Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Like I said.... Google doesn't validate their website... Of course, Danny answered this question for Matt, sooooo.... there is no official statement from Google on this one.

Wow... that is a lot of search traffic. I can see how algo updates can really take their toll.

• 54% Search
• 16% Referring
• 30% Direct

Funny thing about search is that ~18% of my search is for Branded Keywords. CPC falls under my Search... but very low %. I was amazed at how low the search traffic was for SEOmoz and on how high their social media traffic is. Great diversification by SEOmoz. Really tapping into "the other internet".

Haha.. Nice. Don't give away my secret, but I love writting.

Do "my little ponies" count in your book?

Really?...

Start with the basics.

• Comfortable leather seats.

• Large Duel Screens

• Frig and Microwave

Upgrades

• Stocked Frig

• Multiple Stall Bathroom

Posh

• Creative Room - Would include music, Art couch... maybe even paintbrush, video camera, digital camera, piano, books, magizines

-  Strategy Room - Wall of reference books, Board Games with game table, more of a quite feel.

• Social Butterfly room - Bar, bar stools, Soda fountain, chips, dips... if it were AZ I would include a Shaved Ice machine.

But really... I am all about the duel monitors with right webmaster suite programs and I am happy... Phone would be optional.

I heard Danny in one of the Moz chats mention that they could move up a few spots in the rankings with a blog push, but it's a temporary gain.

Either way, I feel both are useful, and yes I think keeping a steady flow of links is your best bet for difficult rankings.

I believe you will find verbage about historical data in Google's patent. http://www.seomoz.org/article/google-historical-data-patent

You can also read the following from Google's Page Rank Patent 6285999

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the assigning includes:

identifying a weighting factor for each of the linking documents, the weighting factor being dependent on the URL, host, domain, author, institution, or last update time of the one or more linking documents, and

adjusting the score of each of the one or more linking documents based on the identified weighting factor."

It is not specific on if newer links are better or older links more valueable. Since Google does pay a lot of attention to trends and hot topics I think there could be an arguement for newer links being better, but perphaps only on a trendy base. Meaning new links = quick boost, but old links = authority.

I have come across a number of Twitter users that have 1000+ Followers, and they typically follow 1000+ people. I've noticed as of late that many of these people are found on fewer lists. I also know that many twitter users are selective about who they actually allow in their main twitter stream and therefore create lists to manage who they follow.

Any thoughts on if /how twitter lists contribute to a user's authority and/or influence from the SERP's perspective?

In order:

Secret #1 - Work + Time = Awesome SEO

Secret #2 - Core Group of SEOs to work and share with.

Secret #3 - Keeping secrets secret.  ... Sorry had to add that one.

Actually I should probably add that I don't believe there are many true secrets to SEO. Time and work will get you the best long term results.

I don't validate my website... but neither does Google.

I agree "with age comes more links to page". I would also add that the page will have undergone more testing with time and therefore relevance becomes more clear.

The Caffeine udate was claimed to make instant updates to the Index. To me this suggests that as soon as the link is indexed it gives value. However, part of Google's patent suggests evaluation of links over time, so the history of a link could add value to that link. So like fine wine, links with age are worth more.So the value you are looking for may not be achieved until the link itself as aged and increased in value.

What you suggest is that in your findings the value of a link is not immediate for ranking. I believe that is heavily dependant on the difficulty of the desired ranking. I have seen a link or two provide imediate value on obscure rankings. Where as, competitive rankings need the added value of time and quantity.

Take an average for 10 5-star reviews. Not competitive. Easy to move the average by a few more reviews. Now consider average from 100 reviews. Much harder to move average. Take 10000 reviews and a new review is a drop in a bucket.

Very competitive rankings will not see immediate value.

Disclaimer, I am a pest control guy.

I agree with you on buing a .co when a competitor owns the .com.

But I think in time the .co will gain value as the public becomes less fixated with the .com's. But having a .com will always be preferred. Like having a 800 number vs a 888, 877, or 866 number. If I had to put them in order.