Google Directory Update - PR drops for sites

[cbp]

For the sites I monitor that are in the Google Directory, I am seeing PR drops for them all in today Google update of them from DMOZ dump of Oct 5.

Best guess - Google have had to do a big recalculation of PR to keep the whole www average at 1.

CBP

[greeneagle]

cbp,

Not sure I follow this whole "leveling" theory, could you explain it? Didn't see anything negative this last time even for a PR4 Site that GOOGLE shows "0" IBL's to. This particular Site has been being tended to in redesign for 2 month and backed up by a strong "relative" linking program for 4 months on Sites with PR4+.

Please explain any of this to me.

1)If GOOGLE shows representative Sites linking in why..., especially after this much effort?

2) Isn't "1" more representative than actual? What does "1" really mean? Does it not mean "the whole universe" of indexed and listed Sites? If so, doesn't PR grow proportionately? "1" set of residents in my town is a lot different number than "1" set of residents in the US. Could you expand on that mathematical concept and how it works in the GOOGLE algs? Why would they limit it at some fixed reality?, and how did they determine that reality for everyone on the planet?

I would sincerely like to know why a client's 7 page website up for a year in second rendition 4 months ago (no spam, W3C validated) followed up by 4 months of submissions to about 300-400 high ranking relevant directories is still showing "0" links at GOOGLE? Yet they snap up any new page I add and slap a 4 on it too, again on the 5th - What gives here? THis is not at all representative?

This is really bothering me!

Thanks,
Ken

[cbp]

The original PR documents state that the average PR of the whole www is set at 1, so as the www expands (and it is doing so rapidly) there is less PR for each page above PR1 to keep the average at 1, so there is always a general downward trend in PR .... PR will alway go down at updates unless some links are added to keep it from going down or even more links are obtained to get an increase.

I see in other forums, the general downward trend in PR update in the directory is being seen by others.

CBP

[greeneagle]

Does that also explain the continued deprication of IBL reporting?

Ken

[cbp]

Does that also explain the continued deprication of IBL reporting?

I don't think so. The backlink thing is random and no relationship to what Google actually know about and use.... I don't know why Google even bother wasting computing resources on the public display of backlinks....who else apart from us use them?

CBP

[pne]

cbp,

Have absolutely no desire to revisit this, but...

Google's public display of backlinks is, IMHO, for us. It's one of only two things they "give" us that we pay serious attention to (gross generalisation? I know).

pne

[cbp]

But, I think its got to the stage that its so useles what they show, why bother?

How often did you use to go to competitors site and check all their links for you to contact for links to your site? Its largely a waste of time now due to the low number G show...

Google are in the business of providing sevices to searchers. Why waste computing resources on providing backlinks (searcher don't use them) to us, especially now that they its such a useless resource .... IMHO

CBP

[pne]

cbp,

I think that just as Google have 100 (or whatever) factors that contribute to SERPs, so they also have many, many factors that keep them the most popular search engine. IMO a public display of backlinks to Webmasters is just one of them. There would seem to be no obvious reason for doing this otherwise.

pne

p.s. Apologies for appalling English, girlfriend kept me awake all night snoring. She's got to go.

[sfowler]

One of the things that keeps a search engine like Google popular is sheer habit. People install google.at or whatever as start page and either do not know how to change it, do not know that there are other SEs, or just don't really care so long as they find what they are looking for.

Even if you have to scroll through two pages of results, it is still quicker than trying to find something in the Yellow Pages. Depending on where you live, of course. In Vienna they are dreadful, where I live outside they are better.

Google has become synonymous with search, andthat is a hard act to follow.

Give her a good kick and then pretend to be asleep. That's what I do!

[greeneagle]

I am having a real problem swallowing some of these concepts and I will tell you why.

I have a client that is a non-profit rural water company. All usage is strictly local and word of mouth for the most part. They have never needed a linking campaign. The only Site that picked them up was a completely generic link. The primary goal was to take a load off of a one person office by answering questions and providing downloadable forms.

I have never submitted anywhere. This update we had several pages on the Site to gain PR. Traffic has trippled in the last 10 days or so.

On the other hand I also have a client that is a large laser machining company providing virtually all machined perforating gun components for the largest Oil Industry Service Company in the world. We have submitted to 100s of Se's and High Ranking Directories over a 4 month period, while GOOGLE still shows "0" IBL's. The Site maintains solid PR4s all the way through, and a new page went directly to PR4 in this last "public" PR update.

It seems like all the rules are being broken. I sincerely believe that less emphasis is being applied to IBLs recently.

Ken

[pne]

Ken,

Couldn't agree more. You're spot on, as is Simon with the Yellow Pages analogy.

I think that Google is having a bit of a laugh at our expense with the whole ibl thing. I can't believe anyone can take the link: seriously, yet many (very many) do. Ditto with PR, it's rapidly becoming almost irrelevant to search and SERPs.

If this whole thing is Google staying one step ahead of the spammers/webmasters then it's a pretty lame joke. IMHO Google have done more than anyone to boost the importance of SEO and, in the programmed searches I conduct, are rapidly being caught by Yahoo!

pne

[greeneagle]

pne and Simon,

On the lighter side, "yellow pages" still have a place:

At the beginning of this month my 10 month old Rottweiller became extremely ill over a 24 hr. period. When he started stumbling around the yard we decided to rush him to an animal hospital.

While I was picking up the 75lb lug and placing him in our SUV my wife found the only animal hospital within a 20 mile radius in the yellow pages on the Internet.

$800 and a 6 day hospital stay later he recovered from Parvo. (Yes he was up to date on all shots). No.. The prominent vet clinic and animal hospital did not have a WebSite.

Looks like we will be picking them up as a client. I told the big lug that he really doesn't have to work so hard for his keep.

Ken

[pne]

Ken,

Nice one and glad everything turned out okay.

I still maintain though that if I want to search a directory I'll go to one. I feel that Google, through PR (particularly) has disappeared up its own fundamental orifice.

pne

[MathsIsFun]

A few of us have noticed that we are tops for allinanchor:keywords, but terrible on normal search, see http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=30276

So, we obviously have enough keywords in IBLs to beat the competition, but Google don't care :)

This is supporting what greeneagle says:

It seems like all the rules are being broken. I sincerely believe that less emphasis is being applied to IBLs recently.

So, why gather any more links? Are we now wasting our time?

What does matter to Google ... ?

[greeneagle]

cbp

"1" doesn't apply to each search string individually? What is "1"? Google seems to have alg factors that review a Site for keyphrases by page and entire Site. Many of us use www.googlerankings.com to review rankings for keyphrases in Google and Yahoo, but they seem to evaluate the entire Site only when suggesting keywords. Is that the priority? What do we really know?

Ken

[randfish]

Is there any belief that PR may be shifting the way its calculated, or is the general consensus that the avg of PR1 is what's causing a general drop?

Also, my PR went up in the directory - to a 27pixel width from 22, I'm now #4 out of 100. But, during the last PR update, my site stayed at PR4 - seems strange?

[cbp]

Is there any belief that PR may be shifting the way its calculated, or is the general consensus that the avg of PR1 is what's causing a general drop?

The original PR documents set the average PR of the whole www to 1. BUT, there is nothing stopping them changing their mind and setting it to 2.

So its probably just a good assumption that the general drop is due to this sort of leveling out, as it does explain what is being seen (site that have gone up have just got a large number of more new links to offset it)

CBP

[amabaie]

If average PR must remain at 1, and new websites are coming on market all the time, it would stand to reason that existing websites, which are more likely to be above 1, would be given a PR bump, not a PR dump.

It is not all those new sites coming online that is making sites lose PR; it is all the sites bumping up their PR by adding more links than they could ever realistically expect to receive naturally.

Don't blame the new sites, they are actually helping existing sites maintain their PR (assuming the leveling theory is accurate).

[cbp]

Don't blame the new sites, they are actually helping existing sites maintain their PR

Most new sites go PR>1 with a couple of links --> have opposite effect.

CBP

[simonm]

Reading this thread I thought I would try to work out how many backlinks one of my sites really had. Doing a google search on www.midkentwater.co.uk I show:
Find web pages that link to www.midkentwater.co.uk = 213.
Find web pages that contain the term "www.midkentwater.co.uk" = 791

However, a search for midkentwater = 801 while a search for "mid kent water" = 4,560

The term midkentwater realistically only appears in a link, so I checked to see how many page references to "Mid Kent Water" did not include a link ie "mid kent water" NOT "midkentwater.co.uk" = 319 thus I must assume I have 4,560 - 319 = 4,241 inbound links of some sort.

I'm not going to go through each of the 4,560 to see which do and which don't have links. Whatever, I do appreciate that in a strictly mathematical sense, not much of this adds up!

Simon

[jacobwissler]

Thank you CBP for taking note of am important trend, and bringing it to our attention. I was saw several sites drop in the Google Directory, where I knew the number of IBL had increased. You observation confirmed what I was seeing.

In theory, content should be more important than links, and if SEO firms spent more time building content, and less time building links, everyone and every site would benefit.

[cbp]

The drop in general widespread drop in the PR for sites in the Google directory ~2 wks ago has just gone back up again.

CP

[cbp]

.... 2nd thoughts - they have not gone back up again .... the Directory has reverted back to an older version with the older PR's :-(

CBP