Jan 24 What have they done now Options

[Grumpus]

There's also (on certain search terms) going to be the illusion that PageRank is gone and replaced with "SiteWide Rank" in respects Topic Sensitive PageRank for seed sites that are in the DMOZ. Since the category structure (and the sites listed there) are the seed factor (not the only factor) in Topic Sensitive PageRank, it's likely that that parent site listing's PR in DMOZ affects deeper pages on the site when the search term falls into one of the "topics" considered in TSPR.

G.

[NorthStar]

so if i see my sites up there for 'allintext: mykeyphrase' that's a bad thing right?

I don't think this is necessarily true. I can find examples of sites that rank well in the "allintext" results and have similar rankings in the normal results. However, I also can find sites that rank at the top of the "allintext" and are not in the Top 200 of the regular results. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

[netguy]

Dynamoo's observation is interesting.

I survived Florida almost 100%.

I've been decimated by this one. But when I check my keywords using the various different "allin" prompts I look great. (But hey I also look really slim in those fairground mirrors!)

Can some of you experts, eg Grumpus or Black Knight, advise what this means? What factors could Google be penalizing if they like page text, title etc?

I appreciate your point in the other forum Grumpus that we have to wait and see but I suspect this is permanent.

[compar]

Compare this with just michigan lawyer and I think you'll see the difference. Repeat this with your own missing search terms. Does it work?

It worked for one on my keywords. It put my site right back in #1 place. That's very similiar to the "-garbageword" test that worked right after Florida.

Good find!

[cre8pc]

I'm surprised at the lack of dicussion in this forum. Other forums are abuzz with this discussion.

Dang it, where the hell did I put the fly swatter? 8)

Kim

[compar]

With LocalRank, all the normal ranking algo's apply first, then LocalRank re-orders the top x results.

Ammon,

If I were going to speculate on speculation, I would speculate that your's is the best speculation I've read yet

Now let me ask you a question. I have read both the Hilltop paper and Google's Local Rank patent. It appears to me that what Google is calling Local Rank is very very similar to what the Hilltop paper suggests.

Do you agree or do you think they are substantially different. Maybe all Google did was change the name and patent the technology before the Hilltop authors got around to patenting their's.

[Dynamoo]

All I can say is that there's definitely some other algo at work than just the filtering that's picking out the competitive words.

Comparing "allintext:" results with "normal" results, and looking at a particular product I promote, Amazon.co.uk makes an appearance at result 5, up from rank 101, and Amazon.de at 15, up from rank 40. These are massive gains that simply cannot be accounted for by filtering.

(Needless to say my old #5 page is wiped off the face of the earth.)

[Caissa]

Hi,

Can someone be so kind as to explain "local rank" or direct me to a link (here at cre8te please if possible, where they speak in simple language).

[bragadocchio]

Hi Caissa,

I think Grumpus did a really good job of explaining local rank here:

PR on the Fly - New Google Patent...



If you read that thread, and have any questions about it, we'll be happy to rephrase it for you.

[compar]

I think Grumpus did a really good job of explaining local rank here:

Nobody has bother to answer my question about the comparison or similarity between the Hilltop paper and the Local Rank patent. I think they are essentially the same technology. Have I missed something?

[Black_Knight]

Nobody has bother to answer my question about the comparison or similarity between the Hilltop paper and the Local Rank patent.

Even with my sleep patterns I sometimes have to be away from the forum for a while.

I have read both the Hilltop paper and Google's Local Rank patent. It appears to me that what Google is calling Local Rank is very very similar to what the Hilltop paper suggests.

Yes, and they are all pretty much based on the work of Kleinberg, back to the basic precepts of Hubs and Authorities. Teoma was the first 'big' engine to really apply a hilltop style algorithm that did link analysis in a topical context. If Teoma had had the kind of support and backing that Google garnered, rather than simply being bought up by Ask ... well, it might well be the leader in the game now.

Hilltop and LocalRank are designed to do much the same thing, except that LocalRank is more of an add-on, an after-filter, rather than an integral part of the ranking algorithms. TSPR on the other hand is more like a half-measure, an adaptation of standard PageRank that simply makes it a bit topical or theme oriented.

With an IPO looming, and possible issues/concerns over some of Google early PageRank patents belonging to Stanford rather than Google, the sudden interest in new algorithms could have a deeper explaination than merely improving the SERPs. As pure speculation, Google may be rather keen to find a new algorithm that could replace PageRank eventually, thus removing its reliance upon patents owned by another body. Even if they don't need a backup algo, just having one might make them feel a lot more comfortable, and make them even more financially attractive.

[compar]

Even with my sleep patterns I sometimes have to be away from the forum for a while.

Good line. I'm

I wasn't getting after you Ammon. It just seems that a lot of post have gone by since I asked the question and old questions tend to go un answered.

I haven't even read all of your response yet I will go and do so now.

[compar]

Hilltop and LocalRank are designed to do much the same thing

That was my conclusion upon reading the patent. In fact I wondered if Google didn't rush to patent before Bharat and Mihaila did.

The reason I asked the question is I have seen a lot of people reference the one or the other but I have never seen anybody make the comment that they were very similar technologies or methodologies. So I was interested to know if anybody else saw the same similarity as I did.

Thanks Ammon for the clarification. Sorry to disrupt your sleep.

[Black_Knight]

There's a reason that Krishna Bharat was head-hunted and recruited by Google. Most people believe it was his interesting work in the Hilltop area that lead to that recruitment.

[nakulgoyal]

Anyhow, this update seems very nice and interesting till now. let's see what happens next. All my clients rankings are high and lots of back links and traffic boost to my clients and higher sales. WIN-WIN. :-)

[raj_freind]

I mark that day as black day in my diary because I have good position(#1) in google till 24 january04 but now i am not in top 1000, Its really big moved by google,

[projectphp]

Even if they don't need a backup algo, just having one might make them feel a lot more comfortable, and make them even more financially attractive.

Bar humbug!!! That is speculation on speculation. PageRank is 1% of Google, perhaps even less. In terms of an IPO, and the attractiveness of Google to potential investors, AdWords distribution, and the length of those contracts, is surely a far more important factor.

The free Google results may be the bait that helps catch fish, and without a free algo Google as a search destination may suffer, but that doesn't mean that the free stuff is a large factor in the IPO. To me, that has always been the fault with so many people's thinking in the last two updates, that an IPO has a major bearing on decision making, and that such thinking will help find an "answer" or explaination.

If I were to buy shares in Google, knowing that Google's free search may need to undergo radical changes is not nearly as much an issue AOL's guarantee to run AdWords for X number of years. Fact is, even if Google loses market share, if it increases AdWords distribution, it will be a better financial proposition. Google as a brand is strong, but AdWords distribution is the key to its sustained financial viability.

Thus, IMHO, looking @ PageRank being Stanford Intellectual property as a factor in all this is premature at best.

[Black_Knight]

PageRank is 1% of Google, perhaps even less.

Oh quite possibly. But it is the 1 percent that it has always billed as its USP in search terms. PageRank is a huge part of the Google brand. Look at the webmasters who come into a forum for the first time to learn about SEO and see how they focus upon PageRank.

Sure, a decent SEO knows better, even though he also knows that TSPR and LocalRank etc also still utilise PageRank heavily. But how many SEOs does it take to buy 4 billion dollars worth of Google shares?

SEOs are not the target market.

Yes, for the target market, of course the balance sheet will take priority. AdWords is not only the big draw - to many of the real market, it is the only real draw. But the one single other thing they are likely to know about Google is that it works on PageRank.

Read the following for yourself:
http://www.google.com/technology/index.html

Note the part that says:

The heart of our software is PageRank™, a system for ranking web pages developed by our founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford University. And while we have dozens of engineers working to improve every aspect of Google on a daily basis, PageRank continues to provide the basis for all of our web search tools.

Even if we were to say that PageRank is just 1 percent of Google, that's certainly not how Google are selling it, is it?

[projectphp]

Even if we were to say that PageRank is just 1 percent of Google, that's certainly not how Google are selling it, is it?

There are two issues at work here: Google's Brand as a Search destination, and Google's revenue streams and IPO. I agree that PageRank is a big party of Google, both in terms of branding and probablky culture, but to think removing PageRank from teh algo to apease an IPO is the reason, I just think that is off track. I read the first article about that in the Jimsworld Gazette, and thought at the time that a lot of it was simply off the mark.

I am not doubting the research, simply that I believe the article raised more red herrings than red flags. PageRank as a technology wont, despite Google's claims, either make or break the company financially, and looking to it as an explanation of Florida et al is most probably off track.

As a branding tool, and a USP, sure PageRank is great, but the IPO sounding its death nell as an algo factor is a wee bit premature.

[Black_Knight]

[quote=]As a branding tool, and a USP, sure PageRank is great, but the IPO sounding its death nell as an algo factor is a wee bit premature.[/quote]
That would certainly be very premature. That's not what I'm suggesting.

Let's try another tack.

Now we know that no matter how competitive and cut-throat the world of SEO can be, it is a friendly picnic compared to the cut-throat business of the stock market.

Suppose you were a large corporation hoping to buy up 5% of Google at the coming IPO. Now Google is selling about 25% of itself in this IPO it is believed, and with the company currently being estimated at around $20billion, that means the IPO (for a quarter of the company) could raise 4 billion dollars. If you were hoping to buy a 5% stake in Google, you'd be looking to spend about $1billion for the aquisition.

That's quite a sum.

Now, imagine if by spreading a few rumours you could just shave a small fraction off of what people were actually prepared to pay. Lets say, that through carefully dropped rumours you were able to just create the teeniest tiniest doubt. Say just enough to knock one-thousandth off the price. That's one million dollars less that you'll have to spend to buy up 5% of Google.

Of course spreading those kind of rumours believably is difficult. Unless of course you are a media agency or multinational. Trouble is though that there's quite a few of those who might be wanting a piece of Google.

All that's needed is to run a couple of articles in their own media outlets about how the heart of Google's technology (Google's own words) is the intelectual property of Stanford. That alone might make that teeny tiny price difference of a tenth of a percent that saves you 1 million dollars.

Now Google don't actually need a new algo. They simply need just enough of a counter-possibility to push away the potential booby-trap. If such a story about their algo were to break seriously, Google would simply be able to show that such things were already fully accounted for and in hand. Soothe any worries. Push the price back to what it should be.

Yes its speculation. Either way, someone is 'speculating'.