+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: I've never seen this trick before

  1. #11
    Marketing Mentor Mikl is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    499
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 407 Times in 225 Posts
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by dsieg58 View Post
    We all know .edu links are some of the best link juice.
    Really? I've often heard that said, but I've never come across any evidence for it. Given that any student can post any rubbish in the student areas of their university's .EDU site, I can't see why Google should give them any special weight.

    Mike

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 278 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    There's even a name for this kind of "trick" (it's a blackhat tactic). It's called "Parasite SEO" and it's been in use for quite a while. Placing spam pages on a .edu site is something like finding the Holy Grail for SEO people.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to petertdavis For This Useful Post:

    crabfoot (30 September 2014), dsieg58 (1 October 2014)

  4. #13
    Publishing Mentor dsieg58 is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Midwest-USA, Southeast Asia
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 565 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    Really? I've often heard that said, but I've never come across any evidence for it.
    Proof is in the performance. Look at the graphic above. Wikipedia is in the middle of the second page. What does that suggest to you?

  5. #14
    Marketing Mentor Mikl is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    499
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 407 Times in 225 Posts
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by dsieg58 View Post
    Proof is in the performance. Look at the graphic above. Wikipedia is in the middle of the second page. What does that suggest to you?
    It suggests a one-off non-reproducible result.

    In general, I believe that search engines do not give special preference to .edu sites. If, as you assert, these sites offer "some of the best link juice", it is because the engines consider them to be high-quality sites - not because they happen to be .edu sites.

    Mike

  6. #15
    Publishing Mentor dsieg58 is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Midwest-USA, Southeast Asia
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 565 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    In general, I believe that search engines do not give special preference to .edu sites. If, as you assert, these sites offer "some of the best link juice", it is because the engines consider them to be high-quality sites - not because they happen to be .edu sites.
    Then I guess you must be right.

  7. #16
    Top Contributor crabfoot is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    East Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,193
    Blog Entries
    8
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikl View Post
    It suggests a one-off non-reproducible result.

    In general, I believe that search engines do not give special preference to .edu sites. If, as you assert, these sites offer "some of the best link juice", it is because the engines consider them to be high-quality sites - not because they happen to be .edu sites.

    Mike

    Your argument goes out of the window if you actually look at some of these pages - not just poor quality, but semi-intelligible Ingrish littered with keywords in many cases. If it is not the page quality, and it's not the edu site factor, what makes the search engines like them?

    dsieg58, DaveMcM and David S have found pages of search results littered with these .edu references. Next thing you'll be saying that these results only happen if you're called David.






    Last edited by crabfoot; 30 September 2014 at 2:32 pm.

  8. #17
    Marketing Mentor Mikl is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    499
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 407 Times in 225 Posts
    Rep Power
    14
    Let me put it this way.

    You are a Google user who needs some information on ... let's say, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914. You type that phrase, or something similar, into the search engine. What results would you want to get back?

    First and foremost, you would want to see pages that are relevant to that subject: ones that give you some solid information, or answer specific questions that you might have in mind.

    You would also want to see pages from "reputable" sites. One measure of this is the number and quality of relevant links to the site.

    After that, you might want to see up-to-date pages (although that would be less relevant in this particular example).

    And then, if pressed, you might express a preference for pages that load reasonably quickly, those where the relevant text is above the fold, and those which are not full of grammar and spelling errors. You might conceivably even want pages served via https rather than http (but probably not).

    I suggest that what you won't care one iota about is the top-level domain name on which the page is hosted. Whether it a .edu, .com. .net or .co.uk will give you no indication of the quality, relevance, reputation, freshness, or speed of loading of the page in question. In fact, chances are you won't even notice it.

    If you agree with this analysis, ask yourself why Google - whose entire business model depends on the quality of their search results - would use criteria for ranking those results which have no importance for the people doing the search.

    By the way, I just ran the above search in Google, and got the following in the first page of results (20 hits): 14 x .com, 3 x .co.uk (perhaps biased because I did the search from the UK), 1 x .org (wikipedia; this was the first result); 2 x .eu; 0 x .edu. Come to think of it, this isn't particularly relevant, as we were talking about the posible "link juice" of .edu sites, not their search engine rankings.

    Mike

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikl For This Useful Post:

    Chabrenas (1 October 2014), tke71709 (1 October 2014)

  10. #18
    Publishing Mentor dsieg58 is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Midwest-USA, Southeast Asia
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 565 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    First and foremost, you would want...
    You would also want ...
    After that, you might want...
    And then, if pressed, you might express ...
    I suggest that what you won't care...
    If you agree with this analysis,...
    No, Mike, YOU are talking about that. We aren't. What you are talking about is YOUR opinion.

    What we are talking about is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Three of us, in three different locations, using three different computers, came to the same conclusion. That is, someone (A Chinese website) was using .edu websites to achieve a superior ranking via a black hat technique. I even posted a graphic. That is called FACT. We are basing our opinions on, and discussing, the OBJECTIVE FACT or truth of our collective experience. Yet, somehow, you dismiss it as not being relevant in favor of your own subjective opinion.

    You, on the other hand, are using your SUBJECTIVE OPINION and calling it fact. We all see your viewpoint as opinion, and not fact. We aren't suffering from mass hallucinations. You are the only one who isn't understanding the current discussion. And in a perfect world, in your post above, you might be right. But it still has nothing to do with the current discussion.

    I don't want to argue with you, so I won't. Or get sidetracked off what we are discussing here. But you are discussing something we are not discussing, or has relevance to what we are discussing. I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat.

  11. #19
    Top Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,315
    Thanks
    229
    Thanked 872 Times in 448 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Sigh....

    Several of you seem to be stating that edu links are seen as being higher quality by Google.

    Allow me to quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by crabfoot View Post
    It does suggest that there is an advantage to be gained from hijacking pages on an edu site
    Quote Originally Posted by dsieg58 View Post
    We all know .edu links are some of the best link juice.
    Quote Originally Posted by dsieg58 View Post
    We all know .gov and .edu links are the best and have been for some time.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabfoot View Post
    Your argument goes out of the window if you actually look at some of these pages - not just poor quality, but semi-intelligible Ingrish littered with keywords in many cases. If it is not the page quality, and it's not the edu site factor, what makes the search engines like them?
    So I see several people (several people being subjective, but sadly on EP at the moment, more than two people commenting on a thread should be considered several) arguing that edu is better.

    Then we see a post with valid points. I'll take out the rest and leave the most important part.

    I suggest that what you won't care one iota about is the top-level domain name on which the page is hosted. Whether it a .edu, .com. .net or .co.uk will give you no indication of the quality, relevance, reputation, freshness, or speed of loading of the page in question. In fact, chances are you won't even notice it.
    Which gets responded to with...

    Quote Originally Posted by dsieg58 View Post
    No, Mike, YOU are talking about that. We aren't. What you are talking about is YOUR opinion.

    What we are talking about is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Three of us, in three different locations, using three different computers, came to the same conclusion. That is, someone (A Chinese website) was using .edu websites to achieve a superior ranking via a black hat technique. I even posted a graphic. That is called FACT. We are basing our opinions on, and discussing, the OBJECTIVE FACT or truth of our collective experience. Yet, somehow, you dismiss it as not being relevant in favor of your own subjective opinion.
    FACT: Someone is using an edu website to get better rankings.
    NOT NECESSARILY A FACT: Edu websites are more loved by Google and thus get ranked higher.

    And then...

    You, on the other hand, are using your SUBJECTIVE OPINION and calling it fact. We all see your viewpoint as opinion, and not fact. We aren't suffering from mass hallucinations. You are the only one who isn't understanding the current discussion. And in a perfect world, in your post above, you might be right. But it still has nothing to do with the current discussion.
    The series of quotes at the beginning of this post clearly show that the current discussion is whether an edu domain gets more love automatically. Mike has stated his opinion that it does not, and backed it up with a well thought-out argument as to why he doesn't believe that it is so. So to state that this has nothing to do with the current discussion is simply silly and to be honest insulting to Mike and discourages other potential posters in the future.

    Let me end by stating some important points

    1 - Simply because three people see something does not make it a fact.
    2 - Please don't speak for ALL of us seeing something one way, I, for one, disagree with your statement.
    3 - Correlation <> causation.
    4 - Civility has it's place.

    I really hope this thread is just a masterful plan to create controversy to encourage people to post and not a further indicator as to how far EP has fallen in terms of level of discourse and general usefulness.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tke71709 For This Useful Post:

    Chabrenas (1 October 2014), dsieg58 (1 October 2014)

  13. #20
    Publishing Mentor dsieg58 is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Midwest-USA, Southeast Asia
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 565 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    4 - Civility has it's place.
    I was being civil. Sorry you didn't think so.

    But let's take it from the top, and the post I was commenting on...
    Really? I've often heard that said, but I've never come across any evidence for it. Given that any student can post any rubbish in the student areas of their university's .EDU site, I can't see why Google should give them any special weight.
    "I've often heard that said...", "I've never come across...", "I can't see why..." are all statements of opinion. And opinions are fine. Everyone is entitled to one.

    But we are discussing THE FACT that someone IS using .edu websites to take over the entire page one of Google. Which is what this thread is about. Ergo, when someone is able to use .edu websites to take over the entire page one of Google, there is compelling evidence in the form of Google SERP's itself, that they may be using .edu websites to take over the entire page one of Google for said keyword. Since, as Crabfoot pointed out, many of the pages are gibberish and keyword stuffed, it isn't about quality content, as Google itself would lead us to believe. Which leads us to conclude there must be other factors involved. And the consensus is, by sheer weight of overwhelming OBJECTIVE evidence of Google SERP's themselves, since all the offending websites are .edu, that .edu itself has something to do with it. Given those factors, it stands to reason, that Google likes .edu a lot more than my .com. That's it in a nutshell.

    If Mike thinks this opinion beats all the evidence to the contrary, that's cool too. But last I looked, I wasn't under the obligation to agree with his opinion over fact. If Mike is disputing the fact that three of us all got the same result, that's all right too. But it's not unusual for people with alternate viewpoints to back up their opinions with facts either, which I didn't see any evidence of.

    Like I said, I'm not arguing, or trying to be uncivil or insulting. But I don't know how to put it any "nicer."
    Last edited by dsieg58; 1 October 2014 at 11:39 am.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. SEO trick: How do they do this?
    By Clinton in forum General & Miscellaneous
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 4 September 2010, 4:21 am
  2. Am i missing a trick?
    By Freeman1974 in forum Making Money Online, Monetization
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2 August 2010, 5:08 pm
  3. GoDaddy missed a trick
    By Clinton in forum Selling a Website, Blog, Domain or Business
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8 March 2010, 11:52 am

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts