Come Google separa la Popolarità dall'Autorevolezza?

[juanin]

Come Google separa la Popolarità dall'Autorevolezza?

Ci pensa Cutts a rispondere a questa domanda ignorando praticamente tutta la parte della domanda relativa ai Social Signals.

La domanda originale era

As Google continues to add social signals to the algorithm, how do you separate simple popularity from true authority?
Relativamente alla question popolarità contro autorevolezza Cutts dice:
We’ve actually thought about this quite a bit because from the earliest days it would get us really kind of frustrated when we would see reporters talk about PageRank, and say, ‘PageRank is a measure of popularity of websites,’ because that’s not true.
Lui dice poi facendo un esempio che un sito Porno è popolare, ma non viene linkato molto mentre invece un sito Governativo viene linkato molto perché autorevole, ma nessuno lo visita.

Poi continua parlando di topical pagerank

You can separate simple popularity from reputation or authority, but now how do we try to figure out whether you’re a good match for a given query?
Well, it turns out you can say, take PageRank for example – if you wanted to do a topical version of PageRank, you could look at the links to a page, and you could say, ‘OK, suppose it’s Matt Cutts. How many of my links actually talk about Matt Cutts?’ And if there are a lot of links or a large fraction of the links, then I’m pretty topical. I’m maybe an authority for the phrase Matt Cutts.
e poi
It’s definitely the case that you can think about not only taking popularity, and going to something like reputation, which is PageRank, but you could also imagine more topical…’Oh, you’re an authority in the medical space” or “You’re an authority in the travel space” or something like that. By looking at extra signals where you could say, ‘Oh, you know what? As a percentage of the sorts of things we see you doing well for or whatever, it turns out that your links might be including more anchor text about travel or about medical queries or something like that,’ so it is difficult, but it’s a lot of fun.
e poi relativamente ai cambiamenti algoritmici
We actually have some algorithmic changes that try to figure out, ‘Hey, this site is a better match for something like a medical query, and I’m looking forward to those rolling out, because a lot of people have worked hard so that you don’t just say, ‘Hey, this is a well-known site, therefore it should match for this query.’ It’s ‘this is a site that actually has some evidence that it should rank for something related to medical queries,’ and that’s something where we can improve the quality of the algorithms even more.

Come al solito nulla di nuovo per che è da molto nel settore, ma almeno questa volta non ha raccontato trappole

PS: Per la parte sui Social ci aveva già pensato qualcuno di più importante di lui già 2 anni fa. Larry Page.

[giorgiotave]

Se Matt volesse leggere questa pagine, Giacomo aprì una discussione perché nel 2006 ci stavamo ponendo il problema

Visto che Google, come dice Juanin, sta rompendo il web con sti nofollow, vuoi vedere che proveranno a ignorarlo per questa cosa specifica?

Battute a parte...ho come l'impressione che gli sfuggiranno di mano molte più cose di quelle che lui pensa. A partire dall'interno di Google stessa.

[emanuelebolondi]

It’s definitely the case that you can think about not only taking popularity, and going to something like reputation, which is PageRank, but you could also imagine more topical…’Oh, you’re an authority in the medical space” or “You’re an authority in the travel space” or something like that. By looking at extra signals where you could say, ‘Oh, you know what? As a percentage of the sorts of things we see you doing well for or whatever, it turns out that your links might be including more anchor text about travel or about medical queries or something like that,’ so it is difficult, but it’s a lot of fun*.*

Sì, e poi ti banno perché le ancore dei tuoi link hanno chiaramente intenti manipolatori