LDA and Google’s ranks well correlated?

After the hilarious example of this guy with the SEOMOZ LDA tool (http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2010/09/09/proof-that-the-new-seomoz-tools-is-at-least-half-accurate/ ) I can only laugh out loud. Have anyone tried something like that?

Regarding the new fiasco with their LDA tool. Oh, no, another one… (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/lda-correlation-017-not-032) : What can I said? They sound pathetic and apologetic. The words overhyped, shitty, sloppy, flawed, etc are not enough to describe their “research work”.

What will happen now with those Mute Speakerphones that were misled? Those that listen to fools become one.

I don’t feel any sympathy for their 15 minutes of “honesty”. The damage was done already to naïve readers.

Also, note that this latest flaw was discovered by them. It was not the result of any peer review process from external referees, as those throwing a towel at them would like to believe.

As mentioned before, beware of SEOs statistical “studies” and their quack “science”  (https://irthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/beware-of-seo-statistical-studies/  ), especially if coming from SEOMOZ.

Probably their snakeoil will make a comeback soon. (Oh, no. Again?)

If they still think they have a valid LDA implementation, why not announce it at David Blei’s Topic-Models werein a community of LDA experts will review  it  and compare it against other implementations?

Two things can happen:

(a) It will be reviewed.

(b) it will be ignored.

I “invite” them to do so.

Please, just don’t show up with your snakeoil, yellow shoes, your seo mom, paid cheerleaders, vested investors, overhyped claims, etc, etc.


More on their hype machine here: http://skitzzo.com/archives/seomoz-hype-machine.php

 It appears that even Danny Sullivan is not buying SEOmoz’s “research” on LDA. Accordingly, “He didn’t think it was the remarkable change that SEOmoz was making it out to be.” (http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/evening-forum-with-danny-sullivan/). He even confronted and put into question their “highly correlated” numbers. And that was even before they recanted.