Getting Granular: The DigitalGrit Blog

Wikia Search Previews Monday

2008 is off to an auspicious start: Jimmy Wales will preview Wikia, the new social, community-driven search engine, on Monday. According to CNET, the Wikia search engine has been conceived in a true Web 2.0 environment, with full transparency and openness to feedback, powered by open-source algorithms. Users will contribute ranking suggestions and be allowed to edit search results.

"The desire to collaborate and support a transparent and open platform for search is clearly deeply exciting to both open source and businesses," Wales said in a statement in July. "Look for other exciting announcements in the coming months as we collectively work to free the judgment of information from invisible rules inside an algorithmic black box."

(Yes...that was a dig to Google, Yahoo! and others who keep their algorithms guarded by Ninjas and heavily armed militia.)

I can't wait to see the previews - or how Wikia shakes up SEM as we know it.

Link Wars: Yahoo Site Explorer vs. Google Webmaster Tools

When talking to clients about link building, one of the first things I bring up is why Yahoo Site Explorer and Google Webmaster Tools are the best sources for comprehensive backlink data.

I go on to explain how Google purposely offers random and incomplete data when you run a link: command on their search engine. I also explain how MSN's link: command turns on and off as if it where controlled by The Clapper (dating myself a bit with that reference, I know).

I then go on to explain that the link: command in Yahoo, which automatically sends you into their Yahoo Site Explorer section, delivers a very comprehensive set of backlink data that can be sorted and filtered in a variety of ways. Google Webmaster Tools offers a similar level of detail, but the data is organized in a slightly different manner; it actually lists every URL that has inbound links pointing to it, and includes the actual number per URL.

Note: Just in case you didn't know, in order to access this backlink data, you must first register your site with Google Webmaster Tools and then submit and verify an XML sitemap. Once you've completed that process, Google delivers a wide array of information including this detailed backlink data I'm referring to.

So client education aside, what's the absolute best tool for conducting research into the backlink portfolio of your site? Should you go with Google Webmaster Tools or Yahoo Site Explorer?

Let's start by comparing the numbers.

I checked a number of sites that I have access to via Google Webmaster Tools, and compared the backlink data. Interestingly enough, Yahoo Site Explorer reported more backlinks than Google Webmaster Tools for every domain I checked.

Incidentally, in order to compare these numbers, I filtered the Yahoo data by choosing to view "inlinks" (that's Yahoo's term for inbound links/backlinks) and choosing the "Except from this domain" drop-down option as well as the "Entire Site" drop-down option.

So it would appear that at Yahoo Site Explorer has the upper hand, but as with most things in life, quantity does not necessarily equal quality.

The next thing I chose to analyze was the usefulness of the data being presented, or better yet, the usefulness of how the data is presented.

On the surface, it would appear that Google Webmaster Tools has the upper hand in that they deliver detailed backlink data organized by URL, allowing you to easily identify what pages of your site possess the most backlinks as well as exactly where those links are coming from. Yahoo's data is delivered in the form of a search result, simply listing the actual backlinks pointing to either the homepage or the entire site.

But as my favorite college football pundit, Lee Corso, likes to say, "not so fast my friend." Thought it is difficult to prove this empirically, it appears as if Yahoo Site Explorer lists the backlinks in order of their potency. In other words, the most powerful links are listed first.

If you don't believe me, check it out on your own sites (and don't just base it on the PageRank assigned).

Anyhow, back to the task at hand. Admittedly, there are various other factors to consider when evaluating these two backlink analysis tools, but I'm writing a blog post, not a thesis. I'll definitely follow up on this topic, but for the time being, I think I've come to a conclusion.

If you're analyzing the backlink portfolio of your own site(s) both Google Webmaster Tools and Yahoo Site Explorer offer uniquely valuable insights. So in this respect, it's a tie.

However, if you're looking for competitive insight, it's a no-brainer. Google Webmaster Tools limits you to just your own site, but you can analyze any site under sun in Yahoo Site Explorer. So if you're looking to see what you're competitors are doing (and you definitely should be doing that) it's all about the big Y!

Bonus Fun: In Yahoo Site Explorer, you can actually run a backlink query for both www.yahoo.com and www.google.com. Let's just say that their backlink portfolio is a bit humbling.

Google in the Holiday Spirit

It seems Google is feeling particularly festive this year...  When you do a search for holiday related keywords like "snowman", "Christmas Tree", "Kwanzaa" or "Hanukkah" they are displaying little images like this. What other words can you find that produce a similar result?

A simple conversation with Muhammad Saleem

Muhammad Saleem is a regular guy. He recently graduated from college. He works in the online space. He enjoys offbeat news items. He blogs.

So what makes him worthy of mention?

Saleem, or rather “msaleem,” is considered to be the one of the most influential users on Digg.com, with over 1,000 popular Diggs to his credit. And that makes the 22-year old a virtual god in the social media space.

One of the fundamental reasons for his rise to prominence is the fact that he was an early adopter, joining Digg.com back in September of 2005. But there’s more to it than that. The Chicago native embodies what social networking is supposed to be all about; meeting people and making friends.

And how do I know this? Because he told me.

Now I’m most definitely not would you would call an early adopter over at Digg, having finally registered back in February of this year. So how did I manage to land an audience with Muhammad? No, it’s not because of my marketing and/or networking prowess. It’s because I recently Dugg one of his submissions and took a second to review his profile. I noticed that he encourages folks to reach out to him via IM, so I decided to give it a shot.

Sure enough, Muhammad responded to my initial IM and we struck a brief conversation. It basically went like this:

I asked him some questions about his professional and personal life. He added me to his IM. I tried to impress him with my SEO resume (don’t think it worked) and we talked a little bit about how difficult it is to convince corporate clients about the virtues of both social media and original content. After a period of inactivity, I told him that it was time for Monday Night Football and he told me it was time for dinner, and that was it.

Frankly, it was refreshing to know that an individual that is so well-known in social media circles would take the time to talk with a virtual nobody. Furthermore, when I tried to explain why I was randomly sending him an IM, he responded by saying, “not at all random. I get this all the time, and enjoy it : - )”

Now at this point, some of you might have your cynicism censors firing off at full tilt. You might think that that Mr. Saleem’s approach is a thinly veiled attempt to further expand his virtual social empire, and that his motivations have little to do with actual human interaction.

I gotta tell you. I got the opposite vibe.

If anything, it seemed as if Muhammad was turned off by my attempts to turn the conversation into a networking event. It was refreshing, and it has inspired me to evaluate how I go about interacting with virtual friends and acquaintances.

Oh, and I also added my IM info to my Digg profile!

The Google of Oz: Is big G's algo a facade?

There were a lot of memorable moments in the 1939 classic, "The Wizard of Oz". My favorite is when Dorothy first lands in Oz and the movie suddenly shifts from black and white to color. However, there was another moment that has proven to be more significant on many levels; when we find out the wizard is really just an old fragile man hiding behind a grand facade.

Recently, I've begun to wonder if much like that famed wizard, Google's algorithm is more smoke and mirrors than hard substance.

While tinkering around with Google's various search commands during the Thanksgiving "break" (no such thing for SEO) I came across a startling pattern. It seemed as if every natural search engine result I pulled up was a mirror image of its corresponding allinanchor result.

Most enterprising webmasters are fully aware of the importance of Google's allinanchor command as it relates to understanding search engine rankings, but just in case you need a primer, here goes:
The allinanchor command essentially shows what urls have the most inbound links containing anchor text for a specific search term. To test it out, simply visit Google and type in "allinanchor:" followed by your chosen search term.

Allinanchor tutorials aside, the strikingly identical result sets stopped me in my tracks. Why were the allinanchor results virtually identical to natural search queries for the exact same search terms? At first, I figured that allinanchor was simply broken. After all, notable SEO voices like randfish have noticed issues with the command over the years. It's also not a good sign when Google's own help page on advanced search operators does not list either inanchor or allinanchor.

However, a closer look at the command revealed that some of the telltale signs of malfunction where missing. First and foremost, the result sets for regular search and allinanchor are not completely identical. Secondly, the amount of results for each is not identical. Lastly, there seem to be plenty of well-respected SEO folks that still refer to allinanchor and believe that it is still a valid command within Google.

And if it is, then Google's algorithm is much simpler than I previously believed.

I tested a variety of search terms, ranging from single words to three-word phrases and across various genres including news, products, celebrities, and SEO related topics.

The results are striking to say the least:
Keyword: NFL
Results: In Google, top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped factors such as indexed pages, page backlink totals, domain backlink totals, keyword density (no surprise) and domain age, which are considered to be fundamental ranking indicators.
*Yahoo results had six top 10 matches, and only two were exact

Keyword: Madonna
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results has four top 10 matches, and only three were exact

Keyword: ipod
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: SEO
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: world news
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results has three matches, and zero were exact

Keyword: Britney Spears
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched (note: Google News was No. 1 so that's thrown out)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only two were exact

Keyword: Nintendo Wii
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched (note: Google News was No. 1 so that's thrown out)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: paid links
Results: top 9 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 4 were perfectly matched (one was not in top 10 and the other five were one off)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had one top 10 match, and it was not exact

Keyword: 2007 presidential campaign
Results: top 9 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 9 were perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and only one was exact (no. 1 spot)

Keyword: Samuel L. Jackson
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had seven top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: iomega zip drive
Results: top 8 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 8 were perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and three were exact

Keyword: social media optimization
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and two were exact

Note: I want to take a moment to mention the folks over at webuildpages.com for providing a tremendously useful tool that allowed me to search for all of the aforementioned factors all at once. They've got other great tools over there as well.

So what did I take away from this little exercise in data mining? It's simple. If Google's allinanchor command still works, then it means that the amount of anchor text containing a specific search term is by far the most influential factor in determining Google search engine results, trumping virtually all other SEO factors. In layman's terms, anchor text is king.

Scary, huh? Although, to be fair, even if Google's algo is this simplistic, it still somehow provides what I believe to be by far the most relevant and useful results of any engine.

Sadly, I'm not totally convinced that the allinanchor command is working, so I encourage all who read this to chime in with anecdotes and evidence that either refutes or confirms its validity. I also encourage you to find examples of search engine results where allinanchor does not necessarily predict ranking order.

After all, the power and insight of the community almost always trumps that of the individual, and I would really like to get to the bottom of this potential epiphany.

There were a lot of memorable moments in the 1939 classic, "The Wizard of Oz". My favorite is when Dorothy first lands in Oz and the movie suddenly shifts from black and white to color. However, there was another moment that has proven to be more significant on many levels; when we find out the wizard is really just an old fragile man hiding behind a grand facade.

Recently, I've begun to wonder if much like that famed wizard, Google's algorithm is more smoke and mirrors than hard substance.

While tinkering around with Google's various search commands during the Thanksgiving "break" (no such thing for SEO) I came across a startling pattern. It seemed as if every natural search engine result I pulled up was a mirror image of its corresponding allinanchor result.

Most enterprising webmasters are fully aware of the importance of Google's allinanchor command as it relates to understanding search engine rankings, but just in case you need a primer, here goes:
The allinanchor command essentially shows what urls have the most inbound links containing anchor text for a specific search term. To test it out, simply visit Google and type in "allinanchor:" followed by your chosen search term.

Allinanchor tutorials aside, the strikingly identical result sets stopped me in my tracks. Why were the allinanchor results virtually identical to natural search queries for the exact same search terms? At first, I figured that allinanchor was simply broken. After all, notable SEO voices like randfish have noticed issues with the command over the years. It's also not a good sign when Google's own help page on advanced search operators does not list either inanchor or allinanchor.

However, a closer look at the command revealed that some of the telltale signs of malfunction where missing. First and foremost, the result sets for regular search and allinanchor are not completely identical. Secondly, the amount of results for each is not identical. Lastly, there seem to be plenty of well-respected SEO folks that still refer to allinanchor and believe that it is still a valid command within Google.

And if it is, then Google's algorithm is much simpler than I previously believed.

I tested a variety of search terms, ranging from single words to three-word phrases and across various genres including news, products, celebrities, and SEO related topics.

The results are striking to say the least:
Keyword: NFL
Results: In Google, top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped factors such as indexed pages, page backlink totals, domain backlink totals, keyword density (no surprise) and domain age, which are considered to be fundamental ranking indicators.
*Yahoo results had six top 10 matches, and only two were exact

Keyword: Madonna
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results has four top 10 matches, and only three were exact

Keyword: ipod
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: SEO
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: world news
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results has three matches, and zero were exact

Keyword: Britney Spears
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched (note: Google News was No. 1 so that's thrown out)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had five top 10 matches, and only two were exact

Keyword: Nintendo Wii
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched (note: Google News was No. 1 so that's thrown out)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: paid links
Results: top 9 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 4 were perfectly matched (one was not in top 10 and the other five were one off)
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had one top 10 match, and it was not exact

Keyword: 2007 presidential campaign
Results: top 9 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 9 were perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and only one was exact (no. 1 spot)

Keyword: Samuel L. Jackson
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had seven top 10 matches, and only one was exact

Keyword: iomega zip drive
Results: top 8 of top 10 rankings correspond with allinanchor, and 8 were perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and three were exact

Keyword: social media optimization
Results: top 10 rankings and top 10 for allinanchor are perfectly matched
*allinanchor trumped all other aforementioned key factors
*Yahoo results had four top 10 matches, and two were exact

Note: I want to take a moment to mention the folks over at webuildpages.com for providing a tremendously useful tool that allowed me to search for all of the aforementioned factors all at once. They've got other great tools over there as well.

So what did I take away from this little exercise in data mining? It's simple. If Google's allinanchor command still works, then it means that the amount of anchor text containing a specific search term is by far the most influential factor in determining Google search engine results, trumping virtually all other SEO factors. In layman's terms, anchor text is king.

Scary, huh? Although, to be fair, even if Google's algo is this simplistic, it still somehow provides what I believe to be by far the most relevant and useful results of any engine.

Sadly, I'm not totally convinced that the allinanchor command is working, so I encourage all who read this to chime in with anecdotes and evidence that either refutes or confirms its validity. I also encourage you to find examples of search engine results where allinanchor does not necessarily predict ranking order.

After all, the power and insight of the community almost always trumps that of the individual, and I would really like to get to the bottom of this potential epiphany.

Tales from the hosting provider crypt: PhinHeaven.com

Do me a favor. Visit the following URL and tell me what you see?
http://www.phinheaven.com

Those who have had this happen will immediately know what's going on there and will emphatically agree with the following statement:

Having your third-party hosting provider drop the ball can be the worst thing that ever happens to your business.

Now I'm not just talking about downtime, like what occurred to thousands of RackSpace customers a few weeks back, when a truck hit a transformer feeding power to its Dallas data center. I'm referring to the utter collapse of a website due to gross negligence on the part of its third-party hosting provider.

As many of us know from experience, sites are often the target of all sorts of malicious server attacks. Reliable hosting companies, like RackSpace, are not immune to this type of attack but are typically well-prepared to handle such emergency and quickly restore data and functionality to the stricken site.

I know this because I've worked with companies that employ RackSpace's services and have quickly gotten back to normal after suffering through some sort of internet malady. I've also worked with companies that chose to go with less reliable hosting providers only to find out after the fact, that their server was not properly backed up or otherwise protected.

The result is lots of lost data, suffering search engine rankings, and in some cases, the utter collapse of what was once a great online portal.

For the record, yes I'm a fan of the Miami Dolphins (insert tasteless jokes here). The site I've referenced was considered to be, by far, the largest online fan forum for that team.

Sadly, their decision to go with a lackluster hosting provider has rendered them null and void for over a month, and has likely resulted in hundreds if not thousands of defections to competing fan sites and an overall drop in SEO presence.

Hosting is not a facet that lends itself to penny pinching. Make sure that your provider is up to the challenge of handling potentially disastrous situations. If it's not, spend the extra money to make sure that you're covered.

Otherwise, your site might be the next to find itself in the hosting provider crypt.

DigitalGrit is now Zeta Interactive

Not long ago, DigitalGrit became part of Adverb Media. Joining with sister companies Temel and RelevantNoise as Adverb gave us a broader capabilities set so we could offer our clients a true full-service experience.

Today, we move to the next chapter. Zeta Interactive - what's next in digital marketng.

The press release below tells the story...

Zustek Corporation Acquires Adverb Media; Launches Full-Service Digital Marketing Agency - Zeta Interactive

New company combines talents and technologies of five digital marketing leaders to provide customers with complete marketing solutions

NEW YORK, Nov. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Zustek Corporation, a leading provider of email marketing communications solutions, today announced it has acquired Adverb Media, an award-winning interactive marketing, technology and services agency. Adverb Media is comprised of DigitalGrit, a direct response and search marketing firm, Temel, a brand strategy and creative agency, and RelevantNoise(TM), a technology firm dedicated to mining the social Internet for business intelligence. With this announcement comes the formation of Zeta Interactive, a company that combines the talents and proprietary technologies of all five firms, offering complete, cross-media, multi-channel marketing solutions to its customers worldwide. Al DiGuido, a digital-marketing veteran and CEO of Zustek will continue as CEO of Zeta Interactive.   

Yahoo Goes Social, Following Google's Footsteps (NY Times)

Predictably, Yahoo has followed Google in revealing plans to create a create its own social network. From the NY Times:

Ignore Orkut, OpenSocial, Yahoo Mash and Yahoo 360. Google and Yahoo have come up with new and very similar plans to respond to the challenge from MySpace and Facebook: They hope to turn their e-mail systems and personalized home page services (iGoogle and MyYahoo) into social networks.

Web-based e-mail systems already contain much of what Facebook calls the social graph — the connections between people. That’s why the social networks offer to import the e-mail address books of new users to jump-start their list of friends. Yahoo and Google realize that they have this information and can use it to build their own services that connect people to their contacts.

We knew this was coming from Goog, and we (of course) suspected Yahoo wouldn't be far behind.

SEO Recruiting Open House - Thursday, Nov. 15

SEO Experts: Are you searching for a great job?

Are you looking for a great culture and the opportunity to work for an innovative, growing, top interactive agency? We are hiring for several interactive marketing positions, but we’re really focused on finding search talent – SEO specialists.

Why DigitalGrit? Because we promote entrepreneurialism. We want great people. Fun people. Smart people. Happy people. People who are willing to learn…and to pass that knowledge on to others.

Does Search Engine Optimization intrigue you? If it does, we want to meet you. We have offices in NJ and NYC and are hiring for all level SEO positions.

Come to our Open House on 11/15 from 4:00-7:00 at the Hudson Hotel in NY (356 W 58th St) and let us learn about you and the career you’re searching for.

Walk in or schedule an appointment by emailing us at [email protected].

Can't make the open house...Call us for an individual appointment.

Feel free to pass this along to industry peers.

IndexRank vying to oust Google's little green bar

For years, enterprising webmasters have attempted to build a reliable third-party gauge for measuring the strength of a specific web page. The rationale is simple. Currently, toolbar PR serves as the default gauge for the value of an inbound link from a specific web page. Sophisticated webmasters have devised more effective methods, but for the most part, the valuation of an inbound links (reciprocal, paid, or otherwise) has been PageRank.

Clearly, there should be a more effective tool for evaluating the value or “weight” of a specific web page, and coming up with that tool would render Google’s PR useless, once and for all.

Unfortunately, building an alternative to Google’s little green bar has proven to be an elusive undertaking. Currently, the best alternative that I’ve come across is the Page Strength offered up by seomoz.org. Sadly, I feel that this tool falls short of

Rand’s original vision, which he shared with me years ago, and I haven’t seen any better alternatives out there.

Until now!

As many of you already know, Michael Jensen from soloseo.com recently released his IndexRank tool, which analyzes the frequency with which Google indexes a site’s new content. While far from perfect, the tool does provide a fairly systematic way of analyzing the aforementioned “weight” of a specific web page by utilizing one of the most definitive pieces of Google data available. Furthermore, Jensen’s tool relies solely on Google index data and avoids some of the potentially useless information that the seomoz.org “Page Strength” tool relies upon (example: “Page Strength” takes factors such as Alexa ranking into account).

Again, I do see some fairly significant shortcomings that plague Jensen’s “IndexRank.” For example, it does not seem to have any reporting/exporting features, which would allow a webmaster to easily transfer the data to a separate document for further analysis.

 

Also, the tool is limited to domain queries, so you cannot gain insight into the weight of specific pages outside of the homepage.

Perhaps the most glaring shortcoming stems from the IndexRank algorithm itself. Jensen’s algorithm being used seems to favor sites that have a high ratio of newly indexed content compared to total indexed content. In laymen’s terms, established sites with an extremely high number of total indexed pages will get a lower score then sites with less total indexed pages even if they get more content indexed on a regular basis.

Here’s an example I pulled directly from the tool:

                                                                               

				Pages   Indexed
Domain	2 Weeks		1 Month	3 Months	6 Months	1 Year	Total	IndexRank
www.nfl.com	859		1430	9780	9790	9750	50500	6
www.realfootball365.com	130		246	417	581	1390	18500	9

The fact that the second site, an independent football portal that has is getting much less content indexed on a regular basis, is benefiting from the fact that it has way fewer total pages indexed.

Those were the first two shortcomings that popped into my mind, but I figured that it might be a good idea to ask the guy that turned me on to this tool – Aaron Wall from SEOBook.com - if he spotted any other potential bugs.

Here are Aaron’s thoughts on the matter. “I can see Google going out of their way to obfuscate this data, especially for site: searches...such that they make it hard to get any value out of such a specific tool.

There are lots of ways to bolt on data and add features, but the key is figuring out how to do so without straining your server beyond its limit or getting so well known that Google ends up blocking the site or obfuscating the data.”

Aaron definitely had some interesting insights on potential pitfalls, but it wouldn’t be fair to point out IndexRank’s faults without giving the creator a chance to respond. Here is an excerpt of my conversation with Michael Jenson:

Q: Do you plan on adding any reporting and/or exporting features?

A: We plan on integrating IndexRank with our other tools in SoloSEO.com, such as in our SEO statistics tracking for client domains and their competitors. We are still working on improving the algorithm, and depending on the interest from the community we would take it to the next step with exporting, widgets, etc.

Q: It seems as if IndexRank favors sites that have a small number of total indexed pages relative to the amount of pages being indexed within the last two weeks, one month, etc. Are there any plans to further refine the algorithm, so that more established sites with an extremely large number of indexed pages don’t suffer?

A: IndexRank doesn't favor sites with a low amount of indexed pages, but rather favors sites with an increasing amount of content relative to the amount indexed in previous time periods. We realize this penalizes other sites without the same momentum or growth trend as they may have had in the past (such as larger sites), but the metric is intended to show growth not size. We realize IndexRank isn't perfect, and we are working on refining and optimizing for improved accuracy. From the larger sample sets we have looked at, IndexRank appears to be an accurate indicator of site growth.

Q: Aaron Wall mentioned that Google could obfuscate the data you are currently using to power the IndexRank tool. Are you concerned about that possibility?

A: Google is known to obfuscate other data, such as their backlink reporting through the link: operator, so it wouldn't surprise us if they did. However, with this type of data being a part of their overall search features, versus the link: operator being used primarily by search marketers, it doesn't seem like it would be in Google's interest to obfuscate their indexing data. Even if they do, our advantage is that IndexRank doesn't depend on reporting exact numbers from Google, rather it uses the relative rate of content being indexed.

P.S. Thank you to both Michael and Aaron for making themselves available on such short notice to help me pull together this piece!