If you search this blog (IRThoughts) for LSI or visit its Latent Semantic Indexing category you will find many posts wherein SEO LSI Myths are debunked. Prior to this wordpress blog I used to maintain a personal blog wherein SEO myths regarding LSI were also debunked.

Over the years, many realized they were taken by the usual agents of misinformation, at least when it comes to “SEO LSI” and “LSI-Friendly” documents.

Recently, I found traffic coming from a blog discussion about a video (http://www.stomperblog.com/warning-advanced-seo-technique-does-not-work/) wherein LSI in relation with Google is debunked.

The video also discusses one flavor of LSI; i.e. one wherein weights are tf-IDF weights. This flavor does not incorporate relevance information or entropy information, like other LSI variants.

The video does a good job at debunking LSI Myths. However, it has at least a factually incorrect argument in relation to how the SVD algorithm works.

The video gives an example implying that SVD works by reducing a large set of words to a few words, such that, for example thousand of words are reduced to, let say 300 words.  This is incorrect and certainly is not a trivial flaw.

SVD does not work by reducing a vocabulary, but by reducing dimensions, and there are as many dimensions as singular values. This is why is called a dimensionality-reduction and not a vocabulary-reduction algorithm.  I should stress that an LSI Space is not like a Term Space wherein each term is a dimension such that there is a 1:1 correspondence.

In LSI, the SVD algorithm is used to reduce the dimensions of a matrix; the number of singular values of the matrix.

For instance in our SVD and LSI Tutorial series at

http://www.miislita.com/information-retrieval-tutorial/svd-lsi-tutorial-5-lsi-keyword-research-co-occurrence.html

we present an LSI problem example consisting of many words and few initial dimensions such that for the initial matrix

#words >> # initial dimensions

more specific, we used 11 words and 3 dimensions

After truncation, we ended up with 11 words and 2 dimensions.

Other than this, the video is fun to watch, but ended up as an introductory promotion for another SEO proposal.

PS.

After reviewing several times the video, unfortunately I found the video has another incorrect argumentation.

When objecting to that Google might not use LSI, an argument is made in the sense that LSI has to return same results when word variants are used like plurals and tenses. This might be the case if stemming is heavily used in an LSI implementation, but the use of stemming is not a requirement for implementing LSI at all.

When stemming is not implemented, for sure the SVD reduction will return different results since these will be entered in the original term-doc matrix to be undergo decomposition as different tokens.

The video also misses what the power of LSI comes from: higher order co-occurrence connectivity path hidden (latent) in the original matrix. Whether terms have to be synonyms, related terms, or even of non-derivative forms is not a requirement for observing these hidden paths in LSI.

Terms no need to be related terms either to end up clustered with LSI. It is the hidden co-occurrence patterns what is behind the clustering. For example, in our SVD and LSI tutorial above, we intentionally used stopwords and zero synonyms/related terms and these ended-up in their corresponding clusters, without being necessarily semantically related. This simple example shows that in LSI the SVD algorithm produces an output based on crushing numbers, not on making sense out of meaning or intelligence, and contradicts the generalized opinion that LSI works at the level of meaning.

I have to conclude that while the video is intended to debunk LSI SEO myths (a noble effort), it uses incorrect arguments and hearsays lines from around the Web. Debunking hearsay with more hearsay: What a shame.