Comparison of Flow Metrics in Historic and Fresh indexes

By Dixon Jones June 27, 2012

Today not only have we updated our Historic Index, but we are delighted to say that Flow Metrics are now incorporated withing our Historic Index. This again increases the value of Majestic’s link map, giving you Citation Flow and Trust Flow metrics for links going back years. Here are some vital stats:

Historic Index

Pages crawled: 372,709,632,828
Unique URLs: 3,842,466,696,467
Date range: 26 Oct 2006 to 28 May 2012
Last updated: 25 Jun 2012

 

Citation Flow and Trust Flow now appears on most Site Explorer and historic reports.

How Historic Flow Metrics Change Compared to Fresh Index Flow Metrics

Like you, we are seeing this data for the very first time, so taking a single sample is hardly a full analysis of 3.8 trillion URLS. But still – all research needs to start somewhere, so let’s compare fresh and historic link profiles for a deep URL on a subdomain and the work up to the root. Starting with http://australia.infomine.com/careers/:

Historic Link Profile for http://australia.infomine.com/careers/

Fresh Link Profile for http://australia.infomine.com/careers/

As you might expect, there are not many dots on an internal page of a subdomain, either in Fresh OR Historic. In this first example, we see that there is no difference in Citation Flow between Fresh and Historic, with both scores at 26, but a significant increase in trust historically, compared to the fresh data (31 vs 27). The lack of change in the citation can really be attributed to the lack of marketing effort being attributed to this url, because (as we can see in the dots on the charts) links seen to the url over the last 60 days are few and far between – although there are more links seen to the domain itself.

This lack of new links – whilst keeping citation unchanged – might actually be starting to hurt this page over time as it seems that the proximity of good URLS seen near this page is wider over a 60 day period than on a longer cycle.

This may be interesting because even though the content on the target page changes regularly (it is a list of mining jobs in Australia), it would seem that employers and individuals are not linking to this URL. I guess this is to be expected – because an employer would be more inclined to link to their actual job listings, rather than pointing jobseekers to vacancies that would include competitors. In short – this is a doorway page to other job opportunities – but since Google has not yet dissected the Australian mining industry’s job market, Google still feels that this page is a good bet for people searching for these kinds of jobs in Australia.

Historic Link Profile for http://australia.infomine.com/

Fresh Link Profile for http://australia.infomine.com/

At the SUBDOMAIN level, both the Citation Flow and Trust Flow metrics have increased substantially at the historic level, which is to be expected. Usually pages higher up the domain structure are more trusted and gather more links. The Citation Flow has risen 5 points to 31, which is now one point HIGHER than the Fresh Citation Flow. TRUST, however, has gained even more. Trust Flow at the historic level is 39 compared to just 32 in the fresh index.

Now the content on this page – whilst dynamic – seems to simply be regurgitating numbers generated elsewhere on the www domain. So I wonder how much trust there is at the root level? Well let’s find out:

Historic Link Profile for http://infomine.com/

Fresh Link Profile for http://infomine.com/

Now we can really see the power of the web domain. Even though much of the subdomain internal content is auto-generated, 4.1 million links from 27.7 thousand referring domains is hard for any search engine to ignore. As such, MajesticSEO has calculated a Citation Flow of 58 with a slightly lower trust flow of 56 for the root. (Do not confuse this with http://infomine at the PAGE level, which redirects and so has a much lower score.) On the Fresh Index, both values were right in the middle at 57 – one being slightly higher and one being slightly lower than their historic equivalents.

Summary

Based on a single example, it is impossible to jump to conclusions about all the data we are now seeing, but historic charts and fresh charts – whilst not wildly different – do seem to offer signals about whether a site is gaining or losing the interest of the world. Maybe people find themselves accepting that Infomine.com is indeed a market leader in mining intelligence (as opposed to data mining intelligence) – but they are not getting EXTRA excited over recent months.

Posted In: Development

7 Responses to “Comparison of Flow Metrics in Historic and Fresh indexes”

  1. Dixon said:

    June 27, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    I just also did a comparison of a site that had a HUGE increase in Trust (10 points) in Fresh compared to Historic. Further digging showed that the fresh index stopped seeing internal pages about six weeks back – so the domain had popped and – indeed – had come offline.

    The relationship between Historic and Fresh flow metrics could have some interesting spin off signals beyond SEO.

  2. Angel Torres said:

    July 03, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Verdad que funciona el sistema de enlaces? no penaliza google este sistema? gracias

    From Google Translate: Truth that links system works? Google does not penalize this system? thanks
    From Microsfot Translator: Right that the links system works? google does not penalize this system? Thank you

    • Dixon said:

      July 03, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      We just look at the data. You will need to ask Google how they interpret links as it is different to us – although our analysis may well help you when understanding Google.>

  3. matrus said:

    July 03, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I have compared some of my websites and it is good to have a parameter which shows if particular webside is attractive to audience.

  4. Mariusz said:

    July 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I see big changes in citation and trust flow.
    Previously I was somewhat surprised, citation/trust flow was very low despite the fact that my link building strategies was good, but it looked that it didn’t make influence on citation/trust flow.

    Ps. I wonder if we block MJ bot it can have a negative impact on stats citation and trust flow?

    • Alex said:

      July 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      Hi,

      It’s possible that we picked up links that flow a lot of juice which is why you saw the increase. Blocking bot will have negative effect on internal flow – if it is significant (which it is likely to be for internal pages that often not well linked externally) then it can result in large drop in flow metrics.

  5. Trackbacks said:

    August 23, 2014 at 5:18 pm