Keyword Density Of Sandbox Articles Aparently Proportional To Density Of Authors
UPONG, in a continuation of their stated goal of doing cutting edge SEO market research and intelligence to provide more of the research UPONG members couldn’t be arsed doing for a public that couldn’t care less, has revealed the first extensive study into articles on the so called Google Sandbox phenomenon.
| Overall Issues | Score |
|---|---|
| Average Originality of thought | 2.67 |
| Average Deviation From Norm | 0.34 |
| Average Reading Age of Articles: | 8.47 |
| Statistical validity of Theories | 3.42% |
“So many articles are written on this contentious issue”, El Presidente Michael said. “and we at UPONG felt that while the world didn’t need Yet Another Sandbox Theory (YAST for short), it sure as s#$@ needed an analysis of all the so called analysis. I think you will agree, the results were shocking.
The fictional study, utilising cutting edge imaginary tools that analyse the form, structure and original content of articles, including running the articles through anti-plagiarism software and word matrix generators, the UPONG survey, titled “The Industry With One Brain And Far Too Much Bandwidth”, unveiled shocking trends
“Unbelievably”, Michael said, “the average originality of thought is so low as to be almost non-existent. The plagiarism algorithms that we ran the articles through showed a strong likelihood of plagiarism in close to 98% of all articles. At first, we put this down to syndication or perhaps a few DMCA violations, but this proved incorrect, as despite their similarity, all articles were ;original’ in so far as new piece’s of writing, there was just a complete and utter lack of originality of thought.”
What UPONG found even more surprising where the types of words used. “The patented UPONG Bullshit-o-meter™, a tool we pioneered to detect and out peddlers of BS, man, that tool was flashin’ its lil red light Hollywood B-grade movie access denied style all night long.” .
| Bullshit-o-meter™ Statistical Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|
| Term | OF | KWD |
| Specific Terms | ||
| Sandbox | 100.00% | 8.00% |
| 100.00% | 6.00% | |
| TrustRank | 83.63% | 4.00% |
| DMOZ | 67.43% | 1.00% |
| Aging delay | 47.63% | 0.76% |
| BS Indicator Terms | ||
| Proven | 99.76% | 2.65% |
| Unknown | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Possibly / Possible | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Absolute | 90.83% | 2.06% |
| comprehensive research | 12.89% | 2.06% |
| Commercial Indicator Terms | ||
| Free | 67.08% | 2.06% |
| eBook report | 18.49% | 1.86% |
The Bullshit-o-meter™ was going nuts because its statistical analysis of words known to be frequently utilised by scamsters, as well as common phrasings and exaggerated claims, encountered many irregularities.
“Looking at the data”, Michael continued” you will see that several terms are overused, many others that are hideously under-used, and some that should have been present simply were not used at all.”
Particularly surprising, according to UPONG’s press release, was the almost complete lack of doubt, or almost anything that was less than certainty.
“No one used the word possible / possibly. Amazing. A theory without the word possible is like a fat man sans man boobs. Unheard of! Either the SEO community has no idea how to do research or present ideas, or they are so advanced in their reverse engineering that issues such as detailed research and doubt are simply not required. Whatever it is, that level of confidence has to be admired, if nothing else!”
The research also produced, in signature UPONG fashion, this tremendously helpful radar graph.
1 comment February 26th, 2006
