Definitive statements are flying about why some popular sites toolbar page rank dropped the only good one I have read so far it from Techcrunch.
… There is some suggestion that the changes may be related to the sale of text link ads, but at this stage this is not backed by evidence …
Data is oxygen for search marketers. Conclusions are based on analysis, analysis is based on data. Without data you can not reach valid and defensible conclusions. Can you really believe any argument that isn’t backed by data?
Equally important is act of analysis. Few “search marketers” who blog ever actually publish anything that has been approached with disciplined analysis. Simply looking at eight sites and observing that page rank went down on them is not analysis. Observing they all sold links or were linked to sites they sold links and the conclusion it must be link selling causing the drop is not analysis. That is the first part of analysis.. that is the formation of a hypothesis. Often though thats where the “search marketers” end their analysis and what they present as a conclusion.
So if you see an explanation that isn’t accompanied by data and analysis you should ask yourself…. is this person a professional search marketer or a professional bullshit artist?
Like it? Subscribe to the blog if you haven't already
Related Posts
What I want to do to you when you mention Pagerank….
Belated Thanks to Matt and Adam!
For Sale: A few adult domains..
Keyword Research Tool
| Filed under: Misc — Scott @ October 24, 2007 11:59 am |
|
Did you read the comments on Copyblogger? He has never sold a link, everything is squeaky clean other than his association with B5.
Don’t forget that Duncan was actually a founder of B5, and he wrote the article on Techcrunch.
Now I was first to suggest the sites fit another pattern, and that their heavy interlinking might be a factor for many of the links?
Is it wrong to write those words?
It is wrong to suggest that is the end of the analysis
So there are 2 things he observed… that hardly counts for an analysis. My issue isn’t with you in particular Andy. My issue is the real lack of respect for what real analysis is.
When it comes to Google hardly anyone ever tests their statements. They just post suppositions and leave it at that. Who can blame them really? To do an accurate analysis the dataset and experiments are just to large in scope for most people to tackle.
Andy we should be asking more questions. What sites, if any, went up with this update? What sites outside of our community had similar problems? Do they have related factors? What factors should we be looking at to analyze for relationships? What can we truly know?
We can’t analyze with out some methodology and discipline.
I wasn’t aware I was providing analysis, disciplined or otherwise. I was expressing an opinion.
Incidentally, to suggest that Andy doesn’t back up his analysis with data suggests that you haven’t read very many of his posts.
I read Andy all the time and I generally enjoy his insight. You are right though.. I linked to your post by mistake I was looking at a ton of related posts at the time and grabbed your url in error.
F*ck pagerank - it’s useless anyways :)
[...] shit, too busy making sites that are making me money so I’ll just agree with what Scott said here and here. Traffic is indeed the opnly thing that matters. This blog has not been affected. Neither [...]
If traffic is the only thing that matters, should I - when I create my web site - go for the software Nemeas as a first step? It allows me a trial period of 8 weeks and can choose as many high scoring URLs and if I’m not happy, my money will be refunded. Has anyone heard of Nemeas? Apparently some statistical analysis went into its development.
Why people so care about their PR? For ads. bargaining? For fame? For Google donation? … Just ignore this irrelevant thing! Concentrate on your own contents and concentrate on your businesses (selling or selling links)! Your efforts will be reflected in the future.