Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftmonkey
Did you read the article Steve? Maybe I'm missing something but SEO for keywords is a completely different aspect of site ranking. The article does not mention keyword relevancy as you are describing- it refers to "link relevancy".
The article points out that the link figures on popular conspiracy sites (which one can find with a special "link search") come up much lower than the actual figures.
He gives some examples and describes the process that he used to find the discrepancy in the numbers. If the link relevancy is kept artificially low, those sites will have lower rankings.
|
I confess I'm no Internet expert but from my own website building I know the importance of key words and SEO. That's what I based my reply on. However, SJKTED has answered the question for both of us.
Also may I point out the link you supplied is way way out of date. Not being funny but you should noticed that. It was published in August of 2007.
When I was testing the theory in the link I noticed an error or an anomaly. Look at these links and
notice the dots used :::::::: The author supplied a
: link but no
. link. See below.
Link:www.infowars.com 5,340....respective links
Link.
www.infowars.com 307,000
www.infowars.com 3,860,000
google search infowars 1,390,000
did the same for the jolly old BBC
Link:www.bbc.com 21,300....respective hits
Link.
www.bbc.com 34,500,000
www.bbc.com 254,000
google search BBC 115,000,000
It seems it's all a bit of popularity contest. On the beauty pageant of google searches it seems conspiracy sites are low on the agenda.
EDIT to clarify... its the :::::: used after the word link.
EDIT made a typo and CORRECTED google search infowars to 1,390,000 NOT 139,000 as I posted ....sorry for that