<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>SEO Magic Bullet: 2010 Edition</title>
		<description>Discuss SEO Magic Bullet: 2010 Edition</description>
		<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 02:59:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.huomah.com/feed/com_content/500/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bill Slawski says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2465</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Dave, It's exactly how the first post was started, and I have seen a wide amount of speculation attributed to the Phrase-Based indexing patents that take it much further than they probably should. Anna Patterson was in on the Phrasification patent, but she's not listed on the other Phrase-Based indexing patent granted a couple of weeks later: Index updating using segment swapping The latest patents are definitely related, but she isn't listed as an inventor on this one]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Slawski</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 20:29:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2465</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2540</link>
			<description><![CDATA[See? Here we go again. Isn't this how the first post got started? =D I think that's the reason I felt like revisiting this once more (and the other times I've 'gone off') is that when the more popular publications start to state such things, that's where the fire starts. There really does need to be some perspective on it. Some form of balance. As for Anna not being on that one, have a look again - http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=3689 :eyebrow: She's tucked away in it, thus I found it interesting as up til then most had been her alone. A gang on that one.... precursor to her leaving? oooo... the drama! (patents can be fun) Anyway, deffo agree on the fact that learning IR can be immeasurably valuable to SEOs, we simply can't state things as fact. That's the part that bothers me... sigh... I supposed we'll be back to this next year...and the year after... and after...and...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 08:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2540</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Slawski says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2590</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There's temptation for drawing conclusions and definites about search engines upon what we learn from patents and papers and experience. But we know so little about the things that we don't know that making those conclusions and stating them as absolutes really is folly. But they do unveil things we can take action upon from time-to-time that can have positive effects. One of the most recent of phrase-based indexing patents granted last month (but initally filed 3 years ago), Index updating using segment swapping, didn't even have Anna Patterson's name on it. Given its focus, I guess that isn't a surprise since it covers optimizing query processing, taking the initial ideas and implementing them, or as you stated, passing the torch. It does make things interesting. Would love to talk sometime. Thanks.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Slawski</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 08:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2590</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2599</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Agreed. Most certainly over the years I have always kept one eye on developing themes/concepts through ought the SEO process, much do to Anna's work. But I have also looked at other semantic analysis approaches as well. And that's what I've generally done, learn how search engines tick. Nailing down the specific is daunting at very best given the many layers/signals. There are plenty of actionable tidbits that we can glean from IR, just not the specifics, which is what too many people seem to try and do. As for the more recent additions, it was interesting that the last one had multiple authors and many of the early ones had just Anna named. Was that why she left? Or were they passing the torch? There's some fun stuff in there just looking at the evolution of them all. Who says IR watching isn't exciting? =D Anyway, good to see ya as always, let me know when life has subsided we can get together for a chat. This post seemed warranted as a few too many discussions in the sphere, had to try and muzzle it a bit. Happy Trails dude!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 15:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2599</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Slawski says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2600</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Dave, Happy to see the return of the magic bullet. I agree that it's important to keep in mind that patent filings are a good way to get a glimpse into the mindsets of people at the search engines, but might not provide an accurate and actual view at what is going on with the engines themselves. Another of those first generation phrase-based indexing patents was granted this week, on duplicate content detection in a phrase-based indexing system. The second generation patents from Google on phrase-based indexing are pretty interesting because they focus upon how such a system could be technically implemented in a very large file system/server system. They also provide some insights into how that system could work that the first generation didn't include. Regardless of whether or not Google is using such a phrase-based indexing system, the patent's description of the environment in which that system works, including the inverted index, the term (or phrase) posting lists, etc., provide an interesting look at the architecture of a search engine. When I write about patents, I try to present what the patent may mean as a possibility rather than a certainty, and hope that it provokes more questions than conclusions, more ideas for testing than proof that a search engine is doing one thing or another. For instance, in my post that describes phrasification, I hope that at least some of its readers started asking themselves, what if Google were using this process now. What would that mean to the way I do keyword research? What implications does it have regarding the keywords tools I might be using? What does it mean for the way I attempt to optimize pages for certain phrases, or what I decide to use in anchor text pointing to pages? What can I do to test that might make a difference? The questions that patents raise are more important than the answers.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Slawski</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 14:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/SEO-Magic-Bullet-2010-Edition.html#comment-2600</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
