Are you up for a little SEO theory debate?
in my last post, http://massa.techndu.com/2008/01/20/TheSecretOfGettingANewSiteToBeatAnOldOneOrContentIsKingIsJustACliche.aspx, I gave away my secret to beating an older, established site by making Google look smart. The gist of the post was:
I believe we are going through a transition in how Google chooses what to show
whom for a search. I believe we are seeing the old school algorithm
based on the ”a link is a vote” style page rank, changing into a new
age algorithm of how to weight which link, from whom and what do we
know about them? Actually, do we know enough about them to trust them
to make us look smart? Or at least not to make us look dumb.
Obviously, I'm of the "links are the bling that brings it home" opinion while John Andrews http://www.johnon.com is suggesting in this post http://www.johnon.com/481/smarter-google.html that the latent semantic indexing algo is what is so dramatically improving and moving the relevancy indicators upward.
From what I know of John, he is a laid back individual who detests controversy and likes to hug that middle of the road rut to avoid instigating debate <extreme sarcasm goes here>. But, I also know him to be a pretty smart cookie and one of those people you dismiss at your own peril.
So, as I see it, there are only four possible conclusions to these two opposing camps of discourse.
#1. I'm right and John is wrong, (my vote goes for this one)
#2. John is right and the guru is wrong (hahahahaha)
#3. We're both wrong
#4. we're both right
So, do you feel you can place any new wrinkles on an old horn? Is it content or is it links?
peace y'all
G
Whaddaya doin in the bathroom for so long? Get outta there and let someone else in!