Now, first of I am also happy we didn’t get into the whole LSI and Google
mantra that SEOs have been yapping about for a few years. That all started
with the purchase of Applied Semantics back in 03. Ye can read all about
that here; http://www.huomah.com/search-engines/algorithm-matters/stay-off-the-lsi-bandwagon.html.

Now, since we’re passed that, I am more inclined to think along the lines of
PLSA (as well as LDA and HTMM) as the engineers over there did seem to have
a fancy for it in 07; http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2007/09/openhtmm-released.html

Also, there was mention of the semantics relating to the Google expanded
snippets. That part, while possibly using some form of semantic analysis, is
part of the Orion algorithm from Ori Allon;
http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/New-Algo-Changes-at-Google.html

And of course we’d be remiss if we didn’t look at Anna Patterson’s – Phrase
based indexing and retrieval (formal Googler now running Cuil) which are
also potential pieces to the semantic puzzle at Google;
http://www.huomah.com/search-engines/algorithm-matters/phrase-based-optimization-resources.html

[...]

I do agree will Phill’s comments though, understanding how search engines
are using semantic analysis (and other methods) to define concepts is
something not well discussed in the industry. Considering that the lion’s
share of search each day are ambiguous and new, (according to Google), they
are constantly toying with signals such as semantic analysis (which works
hand in hand with query analysis) to better understand what the user is
looking for.

But…

“So Phill deduced that Google’s using LSA to analyze link equity as well as
for serving queries. ” – well, this once more doesn’t prove LSA… but some
type of theme/concept categorization (possibly). Since we know LSI was for
ad matching, and Phrase Based IR was for the organic (both puchased the same
year) we could also (incorrectly) make the assumption that those link
valuations are what is causing this. But wait, early the next year (2004)
they purchased Kaltix and their Personalized PageRank approaches… also
widely believed to be part of the anchor text valuations that hit in
‘05-06… hmmmmm…
http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Personalized-PageRank-a-user-sensitive-affair.html

Pont being, that we can’t jump the gun and start calling Google semantic
analysis any one flavour at this point. Applied Semantics was an ad matching
technology using LSI; we can’t assume it was added to the reg search
processes (phrase based approach was the same year). I just wanted to add
some perspective lest we get another spat of SEOs peddling ‘Google LSI
Compliant’ serices once more (circa 2006).

M’kay?

Personally, I work with building out semantic concepts with my SEO programs,
but I don’t limit my study of them to one aspect (such as LSA/I). Many times
I talk to people about losing the old school ‘KW density’ and to think more
in core, secondary and related phrase ratios. This applies to not only
on-page factors, but links as well (where possible). To that end I whole
heartedly agree with the core assertions being made in the post, ust wanted
to clear up some of Google’s history and broaden the potential suspects (and
steer the crap SEOs away from the re-birth of Google LSI Programs)…

Regardless, fascinating stuff. Easily the best article I’ve read this week. Thanks for pulling this together.