I don't know where you found that so-called tool, Val, but just for the sheer fun of it I just put in a link to a site of mine that receives a fair amount of SE traffic.

The "10 to 20 seconds" took at least three minute, first off. I think I'll have a long nap now.

And just to take one of many phrases for which I receive referral traffic, I'm going to use "SEO layouts". On Google.ca, among other datacentres, searchenginefriendlylayouts.com shows up rather highly.

The saturation (assuming you mean inclusion) is 59 pages, and the "link popularity" (which has always been largely inaccurate as a public metric) is 1710.

What's interesting isn't the #1 result in that equation, but the #2 (http://www.dnncreative.com/Home/Issu...6/Default.aspx). The #2 result has a link popularity of...0. And the "saturation" is a subpage, so it's "1". Doesn't "score" overly well either.

This is the problem with "tools" like this one...they're guesses based on fractional and fractured information, and there's usually a large number of significant cases, just like the one mentioned above, where the site doesn't "score" well, yet picks up referral traffic for a significant number of phrases or does well in ways the tool couldn't predict.

There hasn't been one useful SEO tool yet.

It does not matter where the metric is that you use.
You can use www.marketleap.com or www.iwebtools.com or www.seocentro.com.
As long as you use the same tool for comparison and analysis it is fine. Each one of these tools will give you different results, but individually they will be consisten on the same query.

What you have described is an interestign topic in itself - subpage optimization.

You should not be comparing the subpage popularity as deep linking is not something you would be comming accross everyday.
Instead the top level domain needs to be examined.
Run (any tool) www.sitereportcard.com on www.dnncreative.com and you will get:
inclusion of 14,100 and popularity of 1,640 - these are pretty big numbers.
What I use as a rule of thumb is to half these nubers for every click away from the home page.
Your number 2 position is 4 clicks inside and therefore according to my formula is equivalent of inclusion of 3525 and 410 links. Another consideration for the ranking is relevance of these links and any subpage will sol low relevance to the inbound links and content.

By comparinig these numbers direct my approach works - the formula stays true.

As I have mentioned before - everything can be achieved in comparison. You can see who your competitors are for a keyword and you can examine their basic data. It is straight forward - if you can do better then them you will end up in front.

Val,

No...it really can't. This is one of the prevailing SEO myths.

You don't know what words other companies targeted.
You can't find all of their inbound links (there are perfectly good IBLs that won't show at any point from the "deeper web").
You don't know if what they're doing is working.
You may not be checking the same datacentres each time.

They're "guesses". That's it, that's all. Nothing can be achieved or determined from them.

But let's take your numbers...the ones you provided vs. the ones I did.

DNNCreative.com: Inclusion 14,100, popularity 1,640
searchenginefriendlylayouts.com: Inclusion 59, popularity 1,710

Based on the inclusion alone, since the popularity is pretty much the same, DNNCreative is a far larger site than mine (and that is true, so I'll give the "metric" credit for understanding that much). So...by that logic, under just about any query done, I should never even come close to outranking DNNCreative.

But wait...that's exactly what happens on at least some datacentres (I don't know about all of them, but all the ones I've seen have been the same). So that means something is obviously flawed in the measure. A smaller site with similar "link popularity" outranks a larger one? But how could that be?

All "tools" like this do is promote the idea that "link popularity" is the be-all and endall and that the number of IBLs you have will automatically be a magic bullet to #1 search engine ranking. Not true, never was true, never will be true, nor should it be true.

I do not believe in the tools, but believe in the approach.

You can find out what words other company is targeting
You only care abot the liks that are recognized and are shown in link: query
If they are at the top - it is working for them
Cashing differences between datacentres will settle over time and will show the same result (pending new changes)

Primary keywords are easy - you know what they are so the formula is easily applicable to the direct competition. When it comes to the secondary keywords the matter is a lot more complex.

As I have mentioned before first and the biggest issue is how deep the resulting page for the secondary keyword is in the site (divide the numbers in half for every click away from the home page) and then how relevant the copy of the site is to the keyword. There are more interesting items that can share:
The more subpages you will have under this secondary page the better for the keyword placement will be ( treat it as a mini site within the site)
Top level links with secondary keyword in the anchor and title text help a lot
Bottom page cross linking helps the whole structure.

This approach is well visible by the design of the DNN - top level items have the appropriate links shown at the bottom. As soon as you go into a subpage the bottom links change to reflect its neighbours.

The formula in principle cannot be faulted. "If you do more and better then your competitor you will be on top of them."

There are arguments for and against little aspects of it but the big picture is there for everyone to see and make use of.

I have a customer www.primepromotional.com.au whos is after the top position in a very competetive environment knowing well what it is worth being at the top and building a structure to get there. They know the target, double check it every month and keep going forward with their simple stratey which delivers real results.

You know that if your website grows to have to over 10,000 Google included pages there is no way current number one will be able to compete with you for the top position and since you are more targeted in the presentation of the copy they will have to go a lot farther to keep your site below them in the search results.

This is simple...
In reality for all sites that I have implemented this strategy you get there faster and that is simply because of more targeted and specific copy and more targeted and specific organic and artificial link building.

Val

I don't get what you're saying...you brought a tool to the table just now, and when it was shown how flawed it is (along with any other tools like it), you say "I don't believe in the tools, but believe in the approach". Your approach was based on the tool.

Besides that, the whole idea of competitor analysis is flawed for one simple reason: there's no way to accurately determine whether or not what a competitor is doing works, unless you have insider information or access to things (e.g. site stats, income statements) that you're not supposed to have. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

You don't know if a competitor gets referral traffic from a keyword or phrase.
You don't know if they make money off that traffic if they get it.
You don't know whether or not they even targeted that keyword or phrase in the first place.

It's a guess, pure and simple.

This used to be a jokey thread, now it's lost it's humour because someone took it seriously

I can rank #1 for lots of terms - to find out how, you'll have to buy newbie's new SEO guide to the internet (catchy title or what?)

SEO-padawan Dan

I've been searching for a song on google for about a year now and don't know who sings it. Can anyone help?

It goes like this...

da, da, da, de, dum, da, de, dum,
da, da, da, de, dum, da, de, dum,
de, ba, de, ba, de, ba

It's driving me nuts and Google is useless. Maybe there should be a chapter in Newbies book with tips on how to search Google

Originally Posted by yankees51

I've been searching for a song on google for about a year now and don't know who sings it. Can anyone help?

It goes like this...

da, da, da, de, dum, da, de, dum,
da, da, da, de, dum, da, de, dum,
de, ba, de, ba, de, ba

That sounds a bit like the chorus to "God save the Queen", although I doubt it is. The right length and stuff though

Thanks but thats not it - it was used in a movie once. If that helps?

It's not the James Bond theme tune is it?

Y'know what - it might be - I think it's from the one where the girl sleeps with him

Might also ask, is it really a competitor?

a business competitor or a keyword competitor?

Maybe I should write an "ebook" on how a pr4 site with a few hundred links can beat a pr10 site with millions of links

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I don't get what you're saying...you brought a tool to the table just now, and when it was shown how flawed it is (along with any other tools like it), you say "I don't believe in the tools, but believe in the approach". Your approach was based on the tool.

Besides that, the whole idea of competitor analysis is flawed for one simple reason: there's no way to accurately determine whether or not what a competitor is doing works, unless you have insider information or access to things (e.g. site stats, income statements) that you're not supposed to have. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

You don't know if a competitor gets referral traffic from a keyword or phrase.
You don't know if they make money off that traffic if they get it.
You don't know whether or not they even targeted that keyword or phrase in the first place.

It's a guess, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by yankees51

Y'know what - it might be - I think it's from the one where the girl sleeps with him

Ummm that happens in each film, if not several times in each film Anyway, back on topic now

Originally Posted by whym

That sounds a bit like the chorus to "God save the Queen", although I doubt it is. The right length and stuff though

Naah!

That's more like

da da de dum di dum

or did you mean the Sex Pistols version

The tool is irrelevant - it does not matter what it is - the metric is relative. As long as you compare using the same tool the result is true.
It is not relevant what the copetitor does - they are numner one.
It is not relevant if they are a real competitor - in the eyes of Google they are number one (I assume you have done your keyword research)
It is not relevant if they get the traffic or not (your keyword research should have been done)

The formula is simple -

"If you wish to be number one on a particular keyword - do more then the existing number one on 2 key factors (popularity and content)"

How you measure these factors is not relevant because if you use the same tool to measure your solution the results are comparible and therefore usefull.
How you measure the quality is not relevant as the search engines will filter the numbers for you.

What important is to have the expansion stgrategy and stick by it!
More content regularly + more popularity regularly.

Just to repeat myself:
To be number one al you need to do it create a solution larger and better then the current number one.
doesn't this make scense even without going into details?

truth comes out in good discussions

Val