The Ongoing PageRank Massacre Hits Big Players

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

There was a short period of time when everything crashed but the cause of that is known and after the experiment concluded, everything continued as if nothing had happened anyway.

Can you tell approximatively when did that crash happen? I am not defending the tool bar, as it it not up to date. I am defending PageRank itself.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you give some examples of such sites? I would like to follow up this observation myself.
Thanks.

Comment - Google's Matt Cutts Answers Questions On PageRank [SearchEngineWatch]

StatCounter Free invisible Web tracker, Hit counter and Web stats (still #1 for site stats - we use it and I believe they were either a pr7 or 8, now 6)

Business News and Financial News at Forbes.com (still #3 for business news - was a pr6, now 4)

Home | Americart E-Commerce Shopping Cart Service (was a pr8, now 6)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

Comment - Google's Matt Cutts Answers Questions On PageRank [SearchEngineWatch]

This doesn't mean anything to me.

Matt said, "you won’t see any search engine result page (SERP) changes as a result of this PageRank export." In short, Google takes their "internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they’re visible to Google Toolbar users." By the time those numbers are pushed to the Google toolbar and visible to folks, they are already outdated.

I am not talking about the PageRank Tool Bar Export. I am talking about the internal PageRank. The internal calculation. So lets go one month or bit later back.

You got my point now?

[dartman]

Originally Posted by swcreations

Most of consumers aren't looking at the PR ranking when they decide to purchase from a company anyways.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am sorry, but from my experience, I cannot agree with you all the way.

Are you suggesting some consumers buy because of TBPR and not because of product/price?
Care to share your experience on this?

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you tell approximatively when did that crash happen?

I can do better than that, I can tell you exactly when it happened. I should know, I caused it.

The slide, that lead to a crash started on the 22nd of June. An article I wrote, about 1/3 of the way through the experiment is at CASS-Hacks - Google PageRank, Main and Supplemental Index, is there a connection?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am not defending the tool bar, as it it not up to date. I am defending PageRank itself.

The article I wrote would agree, Google's internal PageRank IS important.

One can argue the relative benefits to SERPs but over the course of that experiment, from start to full recovery, SERPs dropped slightly initially but then bottomed out as the site's total and Main indexed page counts hit bottom, which would seem to correlate to a drop in Google's internal PageRank.

As for the other effects of PageRank, total indexed pages and pages in the Supplemental index I think are more clear cut though but there is still a relationship between Google's internal PageRank and SERPs which while the experiment doesn't actually prove, I do know that nothing else has or had changed except during that experiment.

One thing about the experiment that isn't recorded, in that article at least, I followed some of the pages that linked to the pages I used in the experiment and saw changes in indexed page counts as those pages were crawled which is what leads me to believe that Google's internal PageRank was the operative factor.

On a side note, I think a problem people have is differentiating between Google's internal value and the toolbar value either in thought or maybe just in the words they use. If one says "PR" but means toolbar PageRank and another is thinking Google's internal PageRank, disagreements are almost guaranteed.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

This doesn't mean anything to me. Matt said, "you won’t see any search engine result page (SERP) changes as a result of this PageRank export." In short, Google takes their "internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they’re visible to Google Toolbar users." By the time those numbers are pushed to the Google toolbar and visible to folks, they are already outdated. I am not talking about the PageRank Tool Bar Export. I am talking about the internal PageRank. The internal calculation. So lets go one month or bit later back.
You got my point now?

The buzz is that the TBPR hits did not affect serp ranking - just the amount of green that sites used to justify the
cost of selling links. Some sites were not selling links (americart) but still got hit on the green bar.
Now I got your point sir however the whole controversey revolves around the green bar, not the true
internal PR. You asked for examples and I attempted to oblige you.
Some (name omitted) think serp rank is a direct result of TBPR. My entire argument has been to the contrary.
Cutts says serps won't change as a result of PR export. Who to believe?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

On a side note, I think a problem people have is differentiating between Google's internal value and the toolbar value either in thought or maybe just in the words they use. If one says "PR" but means toolbar PageRank and another is thinking Google's internal PageRank, disagreements are almost guaranteed.

And that is what pisses me off. I thought that most members here should already know that I am not an average Joe in SEO, and when I am talking about PageRank I mean internal PageRank and not what everyone see in that sickening no good bar.

Matt Cutts mentioned in one of his answers to the blog subscribers here More info on PageRank that PageRank is one of more than 100 ranking factors. And I just posted the the following question:

Matt, you mentioned above in one of your comments that PageRank is one of more than 100 ranking factors, and I would just like to ask, how much weight does the PageRank have when it comes to rankings. Lets say in percent?

Do you think I will get an answer to that question? I honestly don't believe so. And do you know why? Think about it.

And!!! As you probably know the posts there are moderated. And my comment some minutes later went online. So I am sure he read it.

So lets see his reaction, if any...

[dartman]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

On a side note, I think a problem people have is differentiating between Google's internal value and the toolbar value either in thought or maybe just in the words they use. If one says "PR" but means toolbar PageRank and another is thinking Google's internal PageRank, disagreements are almost guaranteed.

Well said.
I think it's a time tested fact that PR (not TBPR) plays a major role in determining the value and
subsequent serp rank of a page/site.
TBPR is merely a snapshot of a point in time based on a scale of 0-10.
The true PR value is unknown but obviously a more specific value well beyond 0-10.
I don't recall ever seeing a thread with speculation as to how many digits make up the internal PR
if in fact it is simply a matter of digits.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

The buzz is that the TBPR hits did not affect serp ranking - just the amount of green that sites used to justify the
cost of selling links.

Correct! TBPR affects companies selling links. Not rankings. But the weird thing is, that even if Google claims to be against selling links, the support that with that Tool Bar. Do you understand that? Me not. If I try to understand that, I can only come up with the fact that they are just trying to make us addicted to them and the same time to keep or even increase their popularity. But they wont get me that way!

Originally Posted by dartman

Some sites were not selling links (americart) but still got hit on the green bar.

Thanks a lot Dartman! This confirms my preachings that links alone are not the only factor of the PageRank algorithm!!!

Originally Posted by dartman

Now I got your point sir however the whole controversey revolves around the green bar, not the true
internal PR.

Sir? That was a good one. And I assume you know now that when I will ever mention the abbreviation PR or the phrase/term PageRank, that I am talking about the internal PageRank.

Originally Posted by dartman

You asked for examples and I attempted to oblige you.

I guess the above answers this point.

Originally Posted by dartman

Some (name omitted) think serp rank is a direct result of TBPR.

If that guy claims to be an SEO, I would kindly advise him to look for another job, or buy a sand backet and go to the beach and build some sand towers. And that because his site and of his customers can only be sand towers, which when the waves of Google comes they will be eliminated.

Originally Posted by dartman

Cutts says serps won't change as a result of PR export. Who to believe?

He is absolutely right! My tool bar colors increased on the 27th of October, but I saw a sudden dramatical ranking boost earlier than that date.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

But the weird thing is, that even if Google claims to be against selling links, the support that with that Tool Bar. Do you understand that? Me not. If I try to understand that, I can only come up with the fact that they are just trying to make us addicted to them and the same time to keep or even increase their popularity. But they wont get me that way!

A lot of what I read is the crackdown was because G felt that some link buying/selling was more about passing link juice to
deceive their algorithms, not as competition for their own advertising model. I think G does things (i.e. TBPR) with good
intentions and then realizes later on that people figured out how to take advantage to benefit their sites in a not so honorable
way. This most likely caused the emphasis on using nofollow for paid links. IMO the best solution would have been to eliminate
the green goblin alltogether. Problem solved.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

A lot of what I read is the crackdown was because G felt that some link buying/selling was more about passing link juice to
deceive their algorithms, not as competition for their own advertising model. I think G does things (i.e. TBPR) with good
intentions and then realizes later on that people figured out how to take advantage to benefit their sites in a not so honorable
way. This most likely caused the emphasis on using nofollow for paid links.

I fully agree.

And once again I would like to suggest everyone here to read my post at this blog: Why Paid Links Probably Aren’t Wrong at*All – Jens Meiert

I posted the link previously, but I guess many here skipped it.

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And that is what pisses me off. I thought that most members here should already know that I am not an average Joe in SEO, and when I am talking about PageRank I mean internal PageRank and not what everyone see in that sickening no good bar.

I'm sorry, I hope you don't take that to mean my laughing at you.

Instead, have you ever wondered why I 99.9999% of the time take the time to write out "toolbar PageRank" and "Google's internally used and maintained PageRank"?

Well, now you know.

I hate having to write it out because I couldn't care less about toolbar PageRank unless I tried very very hard to care less and still probably couldn't care less but still, I write the damn thing out almost every time regardless.

I find that when I don't, invariably someone thinks one while another thinks the other. Murhpy's laws somehow apply.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Matt Cutts mentioned in one of his answers to the blog subscribers here More info on PageRank that PageRank is one of more than 100 ranking factors.

Ah ha! Matt Cutts is wrong!!!!

Google's webmaster help says its 200.

Oh, damn, Matt is still right because 200 is "more than 100". Curses, foiled again!

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And I just posted the the following question:
Do you think I will get an answer to that question? I honestly don't believe so. And do you know why? Think about it.

No, yes, no need.

You get two thumbs up from me for asking though!!

I doubt very much he would answer directly but at the same time, it has the feeling of one of those questions that he doesn't ignore outright but instead, does reply but not in a way we would all hope.

Still though, it definitely will be interesting to see what reply, if any, you get.

One thing though, my guess is that you will get numerous replies from the fanboys and wannabe's that hang out there.

You already know but I mention it for others following your link that might post there in the future, do not engage the dogs, they have no teeth but they get spit all over the place.

[Webnauts]

CSS-Hacks thanks a lot man. After many years I feel after all understood here at WPW.

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

CSS-Hacks thanks a lot man. After many years I feel after all understood here at WPW.

Me understanding you is not a great achievement.

That will pass as soon as I take my medication.

Seriously though, on the issue of "PR", the people I mainly work with only talk about the real PageRank while the people that we usually come across, people in help forums like this, usually don't know or make the distinction so I knew where you were coming from without your having to say so.

As for understanding you in more general terms, you and I often disagree or maybe just have different experiences or points of view but I can't and don't fault your commitment to what you believe and the lengths you go to verify as much as possible what you say before saying it.

Also, you wouldn't have been here as long as you have if I was the first and only one to understand.

But, your methods of discussion do have a tendency to paint a big target in the middle of your chest.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by dartman

TBPR means squat as do your equations.
What sort of variable analysis can be done when a TBPR remains constant genius?

Have you heard of cross section analysis? And it is not constant as an univariate magnitude either.

Originally Posted by dartman

"Mutually exclusive" choice means choosing one or the other, not both.
Or - serp position "without regard" to TBPR and vice versa.
The question aims to ask what is more important to you given the singular choice.

TBPR does not impact serp position but apparently you disagree. So be it - you are entitled
to your opinion.

Comparing apples and oranges??
You infer that TBPR has a cause and effect on serp position and you ask about apples and oranges?
I agree, your response is meaningless. Actually I consider it dribble.

Can I propose an elementary course in statisitcal analysis?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by weslinda

So a page with TBPR of 5 should rank higher for every search term compared to another page even if they are slightly off topic of each other? Come on, that's one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.

Your or mine conclusions? May I ask you to reread my posts.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by dartman

On the contrary professor - it's a specific example about a specific situation which is that
higher TBPR does NOT equate to a higher serp rank. There are sites in my own niche that
have higher TBPR but are serp ranked much lower then mine. I'm sure we've all seen this
numerous times but if you wish to call it guessing then that's your opinion.

Can I ask you to reread my posts?

Hypothetical but not unrealistic example.

PageRank Is about IBL's.

Site / Page (A) 0 links.

Site / Page (B) 1 IBL link from a PageRank(10) site / page.

Do you take my point?

Originally Posted by dartman

Are you referring to my post?
If so I'm saying that higher TBPR does Not produce higher serp rank.
Proven by the example given.

Proven? Have you heard of multiple regression? Take an elementary course in multiple regression as a minimum.

And note this:
Cause and effect. That is a very deep relation. Much deeper than covariation or correlation. PageRank is a function of IBL's, so PageRank is not the real cause. It is the IBL's of course. PageRank is a sort of a shadow or mirror if you prefer, variable. That does not exclude it for being included in a simultaneous equation model as a "measure / indicator" of the importance of IBL's. Both the internal and the ToolBar PR may even be used, and they may contribute individually as long as there is not an exact linear relationship between them (that is multicolinearity). One may be included as a "permanent" variable e.g. TbRank and the other internal as a "transitory" variable. Analogy, Nobel Price winner Milton Friedman includes two income variables in the consumption function. Permanent and transitory income. You can even include Google Directory rank in the equation system, that is a third PageRank magnitude, as long as there is no linear relationship between them? To use a picture. In how many points do two paralell lines cross? In how many points do two non paralell lines cross?

In addition note this:

Originally Posted by kgun

But the TB indicator may still be used in a pooled cross section / time series, that is, lantent variable analysis. That may be a very meaningful analysis. My personal intuition, there is a relationship. I for one look at ToolBarRank when and where I include links. It is far from the only factor of course.

Then there is a direct relationship between the IBL you may get and Tb PageRank.

I read between the lines that some of you do not like this pagerank massacre.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Kgun, I am looking forward to hear what others think about your post. It sounds very interesting. I am not ready to respond yet. But I sure will in a while.

Interesting? Not confusing?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

This doesn't mean anything to me.

Matt said, "you won’t see any search engine result page (SERP) changes as a result of this PageRank export." In short, Google takes their "internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they’re visible to Google Toolbar users." By the time those numbers are pushed to the Google toolbar and visible to folks, they are already outdated.

I am not talking about the PageRank Tool Bar Export. I am talking about the internal PageRank. The internal calculation. So lets go one month or bit later back.

You got my point now?

They are already outdated. So are most of the news you see on Tv. They are reported history.

You do not drive by looking out the back window. Acquiring relevant contextual and semantic IBL's implies higher PageRank. In a semantic web and in context, that may imply higher SERP positien, sice it may tell professor GoogleBOT that this is a relevant hit in their index.

The egg came before the chicken?

John, I have linked to your sites various places, so many that I do not remeber. Do you want the links I can find cut? No problem for me personally, even if my visitors may miss them.

MultiFinanceIT privacy statement.

"This Overall Privacy Statement verifies our privacy policy. This statement discloses the privacy practices for the entire web site. If you find a link to your site and want it deleted, send and email or call us at **************."

An interesting experiment:

1. Take n (not too small) sites and their pages with Hompage TbRank >= 5 and cut half of the IBL's. Obeserve SERP position before the cut and after k (not too small) months.
2. Cut the rest of the links and do the same.

Of course the egg came before the chicken. Q.E.D.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Do you think I will get an answer to that question? I honestly don't believe so. And do you know why? Think about it.

And!!! As you probably know the posts there are moderated. And my comment some minutes later went online. So I am sure he read it.

So lets see his reaction, if any...

You will not get an answer, since the contribution (the regression coefficient) will vary accross sites.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

This doesn't mean anything to me.

Matt said, "you won’t see any search engine result page (SERP) changes as a result of this PageRank export." In short, Google takes their "internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they’re visible to Google Toolbar users." By the time those numbers are pushed to the Google toolbar and visible to folks, they are already outdated.

I am not talking about the PageRank Tool Bar Export. I am talking about the internal PageRank. The internal calculation. So lets go one month or bit later back.

You got my point now?

I got the point, but I think Matt was saying that the change in PR did not affect rankings period.

I have numerous sites who have lost one PR point across the board ... and none of their positions have changed in the past year, never mind the past couple of months ... these are solid sites with stable positions. They may move around a bit during shuffles, but all remain in the top 5 for their most relevant, most searched terms - and have for years - the Florida update excepted ... we had to climb back from that.

I do not believe that the PR attack that was first exported last April and last week had an affect on ranking. Period. Nothing to do with when it was exported.

MJ

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I got the point, but I think Matt was saying that the change in PR did not affect rankings period.

He was talking about the toobar PageRank update, i.e. "PageRank export", not Google's internally used and maintained PageRank.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I have numerous sites who have lost one PR point across the board ... and none of their positions have changed in the past year, never mind the past couple of months ... these are solid sites with stable positions. They may move around a bit during shuffles, but all remain in the top 5 for their most relevant, most searched terms - and have for years - the Florida update excepted ... we had to climb back from that.

Right, but you are only seeing the toolbar PageRank. To have an idea of what Google's internally used and maintained PageRank is not so easy. Well, it is easy but you REALLY don't want to do what you would have to to get an idea of what it is.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I do not believe that the PR attack that was first exported last April and last week had an affect on ranking. Period. Nothing to do with when it was exported.

Exactly. A change in the number of green bits in the toolbar had no effect on SERPs or anything else because the toolbar PageRank, especially from the last most recent toolbar PageRank export is artificial and not necessarily a true indication of what Google's internally used and maintained PageRank is.

[kgun]

1. Assume time domain. Can this independent variable x1 = (1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0, .... ) have a significant affect on a dependent variable Y (SERP position)? Heard of an indicator variable? Indicator as a measure of the importance of a page.
2. What about this variable? x2 =(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, .....) Heard of structural change? Example: More precise name for a PageRank massacre if that massacre is a fact.
3. Then generalising to the time / cross section domain that is the latent variable domain generalizes the picture with more complicated possibilities.

Heard of external analysis that can figure out what is happening inside some times even better than an insider?

That does not imply that there is a relation. But you have tested and rejected the hypothesis with a large sample?

If you are in doubt. Try this kw search of public information available on the internet:

put options +September 11 2001

Example:
September 11, 2001: Unusual volumes on Put Options just before the attack. Swiss study

"Six years after the attacks, a study has been released by two professors of the university of Zurich on the atypical volumes of put options placed before the attacks on World Trade Centre.
The authors, one specialist in derivatives, the other a specialist in econometrics, studied the options to sell (put options), used to speculate on the fall in the price of 20 large American groups".

More precise search:
put options aeroplane +September 11 2001

I am sure that some of the hits are removed from the internet.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

He was talking about the toobar PageRank update, i.e. "PageRank export", not Google's internally used and maintained PageRank.

Right, but you are only seeing the toolbar PageRank. To have an idea of what Google's internally used and maintained PageRank is not so easy. Well, it is easy but you REALLY don't want to do what you would have to to get an idea of what it is.

Exactly. A change in the number of green bits in the toolbar had no effect on SERPs or anything else because the toolbar PageRank, especially from the last most recent toolbar PageRank export is artificial and not necessarily a true indication of what Google's internally used and maintained PageRank is.

Sorry, I was not clear.

I do not believe that the PageRank changes of this year (which were exported in April and recently) had any effect on rankings. Period.

Many of my sites lost a point of PR across the board this year and their positions in Google did not change.

And you are right, Matt was talking about the export. And never mind him, I am saying, PR changes haven't affected rankings on my sites as far as I can see.

Cheers, MJ

[wige]

You have to remember too, that if a site does not gain links, it loses pagerank. Part of the pagerank calculation is a comparison of link juice vs the size of the index. The index keeps getting bigger, so each link's value gets a little bit smaller. Everyone whose page rank was 2.0 in April who maintained a constant set and quality of links, would have naturally dropped to a pagerank of 1.9. And Google rounds down, so they went from PR2 to PR1.

(Yeah yeah, its oversimplified, but I HATE MATH so I am not going to explain it better, and I have seen this concept mentioned every time there is an update and everyone is panicking because they dropped 1 point in the toolbar.)

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Sorry, I was not clear.

Ah, that would be the problem.

That's what Webnauts and I were just going on about, there being a difference between toolabr PageRank and the PageRank Google maintains and uses internally and people not being specific about which one they are talking about.

With your clarification though, I couldn't agree more, some green pixels that changed on a page means nothing.

Well, it does mean something to those who it means something to but there's likely no help for them.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

Ah, that would be the problem.

That's what Webnauts and I were just going on about, there being a difference between toolabr PageRank and the PageRank Google maintains and uses internally and people not being specific about which one they are talking about.

With your clarification though, I couldn't agree more, some green pixels that changed on a page means nothing.

So you agree, the PR fluctuations in the past year or so (and I refer specifically to those that we couldn't see until the export in April and last week) had no effect on rankings?

Because *that* is what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about what we can see or what we can't see. The adjustments Google made were done to remove PR from pages where links were being sold and traded for PR. The algorithm was adjusted so that the SERPs didn't change - just the green bar when exported.

[cass-hacks]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

So you agree, the PR fluctuations in the past year or so (and I refer specifically to those that we couldn't see until the export in April and last week) had no effect on rankings?

I don't mean to be obtuse but almost by definition, changes in toolbar PageRank can have no effect. First, because any effect any real change in Google's internal PageRank may have had would have occurred at the time of an internal change and not at a later date when what was essentially a cached copy of Google's internal PageRank was exported to the toolbar display. Second, with this latest toolbar PageRank export, we now know that toolbar PageRank may be manually edited and so not truly indicative of Google's internal PageRank.
[quote=mjtaylor;344810]Because *that* is what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about what we can see or what we can't see.[quote]
Actually it does matter. What you can see, toolbar PageRank, has no effect, what you can't see, but can measure to a relative degree, Google's internal PageRank, definitely does have an effect.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

The adjustments Google made were done to remove PR from pages where links were being sold and traded for PR. The algorithm was adjusted so that the SERPs didn't change - just the green bar when exported.

Exactly.

Still though, I think it a good idea to be clear about which one is talking about in any event. There may be less of a need within a given thread if the topic, toolbar or internal PageRank is clear but across threads, people who may not know the difference or even that there is a difference between toolbar and internal PageRank can easily become confused.

Unless people know the difference, they can't know how worthless the one is and how valuable the other.

[Webnauts]

I think my comment at Matt's blog I mentioned above disappeared: More info on PageRank

Can someone tell me what can be possibly going on?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

A change in the number of green bits in the toolbar had no effect on SERPs or anything else because the toolbar PageRank, especially from the last most recent toolbar PageRank export is artificial and not necessarily a true indication of what Google's internally used and maintained PageRank is.

I do not believe that because the PageRank Toolbar Export was artificial (manually edited) that those values have not been edited/added manually in their internal system also. Otherwise that would not have make any sense at all.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I got the point, but I think Matt was saying that the change in PR did not affect rankings period.

Attention: My following statement has nothing to do with the TOOLBAR!!!

The internal PageRank obviously has rankings affect. PERIOD!

And has more weight than ever before.

And once again I am asking myself, why did Matt delete my comment/question on his blog.

Just wondering and pondering...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

And never mind him, I am saying, PR changes haven't affected rankings on my sites as far as I can see.

Maybe not on your site, but be others looks different: Google Update Not Just Visible, Some Reporting Major Ranking Reductions

And my since ages question remains: Doesn't PageRank affect rankings?

I state one again and officially: YES!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

Well, it does mean something to those who it means something to but there's likely no help for them.

Stop filling up WPW's server with nonsense. I thing everybody writing in this thread (now) know the difference between

1. ToolBar PageRank
2. Internal PageRank (There my even be more than one metric).
3. Google directory Page / site rank.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Because *that* is what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about what we can see or what we can't see. The adjustments Google made were done to remove PR from pages where links were being sold and traded for PR. The algorithm was adjusted so that the SERPs didn't change - just the green bar when exported.

My bolding. I have thought of that possibility. A natural one. That does not exclude a relation.

Anybody here that has heard of distributed lags (lagged effect?). Very elementary it says:

Y(t)=a1Y(t-1) + ... + anY(t-n) + b1X(t)+b2X(t-1) + ... + bmX(t-m)

Anybody here that has heard of Almon lags, where the peak effect can come after p periods. Sold links (aimed at manipulating the SERP's) were eliminated. Are a lagged effect ruled out by Google?

Anybody here that has heard of Coyck lags (visualized as radioactive decay).

How many here know that Milton Friedman got the Nobel Price for his contribution to the consumption function?

C=Private consumption.
PI=Permanent Income (More stable income comparable to the hated Tb Rank).
TI=Transitory Income (May be comparable to one metric of internal Page Rank).

So simplifying and excluding lagged affects he found that the following relation

C = a1PI + a2TI + ....

where both a1 and a2 were significantly different from zero was a better function to explain the variation in private concumption than those found by other economists. In other words, he estimated and identified (very deep concept) a more general model that encompassed other models (functions).


Note:
I have not said that there is a simultaneous or lagged effect of Tb PR (as one or another measure) on SERP position. I do not know Google's algorithmes and their aim. Your unqualified guessings do not convince me.

Tb=Toolbarrank in (0,10).
SP=SerpPosition.

SP(t)=a1Tb(t)+ a2Tb(t-1) + ... + anTb(t-n) in the time domain.

To conclude that there is not a relation between SP and Tb you have to reject the

hypothesis

H0: a1=a2= ... = an = 0.

You have to do a similar analysis in the space (cross section) domain.

That is Tb(i)= Toolbarrank of page i= 1, ... , m. and so on ....

Pooling data in the time and cross section domain and you get what some people call latent or panel data.

That is you get Tb(it) i=1, ... , m t= 1, ...., T 1 can be normalized to october 2007, 2 to november etc.

IBL's the egg came before any internal or external pagerank, the chicken. PagRank is if it is not a joke, aimed at mirroring the votes cast by semantic linking.

Have they ruled out direct relationships? Have they ruled out a possible direct or indirect (simultaneous or lagged) effect between TbPr as a permanent indicator of the importance of a page and SERP Position or is it a joke comparable to PigeonRank (some people also mean that).

A side from Wige's rounding down, that is a false change. Who can rule out that this variable's simultaneous or lagged effect

TbR = (8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8 .... 8,5,5,5,5, ....,5,5,5,5,5,5,....) (a real massacre)

on a pages SERP position is not significant?

I have linked to some of you that call yourself SEO experts I can now loosely conclude that it is a bad neighbourhood and delete the links. Those who want them deleted can Pm me. But you are no worse than those, laughing in break rooms and not discussing.

My conclusion after reading this thread:
Some times socalled SEO experts crash out of orbit, especially when they genrealizes from some oversimplified informal observations and rule out relationships.

Some of these SEO exports also have a tendency to project menanings from their confused thoughts (mental model that they are not able to print on paper) on to other people that make them even worse than a bad neighbourhood.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

My conclusion after reading this thread:
Some times socalled SEO experts crash out of orbit, especially when they genrealizes from some oversimplified informal observations and rule out relationships.

Some of these SEO exports also have a tendency to project menanings from their confused thoughts (mental model that they are not able to print on paper) on to other people that make them even worse than a bad neighbourhood.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And my since ages question remains: Doesn't PageRank affect rankings?

I state one again and officially: YES!

John, may be you are correct. I think using my informal mental model that you are, but you have ruled out our little green friend that may permanetly you ?? Do you want the more or less permanent (in my view semantical) links deleted?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

I have linked to some of you that call yourself SEO experts I can now loosely conclude that it is a bad neighbourhood and delete the links. Those who want them deleted can Pm me.
But you are no worse than those, laughing in break rooms and not discussing.

Kgun,

First I can not remember when or where did I claim that I am an SEO expert.

Second, I have no time hanging around in breakrooms. I prefer investing my time in research and development.

Third, if you think that I do not deserve the links you added on your site to my sites content, then feel free to delete them.

Side Note: Be sure that I am studying your posts with very much interest. But I do not see what I can add to them, as they speak from themselves.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Kgun,
Third, if you think that I do not deserve the links you added on your site to my sites content, then feel free to delete them.

I added them for semantical (meaningful content to the visitors) reasons.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

I added them for semantical (meaningful content to the visitors) reasons.

Thanks Kjell. I hope your visitors will find the information useful and accurate.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And my since ages question remains: Doesn't PageRank affect rankings?
I state one again and officially: YES!

Surely most will agree PR is a major factor in determining rankings and to discuss this further is moot.
On the loss of "TBPR" my question would be did G make a manual change to the green bar of offending
sites or was there an algorithm change that would affect the true PR and the subsequent TBPR push.
I'd think if the PR was adjusted a change in serp ranking would follow but this did not seem to be the case.

This thread should probably have been named "The Ongoing TB PageRank Massacre Hits Big Players"

[Tubby]

dartman said
"I'd think if the PR was adjusted a change in serp ranking would follow but this did not seem to be the case."

dartman. I observed a TB rank change - in the following days the search engine results dropped dramatically from Google. (on pages that were affected and down line pages)

This does not say that some other algorithm change was implemented at the same time. or if many other changes were initialised. or even if changes I made during previous weeks were responsible..

Of course this observation without knowing any or all of the unknown factors is pretty useless. But I think to say "change in serp ranking would follow but this did not seem to be the case." I think is wrong. Many sites have noticed a distinct drop in serps. (after the TBpr Change)

I can Offer this. . I know one webmaster who's stats I have access to. Totally deny that his toolbar ranking drop has effected his serps. . (He is just blatantly lying) I can understand his attitude. (I hope you can understand My not wishing to identify the webmaster - and am quite happy if you place this last bit of information in the ' hearsay' basket.)

In the case of my own loss of search results there was a delay of a day. . (thereabouts)

My own opinion on this whole issue - I have decided is - 'confused' - but favouring a connection (of some value) between TBpr and serps. .

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Of course this observation without knowing any or all of the unknown factors is pretty useless. But I think to say "change in serp ranking would follow but this did not seem to be the case." I think is wrong. Many sites have noticed a distinct drop in serps. (after the TBpr Change).

As there are surely many that did not.
Either way we are all entitled to an opinion.

[level10]

I have seen a major reduction on my page rank to one of my site since the last google horrible!!!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by level10

I have seen a major reduction on my page rank to one of my site since the last google horrible!!!

And what is your problem?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

As there are surely many that did not. ex. Has Your Google PR Gone Up?
Either way we are all entitled to an opinion.

Can you please to explain me what do you mean here? I think I am getting confused now.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you please to explain me what do you mean here? I think I am getting confused now.

In reply to Tubby stating some sites lost ranking I replied that some did not.
As for the link to the thread - I was going to add a comment about that thread (PR going up)
but changed my mind however I didn't wipe off the link.(thought I did) My bad.
I have deleted that link now.

* for whatever reason my preview function is not working

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

In reply to Tubby stating some sites lost ranking I replied that some did not.
As for the link to the thread - I was going to add a comment about that thread (PR going up)
but changed my mind however I didn't wipe off the link.(thought I did) My bad.
I have deleted that link now.

* for whatever reason my preview function is not working

Got you buddy. No worries.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Tubby

dartman. I observed a TB rank change - in the following days the search engine results dropped dramatically from Google. (on pages that were affected and down line pages)

This does not say that some other algorithm change was implemented at the same time. or if many other changes were initialised. or even if changes I made during previous weeks were responsible..

Since the snapshot taken for the TBPR export is taken well before it is actually exported for you to see, then any loss of of search engine results following that visible loss of green pixels would be strictly coincidental.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I do not believe that because the PageRank Toolbar Export was artificial (manually edited) that those values have not been edited/added manually in their internal system also. Otherwise that would not have make any sense at all.

Makes perfect sense if you try and "suppose" what they may have been trying to accomplish.

What don't they like or want?... Paid links without the "nofollow" tag designed to manipulate the system.

If they were able to effectively exclude the value passed by links they don't want or don't like, they would. Apparently they can't effectively do that otherwise they'd have done it already. Problem solved.

So, that leaves them with having to convince webmasters to...

1. Not sell and place links at all.
2. Not sell and place links unless they are tagged <nofollow>.
3. Not buy links based upon the little green pixels.

In other words, do for them what they cannot effectively do themselves.

What's the easiest way for them to do this WITHOUT affecting all of the other fine and legitimate links involved? Without affecting the "core" and "basis" of their entire internal structure?

Change perception. Change what the TBPR represents to something other than the simple export of their internal value.

Change it so that it now represents their "opinion" which could include any number of factors. It's simply not neccessary to change the internal value too. Not yet anyway.

Where are all the people clamouring about their loss of traffic and rankings? At the very least an internal change of the magnitude that is being reported by many, many sites would have cause a lot of pages to get placed in the "other" index causing them not to rank where they did and causing a loss of traffic.

Can you not suppose that the latest TBPR export was calculated in the very same way it has always been and then prior to that export "targeted" sites were "adjusted" in an effort to get webmasters and site owners to do what they want done?

Take away green pixels from a site, announce that "paid links", "forward links", etc. were being specifically targeted and what do you suppose would start happening?

How about webmasters and site owners going back to their sites (whether or not they were actually affected") and removing paid links or tagging them <nofollow> so they can get their green pixels back or not lose the ones they have.

How about webmasters and site owners becoming even more reluctant to buy links based on the little green pixels for fear they'll be targeted too and lose some of their green pixels or the value of that link they buy becoming worthless.

All of this without changing the actual internal metric.

Perception is a poweful motivator.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Makes perfect sense if you try and "suppose" what they may have been trying to accomplish.

What don't they like or want?... Paid links without the "nofollow" tag designed to manipulate the system.

If they were able to effectively exclude the value passed by links they don't want or don't like, they would. Apparently they can't effectively do that otherwise they'd have done it already. Problem solved.

So, that leaves them with having to convince webmasters to...

1. Not sell and place links at all.
2. Not sell and place links unless they are tagged <nofollow>.
3. Not buy links based upon the little green pixels.

In other words, do for them what they cannot effectively do themselves.

<snip>

Perception is a poweful motivator.

Dave

Uh-huh, and if the mad flurry of posts on buying and selling links in the forum this afternoon is any indication, the perception is going to take a long time to shift.

I can see from the emails I get that people are more and more interested in reciprocal link exchange ... and intelligent perception would suggest otherwise.

I don't see this working quickly as a tactic for Google.

Cheers, MJ

[Webnauts]

Then Dave, why did the big players made such a big story out of this? I don't really get that.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I can see from the emails I get that people are more and more interested in reciprocal link exchange ... and intelligent perception would suggest otherwise ...MJ

Back in the day when G's master plan worked the way they expected - sites linked to sites
because of high value content. Recips weren't an issue. Then someone figured out that
links helped increase PR and subsequent serp ranking. Along came recips and link progams.
Now if I have a site that sells standard white coffee cups who might link to it?
Nobody probably so the site would need to play the recip game in order to try to accumulate PR.
I'm sure you know this already. I never liked recips and still don't but it seems to be a necessary evil.