Article printed from SEO-News: http://www.seo-news.com
  HTML version available at: http://www.seo-news.com/archives.html

The Web We Weave, Linking for Google
By Jim Hedger, StepForth News Editor, StepForth Placement Inc.

Over the past weeks, 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 a few 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
(http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66893,00.html)
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.

================================================================
Jim Hedger is a writer, speaker and search engine marketing expert
based in Victoria BC. Jim writes and edits full-time for StepForth
(http://www.stepforth.com) and is also an editor for the Internet
Search Engine Database. He has worked as an SEO for over 5 years
and welcomes the opportunity to share his experience through
interviews, articles and speaking engagements. He can be reached
at jimhedger@stepforth.com
================================================================

Copyright © 2005 Jayde Online, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

SEO-News is a registered service mark of Jayde Online, Inc.