SEO Tycoon

**krishacetravison** · 01-02-2012, 04:06 PM

Hi Guys!

I'm sorry again for this super noob question. I would like to ask if How effective is Keyword Effectiveness Index in keyword research.

If it is essentially effective, how it is computed?

Please give a light on it. Thanks guys!

**chrishirst** · 01-02-2012, 05:09 PM

It isn't! Never was, never will be.

It was based on a false premise when Sumantra Roy came up with the "theory"

Just another example of a SEO "expert" spouting pseudo scientific drivel while using faulty "testing" methods.

**krishacetravison** · 01-02-2012, 05:30 PM

When did he came up with this idea? Did someone reacted violently after trying this thing?

**chrishirst** · 01-02-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

When did he came up with this idea?

It was published sometime around 2002 or 2003 if I recall correctly, and discredited just as quickly.

But like all wonderful sounding theories it falls completely short in actual fact.

**vultren** · 01-02-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

It was published sometime around 2002 or 2003 if I recall correctly, and discredited just as quickly.

But like all wonderful sounding theories it falls completely short in actual fact.

Do you know why so many theories and false statements exist around SEO? Is it the simple fact people just don't know what they are doing?

The SEO industry appears to be the least educated of any I've ever seen.

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Is it the simple fact people just don't know what they are doing?

I think that sums it up pretty well

Back in the early days many people built their reputations on being the most convincing or the most believable, SEOMoz always appear to be doing the same now, with their pseudo scientific "testing", most of which can be put down to coincidence.
You know what they say:
"If you can't blind them with science, .... baffle them with bull****"!!

The biggest problem I see with SEO "experts" is they are always "testing" to prove that their theory is right, and getting cause and effect in the wrong order. Taking what they see as a effect then trying to determine what the cause is. Definitely not the best way at all, as what you end up with is simply deductive reasoning.
Because if you look in the right places you CAN find enough evidence to prove the facts.

**krishacetravison** · 01-03-2012, 11:13 AM

You know Chris, to be truly honest, I'm a complete newbie in this field (SEO). And I'm doing my very best to understand anything and everything that causes me to stumble.

But I'm quite getting confused about those things that seem to be so easy. i.e. backlinks, contents, ranking issues, etc.

So can you give me an advice that would somehow reroute me from those "fraud" things about this field? I'm really interested to hear it from you.

Thanks!

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2012, 12:22 PM

Forget checking rankings for a start, that has been a useless waste of time since 2003.

SEO and general promotion is really very simple one you take the search engines out of the equation and realise you are marketing to the users of search engines.

Once you get that the rest is easy.

You don't need to care about the latest thing in "on page optimising", you simply make pages for real people.
You don't need to know what links are "valuable", because your links sre there for real people to click on.

Much of what you read will be ancient history in Internet terms, and was probably wrong when it was written.

To route you from the "fraud things" I'd suggest reading at High Rankings Forum and ignoring anything that is being hyped as the "best thing for SEO" 'cause it rarely is.

The X-Files maxims of "The truth is out there" and "Trust no-one" work for SEO as well.

Believing it when you see it happen for you on your pages is the only truth you can trust.

And please don't fall into the belief that the only page that matters is the "home" page.

**krishacetravison** · 01-03-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

Forget checking rankings for a start, that has been a useless waste of time since 2003.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

Much of what you read will be ancient history in Internet terms, and was probably wrong when it was written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

And please don't fall into the belief that the only page that matters is the "home" page.

Can you please make it clear to these ones?

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2012, 01:19 PM

rankings and the google "dance"
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/the-go...tml#post710287
http://tycoontalk.freelancer.com/the...how-often.html
5 Reasons Why Rankings Are A Poor Measure Of Success
http://searchengineland.com/080131-071244.php

The ancient history one is difficult to be clearer on as there is so much of it, but it's things like Google PR, DMOZ directory.

The "home" page one is where the common idea that the "home" page is what should be shown in the SERPs and all searches should end up there.
eg: http://tycoontalk.freelancer.com/seo...home-page.html

Same with links, people only ever "build links" to one page and think it will look "natural".

**krishacetravison** · 01-03-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

rankings and the google "dance"
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/the-go...tml#post710287
http://tycoontalk.freelancer.com/the...how-often.html

These two are all redirected to one page. The SEO section page of this forum.

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2012, 01:42 PM

sorry the auto link has broken the URL
http://webmaster-talk.eu/?action=art...view;article=2

the other one isn't really relevant but does illustrate how ancient history is always being dragged up.
http://tycoontalk.freelancer.com/the...how-often.html
It's now SEVEN YEARS since I wrote that post (November 2005) and STILL we get questions about the Google "dance" on an almost weekly basis.

**krishacetravison** · 01-03-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

sorry the auto link has broken the URL
http://webmaster-talk.eu/?action=art...view;article=2

the other one isn't really relevant but does illustrate how ancient history is always being dragged up.
http://tycoontalk.freelancer.com/the...how-often.html
It's now SEVEN YEARS since I wrote that post (November 2005) and STILL we get questions about the Google "dance" on an almost weekly basis.

Okay, let me get it brick by brick: What's the relation between that irrelevant link that you have posted and the ancient history that you are saying a while ago?

Another thing is, did you still have the article that you have written 7 years back?

**vangogh** · 01-03-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vultren

Do you know why so many theories and false statements exist around SEO? Is it the simple fact people just don't know what they are doing?

I think it's more because search algorithms are closed. Try solving the following:

x = y + z

It's impossible without more information. If I tell you that y = 5 you still can't solve for x.

Now imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different unknown variables. In order to solve for x you need more information about all those other variables. Even more imagine you have no idea what all those variables might be. You don't know if there are 10 or 1000. You also don't know the equation you're trying to solve. Is it y - z or y * z?

And of course both the variables and the equation itself is a moving target as the algorithms are updated all the time.

That's the problem someone faces when trying to figure out what will and won't improve the ranking of a web page. The search engines aren't telling us what the variables are and they aren't giving us the equation to solve. It's impossible to truly apply the scientific method to that. You can't isolate a single variable when you don't know what the variables might be.

So people collect information about different web pages ranking for the same query and look at what's different about those pages. They then form theories about why one page might be ranking better. The differences in the pages become a good place to look for variables that affect ranking, though the differences may or may not be significant.

Doing the above isn't going to lead to the exact algorithm, but it can still help you identify probably variables and it can still help you identify which of those variables likely carry more weight in the overall algorithm.

It's not that the people putting out these theories are idiots, though there are certainly idiots out there putting out theories. It's more that they're trying to do the impossible.

**krishacetravison** · 01-03-2012, 03:11 PM

Excuse me Van, I'm trying to grasp your point here. So, is it still be a good idea to conduct an experiments rather than reading different articles about SEO?

**vangogh** · 01-03-2012, 03:31 PM

Both can be good.

With experiments understand you aren't going to really prove anything. For example say you want to test how important a page title is. You might take a baseline of where a page is ranking for a specific phrase and then change the page title in some way to see what happens.

The thing is you couldn't possibly ensure that every other variable remained constant. Your ranking might improve with the new title, but the reason might be a few other pages added links to your page during your experiment.

You can go back to the old title and see what happens. Try the new one again. Go back to the old, etc. If the new page title always leads to a better ranking then you can feel pretty confident in saying the change was good. Still you haven't proved anything scientifically.

With reading articles understand the person writing the article may or may not be giving you the best information. They might be trying to mislead you or they may simply be incorrect. They may be speculating. They may be talking about something that was true yesterday, but isn't today.

If you're first trying to learn how this all works do a little of both. Find some sources you feel you can trust. Not necessarily sources that are always right, but those that you feel are being honest. See where they agree and where they disagree. While it's not necessarily true, the places where the sources agree are probably true or close to true.

And try a few experiments on your own. Try changing a page title and seeing what happens. Add a few keywords on a page to see if they make a difference. Figure out a way to get a link to the page and see what happens. Add more links. Vary the anchor text of the link, etc.

Also observe. Maybe someone links to one of your pages. Observe what happens. See if similar happens when a different person links to you from a different site.

All of the above can help.

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krishacetravison

Okay, let me get it brick by brick: What's the relation between that irrelevant link that you have posted and the ancient history that you are saying a while ago?

Just to show how long the mis-information persists as "fact"

Another persistent one is the "sandbox" that never was. back in late 2004 to early 2005 Google did some minor upate that affected how long it took for pages to take their final place in the serps and begin getting shown to searchers.
Some "genius" decided that Google must have this "other" index where "new sites" were put for a while, and promptly called it the "sandbox". The mere fact that Google denied that is was a deliberate design of the update and their engineers were surprised at the unintended effect but decided to keep it, didn't detract the frenetic activity of "expert bloggers" who saw it as their duty to publicise "The Sandbox" probably because it was for more "dramatic" than the facts were, but as Mark Twain put it "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

Quote:

Originally Posted by krishacetravison

Another thing is, did you still have the article that you have written 7 years back?

Back then I never had the time or inclination to write "articles", I was simply doing a job not building a reputation, but most of my thoughts and observations are at IHelpYou, Highrankings, Tek-Tips or here.
And there are some pages at candsdesign.co.uk, the odd ramblings at modtalk.co.uk and some currently at webmaster-talk.eu