McDar Experiment

I must admit that, although I have read many posts regarding theming, I do not understand the essence of it.

I have heard it expressed that if you have a site about *, that all of your links come from pages about the same topic. Then folks go on to suggest that links coming from off topic sites will spoil your ranking.

Does anyone else have a better understanding of the subject?

 

Alek,

That's an interesting experiment and doesn't conflict with the sleeping bags experiment.

My only suggestion would be to start a new topic dedicated to it. This thread is so long now that new reads are overwhelmed and not reading it because of the length. So I think we should endeavour to keep it strictly on topic.

Maybe we need to start a "other questions arising from McDar experiment" topic. People who are trying to apply the information garnered here to their own pages and situations could do so on that thread.

 

Would anybody mind if I worked with Shawn to move all the non-relevant posts off this thread to the new thread I suggested in my last post?

McDar would this help your 10,000 points of data problem?

Shawn, I could identify everthing I think should be moved. How do you want to handle it from there?

 

No Bob, the 10,000 datapoints have to do with a single post or reply.

I would imagine that most people would be able to keep their replies under that limit.

But, you are right. The size of the thread has become too overwhelming for some to attempt reading it from start to finish. Unfortunately, they might be missing out on some pertinent info.

Plus, there may be some that would like to discuss aspects of this experiment but have hesitated. So, an annex (weird thought) to the thread might be a good idea.

Caryl

 

Go for it guys on all fronts - very acceptable solution to this thread and a new thread sounds good

 

Caryl,

I have thought for some time that the size of your results posting could be reduced. Maybe show only the last 10 or 14 days of data with a link back to the previous post that showed the earlier stuff.

I'm still waiting to hear from Shawn about if and how we can move the non relevant post to another thread. I like the term "annex" I think I'll use that as part of the new thread title.

Shawn, Shawn, where are you?

 

I have resolved the size of the update issue!

I have copied the entire Update to an html page and will include a link to the complete documentation with the daily update.

The daily update will only include a portion of the results. Not sure about how much to include daily on the post, though. Perhaps the last 10 days...

Caryl

 

Remember to use "sleeping bags" as the link...Ha

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Position #18 allinanchor: #7 - 05/08/2004 [2 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 2 DCs
Position #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/09/2004 [2 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 2 DCs
Position #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/10/2004 [5 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 4 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/11/2004 [13 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 13 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/12/2004 [21 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 20 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #5 - 05/13/2004 [24 datacenters #14]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 28 DCs
Position #15 allinanchor: #6 - 05/14/2004 [28 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #7 on 28 DCs
Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

 

Damn, I wish Google would hurry up with the next PR/backlink update. It would answer a lot more questions.

I know, "patience is a virtue", but I've never been very virtuous

 

Bob,

Google seems to be busy with some other kind of changes right now. They may end up skipping this update completely as they did back in Feb/March.

According to Rank Pulse Google was doing some major changes in that timeframe (Feb/Mar).

_______________
Google BL/PR Update Dates

...26 days(may 19)
April 23
(15 days)
April 07
(18 Days)
March 20
(38 days)- G seems to have missed one here
February 11
(16 days)
January 26
(15 days)
January 11
(18 days)
December 24
(18 days)
December 6
(16 days)
November 20
_______________

 

I'm a bit slow getting back here, but thanks a lot guys! ...just trying to be rational

On a more serious note, this experiment, or more correctly, this Experiment with a capital 'E', has opened up my eyes to several things... and also inspired me to start several new research projects on my own. The world of SEO is very exciting these days!

I think the key to a successful project/experiment like this one, is to change as few variables as possible at the same time. So, I agree that it is very beneficial for the project to wait with the on-page elements until the current positions have stabilized.

And regarding the theming, Alek, I like the idea of testing this. There is a lot of speculation back and forth, and having some more data for analysis could be interesting. But you'll need at least two sites to test it properly (themed and unthemed - everything else being equal), as you say.

In relation to these questions, I can also mention that goRank released a report on Google's ontology - which might be interesting.

Off topic:
I've taken a tour and looked around this forum, and you seem to have been able to create a very nice, professional and friendly forum here. That is not a small achievement, so well done guys! I'll definitely come back here more often

 

Can you give us a link to the goRank report please?

 

Sure:

Do related keywords matter in Google rankings?

 

I just read the goRank report and I don't think it proves anything. I think there is another explanation for their results which is just as plausible.

Before I tell you my explanation let me say that the other problem with this "research" is that we have no idea of how competitive the keywords they used are. But if we assume they are relatively competitive. And we believe, as I do, that links, and not content, are the real SERP placement drivers for competitive keywords, wouldn't the following explanation be just as plausible.

The higher the density of a particular keyword or related keywords in a site the higher the probabilty that those keywords would be used in anchor text. The more that these keywords are used in anchor text the higher the sites will rank in the SERPs.

Google bombing has proved over and over again that you can drive a site to #1 in the SERPs without ever having the keywords appear in the content. This goRanking test is virtually meaningless if they don't include backlinks and anchor text. They don't even mention this variable let alone suggest that they tried to hold this constant for the pages in the study.

 

The report is interesting enough, but I am not sure whether it answers the question as to how important ontology is when the search terms are more competitive.

goRank has produced some earlier reports on keyword density averages for Google and Yahoo based on low-volume search terms. Such search terms have been selected to reduce/remove the influence of off-page factors (links: PR and anchor text) from the results, to better focus on the on-page factors, i.e. keyword density in various page elements.

I couldn't see goRank mentioning anything explicitly regarding the competition level for the different keywords they investigated this time, but if they are again low-volume, it is difficult to say how important ontology is when anchor text and PR also is brought into the picture.

However, at least in a low-competitive SERP (where the site is ranked based on on-page factors), the report seems to establish that a site with keyword density also for what gorank deems as related search terms will rank higher.

If I've understood this correctly, it means that your potentially prospective themed experiment still has a lot of validity

 

Hi Bob,

I typed my answer without seeing yours. But it seems as if we are more or less in agreement here.

If the search terms are competitive, I agree that their findings easily could be due to anchor text for related keywords. Good thinking!

However, based on their earlier reports, I don't think they have chosen competitive keywords (although I have no real backing of this conviction, as I couldn't find any mention in the report) - and thus, the report would only be valid if there is no anchor text involved. ...and consequently, of little practical value.

I think the experiment Alek suggested would be of more practical use, as we would never dream of getting to the top of a SERP without the use of anchor text.

 

I have now read this article too and like you two Bob, Rational, I am in agreement - the rationale of anchor text etc is very strong.

Equally I don't rate the KWD very highly as a method [in fact I ignore it] but I do rate, only out of protection if it becomes a major player in the algo, the ideas of theming, or ontology, but what I did do whilst at gorank was to test the keyword phrases in google [where I am not in the top 10 yet but digitalpoint with the title is, and yahoo where I am no 3] for the phrase "weber bbqs" - interesting results!

 

I agree, I do not find the experiment to be of any real significance.

When you look at the broader picture, on-page keyword density and, to an even lesser extent, related words play a very minute role in the actual serps.

I would only even consider these factors if I was neck and neck with a competitor on all other major factors i.e. anchor text, backlinks, etc.

Caryl

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_______________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Position #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/09/2004 [2 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 2 DCs
Position #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/10/2004 [5 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 4 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/11/2004 [13 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 13 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/12/2004 [21 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 20 DCs
Position #17 allinanchor: #5 - 05/13/2004 [24 datacenters #14]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 28 DCs
Position #15 allinanchor: #6 - 05/14/2004 [28 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #7 on 28 DCs
Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________