Search Engine Optimization & Domain Names II

January 23, 2008

Stumble it!

Enter your email address & Get Updates:

This is a continuation from Search Engine Optimization & Domain Names

What is claimed is:

A method for scoring a document, comprising: identifying a document; obtaining one or more types of history data associated with the document; and generating a score for the document based on the one or more types of history data.

The below excerpts from the patent are directly related to the discussion of .edu and .gov links being Trusted out of the box. They “naturally” have a higher value in the overall scheme of things.

28. The method of claim 26, wherein the weight assigned to a link is based on at least one of how much a document containing the link is trusted, how authoritative a document containing the link is, and a freshness of a document containing the link.

Item #28 indicates that weight is assigned to the document based on Trust. I’d like for you to keep that word Trust at the forefront of your thoughts while reading through this stuff. This is really like watching paint dry for many of us but, to truly understand what that paint is made of, you need to peel back the layers.

39. The method of claim 38, wherein the scoring the document includes: determining whether the domain associated with the document is legitimate, and scoring the document based, at least in part, on whether the domain associated with the document is legitimate.

Note the word “legitimate” above. Due the restrictions in place for .gov and .edu TLDs, they are legitimate out of the box.

49. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more types of history data includes information relating to linkage of independent peers; and wherein the generating a score includes: determining a growth in a number of independent peers that include the document, and scoring the document based, at least in part, on the number of independent peers.

Note the term “independent peers”. Typically .edu and .gov TLDs are going to have a high number of Trusted TLDs linking to them. These are independent peers and provide an additional level of trust in the overall equation.

58. The method of claim 57, further comprising: determining longevity of the linkage data; deriving an indication of content update for a linking document providing the linkage data; and adjusting the ranking of the linked document based on the longevity of the linkage data and the indication of content update for the linking document.

Note the word “longevity”. Typically .edu and .gov TLDs have instant longevity. Rarely will you find .edu or .gov TLDs expiring. This fact gives these two TLDs instant longevity.

59. The method of claim 58, wherein the adjusting the ranking includes penalizing the ranking if the longevity indicates a short life for the linkage data and boosting the ranking if the longevity indicates a long life for the linkage data.

Note the word “longevity” again. But this time the reference is to a penalty incurred if the longevity indicates a short life for the linkage data.

Alternatively, if the content of a document changes such that it differs significantly from the anchor text associated with its back links, then the domain associated with the document may have changed significantly (completely) from a previous incarnation. This may occur when a domain expires and a different party purchases the domain. Because anchor text is often considered to be part of the document to which its associated link points, the domain may show up in search results for queries that are no longer on topic. This is an undesirable result.

Note the term “domain expires”. The .edu TLD is non-transferable. Transferring includes selling, trading, leasing, assigning, or any other means of transferring. This implies a level of Trust in that the domain is not going to be used in an “Expired Domains” purchase.

Please keep in mind that the same process can be applied to most TLDs. But, out of the box, .gov and .edu domains have restrictions on their use that make them Trusted TLDs which is implied in a few patents out there. The .com, .net, .org, .etc. TLDs do not have that Trust factor out of the box because they are open to abuse on a far greater scale than the .gov and .edu TLDs.

As we dig deeper into the patent, and please, do read it from top to bottom, we are able to uncover some very interesting correlations with what the patent states and what our own experiences (meaning all of us) prove to us.

[0074] Links may be weighted in other ways. For example, links may be weighted based on how much the documents containing the links are trusted (e.g., government documents can be given high trust). Links may also, or alternatively, be weighted based on how authoritative the documents containing the links are (e.g., authoritative documents may be determined in a manner similar to that described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999).

Note that the patent implies that government documents can be given high trust.

[0097] According to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention, information relating to a domain associated with a document may be used to generate (or alter) a score associated with the document. For example, search engine 125 may monitor information relating to how a document is hosted within a computer network (e.g., the Internet, an intranet or other network or database of documents) and use this information to score the document.

Note the word “hosted” and the term “computer network”. Typically .gov and .edu TLDs are going to be hosted on a quality network. One that is void of the abuse that may take place on another server not hosting these types of domains.

[0098] Individuals who attempt to deceive (spam) search engines often use throwaway or “doorway” domains and attempt to obtain as much traffic as possible before being caught. Information regarding the legitimacy of the domains may be used by search engine 125 when scoring the documents associated with these domains.

Note the word “legitimacy” again, but this time in the context of throwaway domains. That doesn’t happen in the .gov and .edu TLD sectors. Another level of Trust.

[0099] Certain signals may be used to distinguish between illegitimate and legitimate domains. For example, domains can be renewed up to a period of 10 years. Valuable (legitimate) domains are often paid for several years in advance, while doorway (illegitimate) domains rarely are used for more than a year. Therefore, the date when a domain expires in the future can be used as a factor in predicting the legitimacy of a domain and, thus, the documents associated therewith.

Note the words “legitimate” and “illegitimate”. You’re going to see those words quite a bit when digging through various patents related to search. In the above example, domain expirations may be used in the overall equation in determining the quality of a domain. While I wouldn’t put too much weight into this one, it could be one of many “signals” present that are used to determine legitimacy of a domain.

[0100] Also, or alternatively, the domain name server (DNS) record for a domain may be monitored to predict whether a domain is legitimate. The DNS record contains details of who registered the domain, administrative and technical addresses, and the addresses of name servers (i.e., servers that resolve the domain name into an IP address). By analyzing this data over time for a domain, illegitimate domains may be identified.

Note the word “legitimate” again. .gov and .edu TLDs have very strict and governed policies in regards to POCs (Points of Contact), whois information, technical information, etc. Another level of Trust.

[0101] Also, or alternatively, the age, or other information, regarding a name server associated with a domain may be used to predict the legitimacy of the domain. A “good” name server may have a mix of different domains from different registrars and have a history of hosting those domains, while a “bad” name server might host mainly pornography or doorway domains, domains with commercial words (a common indicator of spam), or primarily bulk domains from a single registrar, or might be brand new.

Note the term “name server”. Ah-ha, you probably didn’t even think about that one eh? Hosting environment is imperative in establishing a Trusted TLD. This applies to all TLDs and not just the naturally Trusted ones like .edu and .gov.

[0102] In summary, search engine 125 may generate (or alter) a score associated with a document based, at least in part, on information relating to a legitimacy of a domain associated with the document.

.edu and .gov are “legitimate” domains out of the box. They can therefore be considered Trusted TLDs which are most likely weighted accordingly and don’t incur the same scrutiny other generic TLDs (.com, .net, etc.) are subjected to.

While the patent may not be evidence to support my claims, it does shed some light on what I have personally experienced and continue to experience with all TLDs under my management. Others have shared similar experiences. This is not something that “has to be proven” although many would like it in writing. It’s a natural occurrence and one that has been confirmed by many in the industry who are working within those Trusted TLD spaces.

Want One of the Cheapest and Affordable Hosting?

What Next?

 Subscribe To GoogleLady

 Digg It

 Save This Page

 Sphinn It

 Stumble it!

 Favorite This Post

 

Get Updates In Your Email

Posted in Search Engine Optimization