you almost had it…

fyi.. meta keywords are still used… not the way they used to be used, but the way they are now.

(nope, not explaining it just like the google minister pf propaganda wont either.. )

links are no longer the big signal.. it IS the documents. some of us pre-date google.

There are roughly about 30 patents (maybe more these are the one i can count quickly), these patents are simply classification of objects.. and the patterns they create in daily internet activity.

schema works.. better than links…

here is what happened.. enough idiots tried to game the system outside of Google Webmaster Guidelines and those idiots created patterns.. let’s pretend one of those signals was the nofollow tag on links…

(note: i built my first website for the university of Texas in 1995 i have yet to actually code a nofollow tag and i do code daily)

classification of my web footprint does NOT contain the nofollow attribute.
my footprint includes google webmaster tools and google analytics accounts.
These can all be under different email address for clients.. but at some point my personal document contains this information. none of these clients were penalized and their spammy links were cleared up, any error in sitemaps or robots.txt were fixed…

So my “document” has a pretty clean, credible footprint..

part of my job is to report spam on branded terms for fortune 5, 50. 500 etc..
i do this according to google guidelines.. for a long time.. i have a spam report extension on chrome, created by matt cutts at my request.. i use daily.. pretty sure Google knows who i am and what my footprint is..

Being aware of this allows me to “tamper” with my “document”. Most searchers are not aware and what they do online actually matches their preferences quite well.. which is why despite Bing having a huge share being verizon search provider.. people still like Google.. it works for them.. because of their “document”.

Good article.. thanks for making me think today =)

And yes, the link graph is broken because those with deep pockets have found ways to create links with faux trust and authority. They have the resources to create a process and network that can manufacture links. Content farms aren’t dangerous because of the content per se, but because they are attached to link factories. Without the links, the content would have to compete on a level playing field, where they’d probably lose.

Absolutely spot on and I don’t see how it changes, unless different players enter the space (such as social media, mobile marketing, etc.).

But as long as there is money at stake for search terms – and Google is the primary portal for accessing those businesses, products, etc. the players with the deepest pockets will end up winning. Which is partially what I think you are alluding to when you say the link graph is broken.

Sure we may be more motivated to write quality content – your post is an example of that – but most folks who have gone that far down the seo rabbit hole knows why they are trying to write quality content and are likely already optimizing the other elements of the web page.

I’m not sure that the methods are getting harder to game or not. I think the clear knowledge of signal weights may be making the playing field uneven. The link graph is broken and I don’t think Google has figured out a good way to fix it or find an alternate way to determine real trust and authority. They’re clearly concerned about finding a proxy for user experience so they don’t have to rely so heavily on links which are simply not generated the same way they were when Google wasn’t observing and measuring them so closely.