Home – New Forums Tech talk EMD’s getting smoked – latest algo update Reply To: EMD’s getting smoked – latest algo update

  • Total posts: 283

Zava Design,

I certainly agree there’s no place for ad hominems in a discussion. However, while I acknowledge my tone and general language were probably a bit dismissive, aggressive, even patronising, I don’t think I made any personal attacks… except perhaps my use of the word “wallow.” Please accept my apology for any offense caused, I do tend to get a bit hot under the collar sometimes, its something I’m working on.

Back to the discussion…

Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
Data set was across about 20 different keyword groups, roughly about 12-20 keywords/phrases per group.

And all aspects were the same apart from EMD v non EMD.

You found domains that had equal numbers of backlinks, from the same sources, identical content, identical ages etc.?

I’m not a statistician but those numbers seem far to small to be statistically significant. We’re talking about trillions of searches across billions of web pages after all.

Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
Wow, that’s a big call from a mere few forum posts. You really have no clue how harsh I may judge myself. I’d avoid making judgements on someone with minimal information.

Agreed. My bad. Retracted.

Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
I don’t claim it as revolutionary, just as pretty in depth. So far you’ve provided none of your own. Should we expect to see any soon??

Well I wasn’t actually making a claim, only refuting your claim but I have offered evidence, more on that below.

Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
Meanwhile, I’ll wait patiently for any evidence from you that EMDs carry any weight. Anything will do, so we can actually stick to discussion on the subject at hand, rather than resorting to personal insults.


Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
Wow, and this probably reveals a lot about you. Seems in your eyes I’m not good enough or have worthy enough experience to have maybe done some research that could actually be valid. Seems since I don’t have an SEO blog, or am selling SEO expertise, or whatever else you think would make my viewpoint valid, that it should all just be dismissed.

Seems my 15 years working as a professional in the web/digital industry, majority of that time working with clients of the calibre of the Commonwealth Bank, HSBC, Arnott’s, Toyota Australia, Panasonic et al… that gives me no authority in the matter at all, is that what you’re saying? I’m certainly not saying that gives me more authority than SEOmoz, or even you for that matter, but it seems you’re saying I have no authority on the matter. Is that correct

No, that’s not correct. I’m saying its extremely difficult to use experience – anyone’s experience, not just yours – as evidence of anything! Anyway, my understanding was that you were putting forth your research as your evidence, not your experience, is that correct?

I think we should avoid using experience as evidence if at all possible. I acknowledge however, that its difficult to use data in the case of SEO because its very difficult to isolate variables as discussed above.

Have you noticed that not one other person in this thread – people with plenty of experience – has agreed with you? If you value experience, doesn’t that ring some alarm bells?

Zava Design, post: 134372 wrote:
SEOmoz has a vested interest in certain viewpoints. I actually do value their views in many areas, I am of the opinion that perhaps in the area of EMDs they may be a little outdated. I didn’t hold that opinion at first, took all that they said as gospel. But I proved myself wrong in this particular area. As I seek to do often.

I’m not sure what SEOmoz would gain from misrepresenting the effect of EMDs?

I’m not sure if you actually went and looked at the SEOmoz study that I posted but its not just some blog post or anything that represents the “opinion” of the company. This is a semi annual study involving correlation data and a survey of hundreds of industry professionals.

Yeh I know, ‘survey of industry professionals’ is obviously somewhat experience based but I think doing it in aggregate is probably the best we can do to gain insight from experience.

As far as I know this is the most comprehensive study of ranking factors, yet you seem to dismiss it easily. Care to explain why?