widgets.
When did links directed to a document start using specific keyword phrases
as anchor text?
Again, Google refers to a benchmark date. In this case, it compares the
benchmark start date against those of other links in the document profile.
Does that anchor text change?
The next two obvious questions are, when and to what. Google uses this
information to track link-campaigns and to determine link-spam advertising
from active, organic links. For instance, a link with anchor text that
remains static might be judged harshly if other links on the page are
also static. If that same link was found on a page where other links changed
from time to time, Google would take a brighter view of the value of that
link.
When the anchor text of a link changes, was that change relevant to changes
in document content?
If the anchor text of a link changes in relation to content on the document
linked to, chances are the link was placed with care and consideration.
Google would then assign a higher score. If, however, the anchor text is
noted to change without any relation to the text on the document linked
to, there is a chance the link is part of keyword-link branding campaign.
Google is using a number of other factors to determine the validity of
links, some of which involve the behaviours of those who follow links to
documents in Google’s index. Determining the value of a link also
means considering if human-users think the link is valuable.
The concept of document profiles is very real. Google is making a list
and checking it more than twice when determining the value of links and
webs they weave. Google examines these link-webs as they relate to both
individual documents and the sites they are associated with. When building,
buying, placing or otherwise acquiring links in an SEO or SEM campaign,
it is wise to think about what Google is going to think about that link.
One thing you know for certain is that Google is going to think quite a
bit about it and every other link associated with it.
BACK to
the StepForth Search Engine News
|
