The Mathematical of Trust Rank - SEO specialist considerations

[Ola Rybacka]

I want to show you an article which may be interesting for you, would you like to take a look at it?

It's written by CMO in my company, who is also SEO specialist and the reason for writing it is that sometimes laws that governs Google Search are really hard to understand. He tried to explain it with simple, mathematical formula.
It's based on his knowledge, experience and imagination, so please mind that it's unconfirmed by Google and it's just a piece of theoretical considerations.

https://www.timecamp.com/blog/index.php/2016/01/the-mathematics-of-google-trust-rank/

Enjoy reading and I'm waiting for your feedback!

 

[PTTed]

I stopped reading as soon as he said this "In my opinion, based on only six years of experience in SEO, the first ranking factor is Trust Rank."

I just disagree with him. The first ranking factor has always been and continues to be relevancy. If he has spent 6 years in SEO and hasn't learned that yet, then I don't care how good his math is.

Then I skimmed through the rest of the page and noticed several glaring grammatical errors. (Even one of the graphics has bad grammar) A scientific/analytical paper loses credibility with me when the person writing the paper can't communicate properly in the language it is written in. In this case, it is English. Your company should have paid someone to proofread and correct his grammar. For a site that is written in English and a company that apparently conducts business in English, I am amazed that such a company would not have at least one person working there that is 100% fluent with the language who could proofread such things.

I think that a lot of effort was put into the work and I applaud the effort. But I don't think that piece of content is going to impress anyone knowledgeable who grew up in the USA. I would say, try again.

 

[Ola Rybacka]

Thanks for feedback, appreciate it.

 

[SEOPub]

Trying to get through that article was painful to say the least. You guys should have hired someone that can write fluid English.

That being said, the entire premise is just guesswork.

It is basically saying, "Let's pretend that Google works this way..." Then he throws in a bunch of graphs and math formulas... but it is all make believe with nothing to back it up.

 

[savidge4]

When you look at this stuff and understand he (Pawel Kijko ) is trying to define TR that is Majestics interpetation of Googles PR, you really only need to look at Googles PR equation. Believe it or not this formula ( to an extent ) can be seen, if you know where to look. The equation itself looks like:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

Sure its more than likely not the equation they might use today... but it leads to a better understanding of how Google works. here is a link to the white paper that explains the equation and many other things in better detail: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

 

[markdenz]

What is trust rank?

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

It's a simple way to create link bait.