Bubbleblog

Working in search engine optimisation, one word that I use more than any other is relevance.

'Relevance' is the measure of how pertinent or applicable anything is to a given matter, and too often people forget that;

a) relevance is measured in 'degrees' because contributing factors are often numerous/complex, sometimes subjective, and only rarely individually decisive

b) relevance is often just as much about source as it is about information

This can apply in a personal, professional or political capacity, but to keep things familiar (and to avoid ruffling any feathers), I'll draw two very simple examples from the well-known American sitcom M*A*S*H:

Put yourself in the shoes of Captain B.J. Hunnicutt. You're a reluctant army recruit, a dedicated surgeon, you had chicken soup for lunch, and your moustache tickles (and I'll leave you to measure how much of that is relevant in a moment).

You're operating on a soldier who's been gut-shot, and you're checking over your work before closing the patient. Suddenly, Corporal Klinger drops by your table and declares that he's "getting a whiff of bowel."

When judging the relevance of this statement, you will need to consider the following;

The information appears relevant, as there's a clear association between what you are working on and what he describes, but Klinger is not a doctor or a surgeon and, while he's an efficient orderly, he has no stomach for guts, and is sometimes prone to random outbursts (in an effort to obtain that coveted Section 8). Also, he has a nose so big that he may well be talking what's cooking for lunch over in the mess tent.

In short, the relevance of the statement is under question primarily because of the source, and there are many contributing factors to this single aspect.

Let's run it again, with the same information, but a different source;

You're operating on a soldier who's been gut-shot, and you're checking over your work before closing the patient. Suddenly, Captain "Hawkeye" Pierce drops by your table and declares that he's "getting a whiff of bowel."

It's about now that it occurs to you that all you can really smell behind your mask is the leftover chicken soup in that damn moustache of yours, and you'd better rummage around a bit before closing just in case you missed something.

Why? Because Pierce is a superior doctor (oh, admit it) as well as Chief Surgeon, and when he says he's getting a whiff of bowel when you're operating on a man's guts, you'd do well to trust his judgement and check that the shrapnel didn't nick the small intestine, for example.

Once again, the source has a direct bearing on relevance. The only difference is that, this time, there are fewer contributing factors.

Let's try it again, with two patients in triage:

If Major Frank Burns tells you to take the American ahead of the North Korean, you are likely to question the relevance of the order.  Burns has a history of pushing politics/protocol over professionalism, and you may want to check the patients yourself or get a second opinion. From what you know about Frank, the order may be as irrelevant as his memo to have the toilet seats stand to attention.

If Colonel Sherman T Potter tells you to take the American ahead of the North Korean, you know that politics won't enter into it, but it may well be a matter of protocol, as he's army down to the bone. Do you check the patients yourself and publicly doubt if his judgement is relevant? Tough call... because we're well into the land of degrees, not absolutes.

However, if Captain "Hawkeye" Pierce tells you to take the American ahead of the North Korean, you know that politics and protocol are the last things on his mind, and that as your closest friend, he's unlikely to put you in a compromising or morally questionable situation. It helps further that he's the Chief Surgeon, and willing to make the call and take the responsibility. The decision to follow this order is therefore instantaneous, because you regard what has been said to be highly relevant, and you are unlikely to disregard it or even question it.

Twice now, the source has been crucial to judging the relevance of the information offered, and it's this aspect of relevance that should help you better understand that your reputation in search engines (measured in Google as 'PageRank' and often referred to as 'link popularity') is less of a secondary consideration and more of fundamental one.

Being relevant to the query isn't just about having the right words/keywords on a site, but the right reputation backing them.

Add a comment

Comments

Your Name:

Location:

Comment:

Please enter the characters you see in the picture above: