Page 3 - Would a TV rank at well at a .COM

This says it all really (not the perfect bit )... I get slammed here ocassionally as to why I post so much. How do I get the time etc... I get the time because posting here so much has resulted in me learning so much. The results are I am making lots of money and have others doing the work I do not like doing... I enjoy when another poster disagrees with a post of mine. It is a learning opportunity. That learning can then be translated into an improvement in SERPs... Which means more money... I do not understand why so many people take disagreement as a personal insult. There is nothing wrong in having an opinion... There is something very wrong in having a closed mind. I along with you Visio do not think google treats tlds any different (exception being geotargetting) but I do think people treat them differently. It for example is much easier to get a link exchange for a .edu then a .info therfore if I had the choice I would take the .edu. I personally rairly click on .info sites as I have seen to many spam ones. Thus would I register a .info name . No..

Disagreement backed up with opinions and/or research is good and should be encouraged. People posting opinion as fact needs to be challanged... Challange, question, dispute... Just do not take it personally..

i tried optimizing a .tv sites before and its not that hard to rank if you are concern about ranking it... for me its same as any other site..

I agree 100% but nowhere in this thread did I see any facts, or at least not with references. IMO it was all opinions, and the guy who was ostracized was at least willing to..no, wait...DID go so far as to try and prove his side, his story...he did question, and challenge only to be met with criticism and attacks.

It wasn't want he said, it was the way he said it . He was just trying to bait Fathom.

Personal opinions are good - nothing wrong with them... 99% of SEO is based on personal opinion because you can't prove a null... at best all you get is inconclusive.

That said, I have the benefit of data from 200+ domains and on this discussion that involves [no .tv mind you] but dot.com to dot.me...

Many don't like my style of "challenging a position"... mind you, I do have the advantage "almost always".... not because of time in SEO, or number of domains, or anything that has to do with knowledge, skill, or experience.... BUT MEMORY!

If you can't remember what you wrote previously... you shouldn't be offering advice.

I read these posts and past post to see the history of their claims.

Here's the first post:

http://forums.seochat.com/showpost.php?p=593762&postcount=22

I didn't jump on it then... but how do you derive this level of understanding?

Here's the kicker...



Are we sure?

How did you test this?

You will likely find that uk-based domain seem to get more uk-based links (both in extension and region hosted) and that drive value up in UK...

But if that's true for one region - it must be true for all regions... and in the scope of dot.com where there isn't a specific region noted... it stands to reason if competition goes from 50 million (guess) pages in a uk archive to 100 billion in a world archive... surely this isn't about Google favoring a domain name extension... just more (or less) potential competition.

Be that as it may... that guy does more harm than good pretending he's king **** of SEO research... if he has the data I want it... if he doesn't or doesn't want to share it then he doesn't get a free ride making unsubstantiated claims.

Seriously, anyone that think I'm harsh, rude, or insulting... wait until you've been advised "wrongly"... I believe it's criminal to publicly post misleading advice on forums so that people can be, intentionally or unintentionally mislead.

How harsh, rude, or insulting is that?

Bait me...?

I'm here to learn from anyone that can teach me... I learn best in "trial by fire"...

So someone might think I'm being baiting... but when you, your rod, tacket, and 40' boat are being pulled under... are you really that happy that you hooked me?

I'm sure if my posts didn't have an ounce of insight - I'd be banned as well.

I totally agree... and again taking the side of a bystander looking at the situation I think that there is nothing wrong with challenging established members either... we are not infallible afterall.... close to it but not there yet
Sometimes we need to do studies to prove what we already know... that is if we are interested in letting the seo world know about it. I found out that behavioral targeting and analytical info had an effect on a sites ranking in Google long before I did the actual research... I proved it to myself based on my own sites but it wasn't until I did the research which was seen as credible proof that the seo world really acknowledged it. Some as Matt Cutts still doesn't acknowledge me as discovering it but it was the research which gave credence to my opinion...

So I would like to see a test done in-house here at seochat using our own members which will confirm what many of us believe and have seen in our own sites...

I s'pose that happens a lot when ya hook a submariner......

Unfortunately as I said before you can't test a null to any certainty.

It's a question of:

1. links

2. link history

3. ...and uk archive is bias to uk domains, ca to ca domain but that neither adds nor subtracts in the root archive.

...I see no way you can validate this without the overpowering effect of "just links"...

lastly even if you did a control test where observations and conclusions are based on ordered ranks for a nonsense term...

something has to be #1 and something has to be last even when all things are equal...

if the ordered of "all thing equal" falls as

1. dot.com
2. dot.net
3. dot.org
4. dot.biz
5. dot.info
6. dot.uk
7. dot.tv

...that in itself doesn't mean a dot.com is more powerful than everything else and everything else is more powerful than dot.tv...

...it's a draw and display limitations prevent seeing a googlewhack of the collection.

Tangible returns are what SEO is about - not something that can't really be seen unless you microscope it. [that's my qualified opinion.]

1. dot.com dot.net dot.org dot.biz dot.info dot.uk dot.tv

Strongly agreed with this point it depends your ethical seo.

Your on page
your off page

Issue solved thats it.

I removed your first post because I considered it to be off-topic and "overly provocative"!
I also edited several of searchresearch's posts and gave him a warning for threatening remarks.

Not really... He ignored Fathoms arguments, choosing instead to brag about his past achievements regarding one domain (same domain he has bragged about in other threads), as 'though achieving unexpected rankings for one sparsely-linked domain proves all his theories! Then he tried to argue that - since Fathom didn't immediately take up his "challenge" it proved his point!
Taken alongside his behaviour in other threads here, I decided it was unnacceptable.

In my opinion, challenging somebody to purchase, build and promote a site in competition with him in order to prove a point like this is both childish and pointless.
As Fathom has said on several occasions, a success is only "proof" of a point if ALL other elements are identical... It really wouldn't prove anything is Rod took up the challenge and lost, it might just be that the other guy had more time / resources to throw at his site!

I have also always maintained that tld's have no impact; even country-specific domains don't necessarily gain an improvement, except that they might "qualify" for ranks in "from country-only" results. But I must say that there aren't many .tv domains ranking for competitive terms... then again the tld was designed for "specific purposes" (for which - mostly - it hasn't been used) and a lot of .tv domains were snatched up by domain squatters and are either not online or the sites that do exist are "less than impressive".
However... the fact that a specific .net domain outranks a specific .tv domain is no proof of anything... neither is the number of links or PR of the .net domain; as all experienced SEO's know, PR means nothing, neither does link quantity... it's link quality that matters and one single link from a low PR/low quality domain can make all the difference IF that domain has a pile of backlinks from sources which are highly related to the end domain's subject... Relevance goes beyond a single level.

Yep.