Should I revise chaotic content?

S

stoma

Nope - Dave's right again.
The total PageRank for the site is determined by inbound links, so the more
pages you are distributing your PageRank on, the thinner you're spreading it.

Wrong. I was clearly talking about the index page, not the masses of
sub-pages. You go on to admit that I'm right, so don't start off by
denying it. Defending SEO Dave will not help your record for winning
arguments. PageRank is not static, it's dynamic, and flows through
your site. That's what the repeated iterations are for. It is NOT
determined just by counting incoming links. By tapping the flow, and
stopping leaks, you can increase your total PR.
True. If you have a simple structure, where the index page links to all other
pages and all those pages link back to the index page (and if we disregard the
intrinsic PageRank) - then the index page will have a PageRank of X / (1- d^2) -
where 'X' is the inbound PageRank and 'd' is the damping factor, no matter how
many pages you add.
But the PageRank of the individual sub-pages will suffer - meaning they will
probably not appear in any SERPs.

Just told you more than once.

I think you better refer back to the original paper, unless you want
to set up the DaveRank site after all. Your treatment of pages with no
outgoing links is also wrong on your site btw.

-stoma
 
S

stoma

What I've been trying to explain is also the reason why most people
believe internal links are treated differently to external. They
aren't, it just looks that way.

You are getting more and more bonkers with every post. You really
think that anchor weight is directly proportional to raw PR passed,
whatever the source? So you'd rather have a single internal PR6 link
than 100 PR3s from different IPs???

-stoma
 
M

Martin Hagstrøm

stoma said:
Wrong. I was clearly talking about the index page, not the masses of
sub-pages. You go on to admit that I'm right, so don't start off by denying
it.

Meeeow!

Dave was not talking about the index page. *You* changed the subject by talking
about a very simple (and very improbable) design.

Defending SEO Dave will not help your record for winning
arguments.

I'm not defending Dave - I'm defending his post because it was true.
You, on the other hand, seem fixated on naysaying whatever Dave writes.

And I'm not trying to get a "record for winning arguments" - I'm just trying to
stamp out idiocy wherever I see it. That's why I used to go after Sam, and if
you insist on playing "Son of Sam", so be it.

PageRank is not static, it's dynamic, and flows through
your site. That's what the repeated iterations are for. It is NOT
determined just by counting incoming links. By tapping the flow, and
stopping leaks, you can increase your total PR.

Yes? Did anybody say differently?

[snip]
Just told you more than once.

I think you better refer back to the original paper, unless you want
to set up the DaveRank site after all.

Now, that was helpful.
Your treatment of pages with no
outgoing links is also wrong on your site btw.

Ok? Please tell me.
 
S

stoma

Dave was not talking about the index page. *You* changed the subject by talking
about a very simple (and very improbable) design.

Wrong again. Go back and read his post. Quick extract:
SEO Dave: So basically you have added 1000 new links to your home page, but
SEO Dave: because those links have drained PR from your other pages through
SEO Dave: linking, your home pages gets less PR.
I'm not defending Dave - I'm defending his post because it was true.
You, on the other hand, seem fixated on naysaying whatever Dave writes.

As I keep telling you, Dave's post was completely untrue. Even for a
typical site design, adding pages tends to increase the PR of your
home page by a useful amount. If you have ten sections in your site
linked from your index, plus five external links on there, adding an
eleventh section will increase PR as long as it bounces back more PR
than the externals (which it will). Though you reduce the PR of each
section slightly, it's by less than the 10% that you might think. So
overall you are winning.

This "SEO Dave" is just an irresponsible self-regarding dickhead who
teaches people to obsess over image tags and hyphenated domains when
they really need to be getting along with simply creating new pages
for new keywords and getting links to them from independent sites.
He's already used his new PR theory to berate someone for defying
common sense and adding new pages to his site! The guy's a loon.
And I'm not trying to get a "record for winning arguments" - I'm just trying to
stamp out idiocy wherever I see it. That's why I used to go after Sam, and if
you insist on playing "Son of Sam", so be it.

If my arguments are "idiocy", why is it that you keep being forced to
agree with them? It seems you're just another self-appointed "expert"
who gets rattled when someone comes along who really does know what
he's talking about, and can only resort to misdirection, contradiction
and name-calling when argued into a corner.
Yes? Did anybody say differently?

Er, yes, you did, in your last message (remember?)

Or implied it, with that incredulous "How?"
Ok? Please tell me.

You didn't go back to the paper after all? Here you go then. Pages
with no outgoing links are left out of the repeated iterations, and
added back in at the end. So internal PageRank leak, which you thought
important enough to call "Hagstroms Second Law", does not in fact
occur. Hope this helps.

-stoma
 
S

SEO Dave

I'm not defending Dave - I'm defending his post because it was true.
You, on the other hand, seem fixated on naysaying whatever Dave writes.

And I'm not trying to get a "record for winning arguments" - I'm just trying to
stamp out idiocy wherever I see it. That's why I used to go after Sam, and if
you insist on playing "Son of Sam", so be it.

I wouldn't waste your time on Sam or Stoma neither of them know how to
have a reasoned discussion and resort to personal attacks rather than
proving why they are right/you are wrong.

I have no problem being shown I'm wrong and welcome new information
with open arms. But when it's clear a persons primary goal is to try
to destroy another persons credibility and SERPs rather than get to
the facts you have to take what they say with a very large pinch of
salt.

Sam never had a clue what he was talking about/doing (look at the
Phone Sex SERP, PR3 pages in their!), Stoma on the other hand has a
fair grasp of the basics (he misunderstands some things, but he is new
to SEO so that is to be expected) and if he wasn't so obsessed with
nit picking at my posts and always trying to prove he is right by
twisting or misunderstanding what I write he might actually become
quite good at SEO.

As it stands he's entrenched in his views and is more interested in
being vindictive, so no matter what anyone says to him he will always
believe he is right and everything I say is wrong. It's funny how he
copies many of the things I'm doing, just like Sam did/does yet on
here bad mouths me. Complete hypocrite!

I'm quite happy to leave it like that since as long as he's got what
is basically a chip on his shoulder he'll never become a real threat
to my projects since he will never really understand SEO like I do.
Biggest risk from them is luck, sometimes webmasters just happen to
get it right by chance (so far they haven't been lucky :)).

Look at the Classic Literature thing Sam and Stoma have been trying to
do, they have made countless Guestbook and other spammy link posts to
their sites (I've lost count the number of Classic Literature sites
they have now!) and others, yet neither of them have kept a page in
the top 10 of what is a minor traffic SERP for even a week. My site
went straight into the top 10 and has consistently stayed there for
over 6 months (briefly went to page 2 in September for a week) even
though the home page and links are not optimised for the SERP any
more.

Anyway, if I continue to argue with him/them they might eventually
listen and learn something that they will then use against me (just
like Sam did with blog spamming)!! So it's in my best interest to let
the Sam's and Stoma's of this NG to remain ignorant. With this in mind
please let him bad mouth me and make posts that make little sense to
those who understand SEO. Read their funny posts, give a little
chuckle and move on.

Bet you never thought you'd see me post something so sensible as the
above :))

BTW I've noticed the readers of alt.html (where this is being cross
posted) have gone quiet on this thread. Suspect most of them haven't a
clue what we are going on about and don't care to know (don't blame
them!).

David
 
T

Toby Inkster

SEO said:
BTW I've noticed the readers of alt.html (where this is being cross
posted) have gone quiet on this thread.

I suspect most of us got bored with it several days ago.
 
S

stoma

I wouldn't waste your time on Sam or Stoma neither of them know how to
have a reasoned discussion and resort to personal attacks rather than
proving why they are right/you are wrong.

I have no problem being shown I'm wrong and welcome new information
with open arms. But when it's clear a persons primary goal is to try
to destroy another persons credibility and SERPs rather than get to
the facts you have to take what they say with a very large pinch of
salt.

It's funny you should say that about reasoned discussion, because the
last time I tried to give you some tips and guidance you came out
straight away with:
Why do you assume I care what you think?

(This was in response to a helpful suggestion about how you managed to
get your lingerie site banned.)

Then when I advised you to change an occurence of 'ebooks' to the
singular 'ebook' to hit more serps you just posted a list from
Wordtracker 'proving' that no one was looking for 'ebook' anyway, with
the comment:
Most searches looking for classic literature are not thinking
ebook they are thinking book.

Which did not alter the fact that your page did not use the word
'book' once, but did use the word 'ebooks'. Twice.

Then you descended to childish lies and insults. Then decided to close
your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and killfile me.
Sam never had a clue what he was talking about/doing (look at the
Phone Sex SERP, PR3 pages in their!), Stoma on the other hand has a
fair grasp of the basics (he misunderstands some things, but he is new
to SEO so that is to be expected) and if he wasn't so obsessed with
nit picking at my posts and always trying to prove he is right by
twisting or misunderstanding what I write he might actually become
quite good at SEO.

Odd that someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about
manages to dominate his chosen Serp. But when you try this so-called
ridiculously easy PR3 Serp (which you've been doing on and off for the
better part of a year), by your own admission you don't even make the
top 100. This is the reason you finally had to killfile your Nemesis
Sam. Actually at the time you didn't have a Phone Sex site in the top
500, never mind the top 10.
As it stands he's entrenched in his views and is more interested in
being vindictive, so no matter what anyone says to him he will always
believe he is right and everything I say is wrong. It's funny how he
copies many of the things I'm doing, just like Sam did/does yet on
here bad mouths me. Complete hypocrite!

Copy you Dave ?!? Er, like when? The only thing I do that's remotely
similar to you is online books, but I started dabbling in those five
years ago. And I do them completely differently from you, for very
good reasons.

Though you do seem to be copying me (for the wrong reasons). Suddenly
you've decided that, like I said, you posted your ebooks over too many
pages. Correct, but only because they're all nearly identical and
don't target extra serps, not because they absorb PR like you think.
And you've finally taken up my site-wide link penalty theory that I
went out on a limb to challenge you with, though you modified it
slightly and missed the real point.
Look at the Classic Literature thing Sam and Stoma have been trying to
do, they have made countless Guestbook and other spammy link posts to
their sites (I've lost count the number of Classic Literature sites
they have now!) and others, yet neither of them have kept a page in
the top 10 of what is a minor traffic SERP for even a week. My site
went straight into the top 10 and has consistently stayed there for
over 6 months (briefly went to page 2 in September for a week) even
though the home page and links are not optimised for the SERP any
more.

As a quick reminder, when Sam wanted to show who was the better SEO,
he went for Dave's "biggest, toughest" Serp. And within weeks got to
within one place of Dave's pride and joy, the result of months of hard
work. All with a ridiculous no-content bulletin-board page on a
freehost! Compare and contrast with Dave's total no-show at Sam's
Phone Sex Serp.

It's also funny how whenever Dave comes under pressure he pretends he
wasn't competing in the first place. "Not optimised" for Classic
Literature??? Come on Dave, are all those links from directories and
your freesite network all with the anchor "Classic Literature Library"
not there any more?
Anyway, if I continue to argue with him/them they might eventually
listen and learn something that they will then use against me (just
like Sam did with blog spamming)!! So it's in my best interest to let
the Sam's and Stoma's of this NG to remain ignorant. With this in mind
please let him bad mouth me and make posts that make little sense to
those who understand SEO. Read their funny posts, give a little
chuckle and move on.

OK, a quick run-down. Here are the only SEO methods that SEO Dave
knows that actually work:

1) Blog spamming.
2) Submitting to directories
3) Linking from your own sites.

Here are the methods that SEO Dave likes to recommend but which don't
make the slightest difference in a competitive Serp:

1) Optimising image tags.
2) Removing redundant source code.
3) Using hyphens in domain names.
4) Massive internal linking.
5) Pure PR of the target page.

Here are the methods that SEO Dave has been known to recommend but
which risk seriously harming your site:

1) Avoiding adding new pages.
2) Pointing two domains to one site.
3) Massive cross-linking between (sub-) domains.

If you really want to pick up some SEO tips that are effective, easy
to use, and risk free, then you'll frequently find them mentioned in
this group by the less egotistical posters. Only they won't be
labelled as such! You'll have to test them for yourself and see if
they work. But it shouldn't take too long.

(psssst, here's a quick way to tell if someone's any good at SEO or
not: See if they're whoring in newsgroups for SEO work. Anyone who's
really any good would spend their time working on their own sites, not
somebody else's)

The people from alt.html had SEO Dave sussed out right from the start.
He's a sad failure who can't even rank in the top 1000 for the site in
his sig. End of story.

-stoma
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top