PR5 to PR0 without any reason

[Deep13]

Open that file in Excel, it is basically a CSV file, and then expand the columns. It should fix your problem :)

[ctabuk]

I am getting very close to closing this thread.
And let me state my reasons should I decide to do so.

Google does not show all or any where near all of your links be it via software or via "mysite"

WPW or any other forum of repute are coninuously swamped with threads om backlinks and toolbar pagerank and it is a mods job to encourage new members to read and learn from experienced posters views on these subjects. What we cannot allow is 'misinformation' that is where one, two or more forum posters are ignoring facts being placed before them by more experienced SEO posters. So far I have given you Xenu to read and learn - Michael Martinez also to read and learn from. And still we have this bantering over link software that 1 - are highly inaccurate - 2 - Mis-leading for posters wishing to learn about site evaluation - 3 - childish comments that have no bearing on the topic.
I repeat - the thread started by Deep13 stated that he had gone from a PR5 to 0 and that his links had dissappeared - that is not the case. As I and others have pointed out.

[Clint1]

Shockingly, I don't have Excel. LOL. But what I did was a "find and replace" to remove junk that was making them click to non-existing URL's. So now it's a text file list where the links are clickable.

[Deep13]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

I am getting very close to closing this thread.
And let me state my reasons should I decide to do so.

Google does not show all or any where near all of your links be it via software or via "mysite"

WPW or any other forum of repute are coninuously swamped with threads om backlinks and toolbar pagerank and it is a mods job to encourage new members to read and learn from experienced posters views on these subjects. What we cannot allow is 'misinformation' that is where one, two or more forum posters are ignoring facts being placed before them by more experienced SEO posters. So far I have given you Xenu to read and learn - Michael Martinez also to read and learn from. And still we have this bantering over link software that 1 - are highly inaccurate - 2 - Mis-leading for posters wishing to learn baout site evaluation - 3 - childish comments that have no bearing on the topic.
I repeat - the thread started by Deep13 stated that he had gone from a PR5 to 0 and that his links had dissappeared - that is not the case. As I and others have pointed out.

Please close this thread but I do not see any childish comments as I personally feel it is just part of discussion and everyone has right to explain the stuff. Anyways, over and out, please close this thread.

cheers
Deep

[ctabuk]

Any post that makes a direct reference to 'behaviour' of a fellow member of a forum - is outside of the grounds of responsible posting. Be it a Moderator - a MVP or any poster. Call me old fashioned - but this post was aimed at pagerank and the answers that you received 'did not suit you'.
One of the very first things to do when a site be it a blog or a conventional website has a problem and you post that problem as a 'request for help' is to evaluate 'All' of the replies.Not simply the ones that 'You' want to hear.

[Deep13]

Actaually there is nothing like that, there is a logic behind every "No, this can't be" statement. I can surely explain why I was saying it cant be that and all but I would do that via personal messages or via messengers. If I do it in the thread, it will just make the thread some off topic.

Deep

[swirt]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

And still we have this bantering over link software that 1 - are highly inaccurate

That might be a bit premature since the google link display in WMT is less than a few days old.

Originally Posted by clint1

I think you need to check out other forums, especially the G Groups forums on these matters. I was not talking about "missing PR" and "missing index pages", but more so PR dropping, entire sites being deleted, or pages thrown into the supplemental index.

There are ALWAYS crawl errors listed in the WMT console, BOGUS crawl errors! This is yet another "issue" with G and their WMT console. The G forums are also full of these posts, stating that the Gbot is hitting on pages that never even existed and returning either 404's or "URL's not found" in the error area. Because of this, I have had to add many dozens of 301 redirects from pages that never existed that G has "created", to some other pages at my site, in order to get rid of these bogus 404's they are listing.

If google is hitting on pages that never existed, they should be generating 404 errors, that is the purpose. 301 Redirecting pages that never existed might be a bit over the top and in extreme could be contributing to the problem. It might be safer to set up a custom 404 page and make sure that it is returning a proper 404 code when delivered. If google hits on a page that never exists it may be for a couple of reasons, a bad link on your site, a bad link on someone elses site, or an error in google's random link generator (JK - they don't have one of those, although MSN does).

I understand there are a lot of posts here there and everywhere about Google messing up sites in indexes and not working themselves out in a few weeks. However, I have rarely investigated one that I have not found the problem to come from any one of a number of causes (I've seen google bot banned by robots.txt, modrewrites that actually create six versions of a page instead of 1, xml sitemaps that validate, but are incorrect, xml sitemaps that conflict with the html sitemap, spider-stopping code in templates that replicate the bad code on every page, no-index metas that weren't supposed to be there, session id issues...)

Sorry I directed you to wmt for updated PR, I forgot they dropped that from the offerings a few months back. Thankfully they have replaced it with the new link tool which is more worthwhile anyway.

I understand your disdain for google and you can say whatever you want about them, but it is a slippery slope. The more you believe google is evil and out to ruin the world, the worse it gets and pretty soon you are wearing a tinfoil hat to keep them from mining the data in your head. ;-) Good luck.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by swirt

If google is hitting on pages that never existed, they should be generating 404 errors, that is the purpose. 301 Redirecting pages that never existed might be a bit over the top and in extreme could be contributing to the problem.

I think you misunderstood me. G is claiming pages exist that do not exist. They are filling up people's WMT console areas with these 404's or "not found" entries. These are pages that have never existed (or in some cases pages that once did exist but have not for many years). Since I've heard G hates 404's, this is forcing people to try and get rid of these 404's they are erroneously reporting by doing some 301's from them to REAL pages.

It might be safer to set up a custom 404 page and make sure that it is returning a proper 404 code when delivered.

Already done that years ago, but it's still a 404 returned.

If google hits on a page that never exists it may be for a couple of reasons, 1. a bad link on your site, 2. a bad link on someone elses site, or 3. an error in google's random link generator.

1. No. 2. Possible. 3. Most probable because the URL's that are showing up in site owners' WMT consoles seem to have several odd things in common. Like %22 appended to the end, or %20, question marks, and several other odd commonalties.

I understand there are a lot of posts here there and everywhere about Google messing up sites in indexes and not working themselves out in a few weeks. However, I have rarely investigated one that I have not found the problem to come from any one of a number of causes (I've seen google bot banned by robots.txt, modrewrites that actually create six versions of a page instead of 1, xml sitemaps that validate, but are incorrect, xml sitemaps that conflict with the html sitemap, spider-stopping code in templates that replicate the bad code on every page, no-index metas that weren't supposed to be there, session id issues...)

I don't deny these DO exist, however they are not the subject of my posts or comments. It is all the times what you mention is NOT happening. These are the tens of thousands of posts and victims to which I refer.

Sorry I directed you to wmt for updated PR, I forgot they dropped that from the offerings a few months back. Thankfully they have replaced it with the new link tool which is more worthwhile anyway.

Which one is that, where they list sites that link to you?

The more you believe google is evil and out to ruin the world, the worse it gets and pretty soon you are wearing a tinfoil hat to keep them from mining the data in your head. ;-)

My thoughts, feelings, and comments are irrelevant to what G does, nor can they control what G does. Therefore no matter how I feel, what I say, is not going to make nor help things in getting better or worse.

It does not take a "tinfoil hat wearer" to see and acknowledge all the facts posted in countless forums by countless G victims. Facts are facts. When one is presented with them time and time again, over and over again, and checks them out again and again to actually see them; it is not only totally illogical to deduce there is no basis for them, but also makes one a literal ostrich with their head buried in the ground.

Good luck.

Thank you. ;-) Good luck to us all.

[swirt]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I think you misunderstood me. G is claiming pages exist that do not exist. They are filling up people's WMT console areas with these 404's or "not found" entries. These are pages that have never existed (or in some cases pages that once did exist but have not for many years). Since I've heard G hates 404's, this is forcing people to try and get rid of these 404's they are erroneously reporting by doing some 301's from them to REAL pages.

I understood exactly what you meant. But 301's are not the answer. Google doesn't so much "hate 404's" It treats them as it should, a 404 tells them this page doesn't exist. A few in a row (to make sure it is not a temporary error)and it will stop trying to crawl that page. A 301 redirect used to put out the fire (that is often caused by errors in link generation from dynamic sites)gives the message that the page did exist and now should go here. So google tries to award the pr from the old non existent page to the new page..and a few more of those 301's to the same page and it sets up a likely scenerio for causing Google to lose track of a page's PR (In other words you might be causing the very thing you are complaining about) it also if done in quantity gives the impression of trying to manipulate the serps as the action leaves a footprint of behavior. Google is less than impressed when it spiders an internal link and gets a 404, a few are no big deal, but a lot of them gives the impression of a site in disrepair. The problem is, if you 301 redirect all 404's then you lose the ability to see if there is an internal cause for the problem. If an external site is linking to pages that don't exist, then the worst it does is hurt the external site, not your site.

Originally Posted by clint1

Already done that years ago, but it's still a 404 returned.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that from Google's point of view and since we are not talking about actual visitors getting the 404, then there is no problem.

Originally Posted by clint1

3. Most probable because the URL's that are showing up in site owners' WMT consoles seem to have several odd things in common. Like %22 appended to the end, or %20, question marks, and several other odd commonalties.

Exactly, most likely an error in a dynamic site, site-map or mod-rewrite or in a link (often external)

Originally Posted by clint1

Which one is that, where they list sites that link to you?

Yes, and internal links too.

Originally Posted by clint1

It does not take a "tinfoil hat wearer" to see and acknowledge all the facts posted in countless forums by countless G victims. Facts are facts. When one is presented with them time and time again, over and over again, and checks them out again and again to actually see them; it is not only totally illogical to deduce there is no basis for them, but also makes one a literal ostrich with their head buried in the ground.

LOL. No sand in my ears ;-) I mean no disrespect to you on this, but given that at the beginning of this thread you were of the impression that a page lost PR due to links on the same page, it might be that what you see as fact and what I see as fact are seen through different filters. I'm not a frequent poster on this forum, but I can be found elsewhere where my postcount is more reflective of my experience with SEO.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by swirt

Google is less than impressed when it spiders an internal link and gets a 404, a few are no big deal, but a lot of them gives the impression of a site in disrepair.

Exactly, that's why I was trying to change them so all their 404's would be real links.

The problem is, if you 301 redirect all 404's then you lose the ability to see if there is an internal cause for the problem.

No, like I said there are no internal causes for these problems. We're not just talking about pages that were deleted many years ago, but pages that never even existed.

....also if done in quantity gives the impression of trying to manipulate the serps as the action leaves a footprint of behavior.

Well that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Another GOOGLE problem people try to correct and they penalize YOU for it. This doesn't make much sense though because one would think 404's would look much worse to G than 301's. 404's could be indicative of a site is disarray or disrepair as you stated, or that it has been abandoned. Where as 301's would at least indicate it's active and someone is trying to fix something. It would seem logical to conclude that numerous 404's would be a more negative "footprint" than 301's.

I mean no disrespect to you on this, but given that at the beginning of this thread you were of the impression that a page lost PR due to links on the same page, it might be that what you see as fact and what I see as fact are seen through different filters.

None taken........until now. LOL. Just because someone was not aware that putting OBL's on a page didn't hurt its PR (and most state it does), does not stereotype them into a conglomerate of idiots that cannot see facts as facts. I could start quoting medical or biological, or electronics engineering facts & topics to you, and just because you may not know what I'm talking about does not categorize you as inept.

[swirt]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Exactly, that's why I was trying to change them so all their 404's would be real links.

No, like I said there are no internal causes for these problems. We're not just talking about pages that were deleted many years ago, but pages that never even existed.

If indeed there are no INTERNAL errors, then the 404's can not hurt you as they are not coming from your site. With your 301 approach you are creating a problem that didn't exist.

Originally Posted by clint1

... Just because someone was not aware that putting OBL's on a page didn't hurt its PR (and most state it does), does not stereotype them into a conglomerate of idiots that cannot see facts as facts. I could start quoting medical or biological, or electronics engineering facts & topics to you, and just because you may not know what I'm talking about does not categorize you as inept.

Lets not put words in my mouth and distort what I wrote.

"(and most state it does), " - No one who is widely accepted as being knowledgeable in SEO has ever said this or supported it. Google PR has never behaved this way. It is just rapant misunderstanding/urban legend being promoted to fact status despite the absense of supporting evidence.

[kevsta]

here's one that's done the opposite of the OP's post, ie gone PR0 to (alleged) PR5 with no backlinks to speak of.

it belongs to a friend of mine. Kdot Online :: Urban Music Management & Bookings Agency

another good reason to be mistrustful of seemingly unfounded tbPR readings

[Webnauts]

I see in my toolbar PR4.

PR dilution? Supplemental Ratio for whoisdeep.com: 73.7% ???

* Google has a total of 1080 pages indexed from whoisdeep.com
* 284 are in the main index
* 796 are in the supplemental index

Get that stuff fix. Wordpress SEO Plugin can be great help.

[full house]

YUp! its PR 4 also in my google toolbar, with only 224 back links from google. Just confuse of your supplemental details. how that affect PR? what tool did you use?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by full house

YUp! its PR 4 also in my google toolbar, with only 224 back links from google. Just confuse of your supplemental details. how that affect PR? what tool did you use?

Supplemental pages are a cause of PR dilution.
And here is the tool: Supplemental Index Ratio Calculator

Old info, but still valid: Got Supplementals? Accepting PageRank is Only The Beginning | Half’s SEO Notebook

[cz]

I wish you wouldn't have posted that "Supplemental Index Ratio Calculator" link Webnauts. I thought I'd cry after running my 2 e-comm sites and 2 blogs through it. 1/2 or more of my stuff is supplemental.

I have got a lot of links but one e-comm site is slowing down and the other is nose-diving sharply over the past 2 months.

Now I can see why. Maybe I should have a good cry - I feel something building up inside, I hope it's just gas?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by cz

Now I can see why. Maybe I should have a good cry - I feel something building up inside, I hope it's just gas?

No. Just dilute of PR and worse rankings. This is not a theory. I am working on several sites, which backup the validity of my statement.

[cz]

Yes, I'm a believer in the "dilution" thing.

The links you provided and the details that were explained on the one site, make perfect sense once I got my mind around it. Never had thought of something like that! Glad you did post the info actually. SEO is changing so fast, as a webmaster, in bygone years - I could do very effective SEO by myself - now it's getting to be a real art and entails so much that I don't even try anymore.

I just try to obtain a link anywhere I can get one. I just don't exchange them anymore. Do you think a decent reciprocal is still worth it with a (relevant and established) site? I had my Links page PRO'ed a few months ago - down from PR3?? I only had three links exchanges on it?

I get on my sites now and think what can I do to better optimize for SERPS other than what I already did when I had dozens of top five spots and number 1's for some good keywords? That's where it stops since I have no clue anymore.

I know - hire an SEO consultant! Tough to do for a Mom & Pop operation who's been through a slow year. Not a lot of extra cash sitting around like there was in previous years. It seems to have gotten much harder.