surely the bottom line is well written material, even without SE in the equation should do well.

DMX wrote:

How clever. We're pretty well being "forced" to write original, interesting and unique content. Hate that.

atwhatcost wrote:

DMX, actually, might not be as hard as you think. 

K, lest you start thinking I'm serious. I stopped watching television about three years ago because I got sick up and fed of being insulted by marketing efforts that are hilarious about 1% of the time and inane drivel the rest... (We watch DVD's...)

I think the direction that SE's appear to be taking toward well indexed pages (rather than counting keywords or such) is in everyone's best interest. Ours, because the internet will do a better job of delivering what people are searching for and not become a wasteland of inept, spammy confusion. Google, for the same reason and also because the better job they do of delivering well targeted search results for your query, the more demand they generate for all things google, which I believe, are all things...

I cant wait for this whole PaIR idea to be implemented, my site will finally get the rankings it deserves... especially considering my website has stax more content than all my competition.... is updated daily and is just plain better!!!!!! damn them... damn them to heck

The prevailing theory is that is IT IN THE SYSTEM and they are slowly turning the dials to increase the role it plays ... obviously a complete change over would throw the webmaster world into a tizzy,... sooooooo

Throwing the whole world into a tizzy.... that wouldnt be all bad, perhaps it will shock people into improving their sites with better content and be more cautious of spamming.

Well the Spam detection aspects should (initially at lest) have far less 'collateral' damage than the current model. Strangely it seems to leave the door open for discerning 'levels' of Spam - which only concerned me as it is an open door to dealing with false/positives and collateral damage....

Here's the stuff on Spam Detection in a PaIR system.....

I'm afraid this topic is making me a bit cranky today.

First of all, there is no such thing as "original content". As soon as you put it on your web site, someone will come along and steal it, copyright or no copyright, they don't give a damn. There are dozens of examples of my original work on other people's sites, even periodically all over eBay.

Second, spammers are annoying, yes, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They do the same thing we do, which is to try to figure out how to get good SE results/rankings. They change with the times and the new algos just the way we do.

If I'm selling jewelry, and you're selling weight loss pills, who is to determine what is spam and what isn't?

To quote from Gypsy's article: "According to the folks that drafted it, a normal related, topical phrase occurrence (or related phrases) is in the order of 8-20 whereas the typical Spam document would contain between 100-1000 related phrases. So by looking for statistical deviations in related phrase occurrences the system can flag an item as Spam."

I'll bet I have the phrases "costume jewelry" or "antique jewelry " about a kazillion times on my web site. Now some techno-nerd comes along and says that's because I'm outside of his "normal" range???

Ah, phooey.

cooljools wrote:

I'm afraid this topic is making me a bit cranky today.

First of all, there is no such thing as "original content".

Dr. Zeus' is origional content.


As soon as you put it on your web site, someone will come along and steal it, copyright or no copyright, they don't give a damn. There are dozens of examples of my original work on other people's sites, even periodically all over eBay.

Second, spammers are annoying, yes, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They do the same thing we do, which is to try to figure out how to get good SE results/rankings. They change with the times and the new algos just the way we do.

If I'm selling jewelry, and you're selling weight loss pills, who is to determine what is spam and what isn't?

To quote from Gypsy's article: "According to the folks that drafted it, a normal related, topical phrase occurrence (or related phrases) is in the order of 8-20 whereas the typical Spam document would contain between 100-1000 related phrases. So by looking for statistical deviations in related phrase occurrences the system can flag an item as Spam."

I'll bet I have the phrases "costume jewelry" or "antique jewelry " about a kazillion times on my web site.

Maybe you are not reading it correctly; it discusses phrase occurrences in a document, which should not be confused with an entire website.

Now some techno-nerd comes along and says that's because I'm outside of his "normal" range???

Much of what you read are opinions, assumptions and theories. SEO articles are not the 10 commandments.

Ah, phooey.

Yes, Dr. Seuss is original content. I was referring to cyber-content.

I think I'm feeling cranky because I spent many months putting together a jewelry glossary on my web site. It was a lot of work.

A few days ago, I found that it had been copied and pasted, word for word, into a competotir's web site. I e-mailed them about it. Said I didn't mind, but it would've been nice if they had asked, and could they please give me credit by putting one little link to my web site? Never heard back from them. ah well,.. so it goes....

Funny we should be talking about this. Today, Google lost a lawsuit against them for copyright infringement:

A Belgian court on Tuesday ordered the search giant to refrain from showing excerpts of articles from French- and German-language Belgian newspapers on Google News and Google's Web search site for Belgium, reaffirming an earlier ruling by the same court against the search giant. However, in a nod to Google, the court reduced the daily fine Google faces if it fails to heed the order, from $1.3 million to $32,500. "

P.S. Gypsy's article included both web pages and web sites:

"It is calculated over individual/multiple documents and collections of documents (web pages and website for our purposes)."

cooljools wrote:

Yes, Dr. Seuss is original content. I was referring to cyber-content.

I think I'm feeling cranky because I spent many months putting together a jewelry glossary on my web site. It was a lot of work.

A few days ago, I found that it had been copied and pasted, word for word, into a competotir's web site. I e-mailed them about it. Said I didn't mind, but it would've been nice if they had asked, and could they please give me credit by putting one little link to my web site? Never heard back from them. ah well,.. so it goes....

Funny we should be talking about this. Today, Google lost a lawsuit against them for copyright infringement:

A Belgian court on Tuesday ordered the search giant to refrain from showing excerpts of articles from French- and German-language Belgian newspapers on Google News and Google's Web search site for Belgium, reaffirming an earlier ruling by the same court against the search giant. However, in a nod to Google, the court reduced the daily fine Google faces if it fails to heed the order, from $1.3 million to $32,500. "

P.S. Gypsy's article included both web pages and web sites:

"It is calculated over individual/multiple documents and collections of documents (web pages and website for our purposes)."

I am not going to engage in splitting hairs on how an article should be interpreted or what conscious mind gypsy is in when he cites or writes something. But the core message is that webmasters should be striving to see their webs become authority sites, which overall will help you the most in the SERPS.

Scrapers will scrap, hot linkers will hot link, and text will continue to be copied. The things people fret about the most seem to be the things that they really have no control over, that does not make much sense. SEO is most likely going to remain fairly dynamic, so what works for some today, may not tomorrow.

So Google got sued... Have you a MySpace, where reincarnations of others material appear every 2 minutes?

Holy crap Lyn..what in yer bonnet m'lady?

If I'm selling jewelry, and you're selling weight loss pills, who is to determine what is spam and what isn't?

To quote from Gypsy's article: "According to the folks that drafted it, a normal related, topical phrase occurrence (or related phrases) is in the order of 8-20 whereas the typical Spam document would contain between 100-1000 related phrases. So by looking for statistical deviations in related phrase occurrences the system can flag an item as Spam."

I'll bet I have the phrases "costume jewelry" or "antique jewelry " about a kazillion times on my web site. Now some techno-nerd comes along and says that's  because I'm outside of his "normal" range???

Once again you have mis-understood things. Tsk tsk.. ‘phooey lady’ – make sure U have it before you throw it out.

NOW – it is talking about core phrases on a site…. whereas mine may he 8-20 core phrases

Search Engine Optimization
Internet marketing
Website promotion
SEO company
SEO services

--- and their ‘extensions’ – ie; ‘Search Engine Optimization services’ or ‘affordable Search Engine Optimization services’ etc….

Whereas a SPAM site apparently covers everything including the kitchen sink.

It is NOT about how many times you use a phrase on the site really. It is more the number of inferences compared statistically with other sites in your market.

I strongly doubt legitimate webmasters have need for concerns…. If you have stuffed KeyPhrases all over you site, the content is likely weak and I dare say so are conversions… you have issues other than SEO….

Ok,... ok,.... I'm sorry for being so grouchy. I'll take my licks and do one hundred laps around the field (huff, puff)

Let me know when I can come out of the dog house

I guess that the race is on now to find the magic phrases and safe frequency? I guess LS phrases as produced by most keyword discovery tools still apply? It's just how they are measured and scored within a collection of documents that has changed?

Just a quick update - I sat down and wrote another final piece on PaIR that will be published on Monday's SR newsletter and on the site.

It will not be published elsewhere, stricly for SR folks....  Along with the article is absolutely EVERY PaIR related resource there is out there....

Be proud o fellow SR members.... WMW and other SEO boards are just coming around to the PaIR adaptations.. we were way ahead of the curve on this one... he he... Nice to get the drop on the SEO world ain''t it?

We can continue this thread, or start a new fresh...  I don't want folks being intimidated to dig through a longer one.. we'll see....

Well done! Looking forward to the newsletter... Put on your surgical gloves people! We've got some dissecting to do...

cooljools wrote:

Ok,... ok,.... I'm sorry for being so grouchy. I'll take my licks

We wanna see the movie of where Gypsy is spanking you...

TheGypsy wrote:

Just a quick update - I sat down and wrote another final piece on PaIR that will be published on Monday's SR newsletter and on the site.

It will not be published elsewhere, stricly for SR folks....  Along with the article is absolutely EVERY PaIR related resource there is out there....

Be proud o fellow SR members.... WMW and other SEO boards are just coming around to the PaIR adaptations.. we were way ahead of the curve on this one... he he... Nice to get the drop on the SEO world ain''t it?

We can continue this thread, or start a new fresh...  I don't want folks being intimidated to dig through a longer one.. we'll see....

Whew -- all of this is so far over my head; guess I'll wait for the newsletter and try to swim thru it to figure out exactly what you're trying to say...

ha ha ha ha... well I assure U... it strangely is taking folks some effort to get there heads around on the other boards I have been yipping about

I think that's beause it is fundamentally a NEW or SEPERATE indexing and retrieval (IR) method NOT an algo update or tweak as folks tend to try and associate it with.

Current Methods + New Method = Hybrid IR method

So, the implications are far reaching and affect, among other things;

Ranking
On Page Factors
Link Profiles
Duplicate content detection and handling
Spam detection AND scoring (scoring Spam?)
Perosnalized Search
Local Search

... U get the idea. So it's not a " Do I need a better Phrase density?" - it's adapting everything you are currently doing to account for the additional factors...

I am a 'fire and forget it guy' so I digest the information and continue along my merry way.