Getting Granular: The DigitalGrit Blog

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.

Google Loses Out on Facebook and Goes Maka-Maka

TechCrunch is reporting today that although Google may have lost its bid on Facebook, all is not lost to them in Social Media.

Maka-Maka is Goog's answer to going social:

Maka-Maka encompasses Google’s grand plan to build a social layer across all of its applications. Some details about Maka-Maka have already leaked out, particularly how Google plans to use the feed engine that powers Google Reader (known internally as Reactor) to create “activity streams” for other applications akin to Facebook’s news and mini feeds. But Maka-Maka goes well beyond that.

Maka-Maka will be unveiled in stages. The first peek will come in early November. As we reported previously, Google is planning to “out open” Facebook with a new set of APIs that developers can use to build apps for its social network Orkut, iGoogle, and eventually other applications as well.

Aw, Jeez. Another social network. That's all I need. As if I'm not burned out enough from Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pownce, and every other social site I've joined in the last few years...Will Google's offering out-do all the above, enticing me to abandon every other community?

Microsoft Wins Facebook Deal

Facebook's been the belle of the ball since this spring, when it opened its virtual doors to one and all. Surpassing MySpace in growth, Facebook has been the subject of rumours for months, since Google and Microsoft have been vying for the social media mammoth's affections.

Looks like Microsoft has scored the deal, announcing a $240 million dollar investment yesterday. Microsoft will buy a 1.6% stake in Facebook, an optimistic bet on the future of social media.

Google Buys Feedburner

Rumors have circulated for weeks, and now the headlines: Google has acquired Feedburner, the quintessential RSS tool.

Google Buys DoubleClick. Wow.

Funny how you can be online all day and -- then you catch the biggest story on the good ol' fashio radio on your home commute.

Google acquired DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion.  It was announced after the markets closed today. While some analysts evidently think that Goog's overpaid for the grandaddy of ad networks, let us not forget that DoubleClick serves all the ads for MySpace, WSJ and AOL. DoubleClick pulled in about $300 Million last year.

Google's gone way beyond text-based search ads in recent years, but this acquisition puts them pretty squarely ahead of the pack. As the New York Times points out:

Acquiring DoubleClick expands Google’s business far beyond algorithm-driven ad auctions into a relationship-based business with Web publishers and advertisers. Google has been expanding its AdSense network into video and display ads online and is selling ads to a limited degree on television, newspapers and radio. 

The Times speculates that DoubleClick's new auction-based system, which is not limited to any publisher network, will be a springboard for Google offline aspirations.

My favorite quote on the acquisition comes from Shar von Boskirk, senior analyst, Forrester Research -- she hits the nail right on the head:

"This shores up Google as the absolute leader...This rounds out their capabilities in everything in the online space. There isn't anything they don't have."

Bingo.

Google Launches Multivariate Testing

Google launched its own MVT tool yesterday, after 6 months of closed beta testing (see our October 2006 post). There's an overview video on Google that explains it pretty well.

Google considers the testing tool the third leg on the three-legged stool (our industry's favorite cliche), supporting AdWords and Google Analytics.

From ClickZ: "The main problem we're trying to solve is to get people out of the dark ages in terms of how they develop pages," Tom Leung, Google's product manager for Website Optimizer, told ClickZ News. "All too often, they'll just put a page together and maybe the designer will do a few mock-ups, and they'll point to the one they feel is going to be the best one."

Leung says the goal is to help marketers convert their Web sites into a "living laboratory" and expressed the hope it will improve the usability of the Internet overall. Sites will, theoretically, provide more of what online consumers are looking for.

The service currently allows users to upload 10,000 page versions.

Interestingly, the service has launched with "trusted partners" who will serve as consultants to companies new to MVT. Among them is Optimost, one of the leaders in the MVT space. You'd think that they'd view Google's multivariate testing offer as some serious competition, but instead, they've "locked elbows to serve leads and inquiries from customers who ultimately can't afford the latter's technology. These leads the firm will refer to Google and support as a consultant," per ClickZ. Interesting.

(We, as reported in the past, offer MVT through partner Offermatica.)

Google TiSP (Sorry - not compatible with Septic Systems)

Google's latest BETA offer: commode-based TiSP wireless. Easy to install yourself, or go with the in-the-pot delivery.

That's right..."Want WiFi Around? Just Flush it Down." Best thing about it? It's FREE WiFi. Go with the flow. Check it out.

A few reasons to switch to the new service (from the FAQs):

Why should I switch to Google TiSP?

• It's fast. In our testing, TiSP delivers a 10x higher flow rate than basic DSL.

• It's FREE. No more paying hundreds of dollars a year for Internet service that doesn't even necessarily extend to your bathroom!

• It's good for you. Your FREE TiSP service includes a Google Toolbar-based analysis of your dietary habits and genetic predispositions, along with recommendations for healthier living.

Here are some screen shots from the latest addition to Google's suite of services:

 

(Best April Fool's gag for 2007. Hands down.)

Google Phone in the Works

Okay gadget-lovers: If pictures of the upcoming iPhone had you drooling, the new Google phone should get your salivary glands working over time. (photo courtesy of Slashgear)

Rumours are rampant that the ubiquitous Internet company is positioning itself to truly rule the mobile Web. From Reuters:

Google isn't commenting directly on leaks from Europe and the United States which describe a low-cost, Internet-connected phone with a color, wide-screen design. Newspaper and blog reports in recent months have Google shopping its phone design to potential mobile phone manufacturing partners in Asia.

"Mobile is an important area for Google," Google spokeswoman Erin Fors said on Friday. "We remain focused on creating applications and establishing and growing partnerships with industry leaders to develop innovative services for users worldwide. However, we have nothing further to announce."

Slashgear translates and quotes Google's Isabella Aguilera:

“A part of the time our engineers the we have devoted to the investigation of a mobile phone to access information”Isabel Aguilera (badly translated)

Pretty cool. Hope they hook up with Verizon Wireless...

Google, Yahoo, MSN - Like Any MEDIA COMPANY - Can Block Ads

According to Forbes.com, a judge ruled on Monday that Google and its competitors have the same right as any media company to block ads they feel are inappropriate or offensive to customers or partners.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan dismissed a suit filed last May in Delaware by would-be advertiser Christopher Langdon, who claimed Google, Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) and Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) infringed upon his rights to free speech by refusing to publish his ads. The ads in question promoted Langdon's Web sites, which criticize some North Carolina politicians and the Chinese government.

"Search engines have a First Amendment right to reject ads as part of their protected right to speak or not," Farnan wrote.

The legal opinion will help search engines in future litigation, wrote Eric Goldman, director of Santa Clara University School of Law's High Tech Law Institute. "It's an emphatic and helpful win for the search engines."

The ruling allows the search engine to refuse an advertiser for any reason -- without the need to site any specific rule or regulation they might be violating. 

301 Redirects - From SE Watch/SE Roundtable

There are a few people on the DG team who can relate to this "headache" -- What happens when your client has changed URLs?  How long will it take for the Google PageRank to pass on? Search Engine Watch addresses this (via SE Roundtable):

(From the original post at Search Engine Rountable...)

In a Google Groups thread Adam says:

301s pass PR and related signals appropriately. Usually takes a couple of weeks for things to smooth out, though.

I was a bit shocked by the statement of just "a couple of weeks" for 301s to "pass PR and related signals appropriately." I always thought it was a couple months or more.

SEW points out that Google may index the page within a few weeks, but that it take MUCH longer to recoup the PageRank. Link building like a rockstar seems to be the best method for speeding things along. SEW also points to the common "trick" of using a 302 error instead of a 301: "This causes Google to keep the listing of the previous page within its index, and often in the same position within the rankings."

Ultimately, post author Chris Boggs recommends riding out the 301 -- on the off-season, business-permitting. His best advice is to understand that this is a laborious process, and to plan for it in advance by using paid search and other marketing channels.