PageRank Became An Important Ranking Factor?

[Webnauts]

I am debating here since some months, that PageRank became a very important/highly weighted ranking factor, and I am very sure that many of you here already know that I have been beaten up mercyless for preaching that.

Today I read an article that is backing up my preachings with facts, so I would appreciate if you would also have a look and tell me what is your opinion about this everlasting for me burning issue: Sculpting Your PageRank For Maximum SEO Impact

Thanks in advance for your kind contribution.

[Tubby]

That's because it maximizes the flow of link juice (e.g. PageRank if you're speaking purely in Google terms) to your most important pages and minimizes (or cuts off completely) the flow of link juice to your least important pages.

Laughing so hard my nuts are hurting John.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

That's because it maximizes the flow of link juice (e.g. PageRank if you're speaking purely in Google terms) to your most important pages and minimizes (or cuts off completely) the flow of link juice to your least important pages.

Laughing so hard my nuts are hurting John.

I am happy I could make you laugh Tubby.

In Greece they have a proverb: Who laughs first, cries as last.

By the way, you did not answer the question: PageRank Became An Important Ranking Factor?

A Yes or No would be more than enough.

[Tubby]

I know mate I sent you a PM. {Couple)

I think there are two answers John. yes and No.

I think I am evolving a policy of not contradicting something if it works for those that use it. it will be hard for me to bite my tongue . . It has teeth marks in it from the other threads already..

I really should sit back and let you unfold the thread in the direction you want it to go to illustrate your views. {smack me!)

[mjtaylor]

Well, that article is about using rel-nofollow internally to manipulate PageRank ... and as I recall from a recent thread, Webnauts, you say you don't do anything for search engines, so I am wondering why you are showing us this.


On your other comment, I am not sure I remember much debate about whether PR is important. It has always been the central concept of the Google algorithm; it's just that its relationship is hard to establish when a PR4 page can outperform a PR5 or even a PR6 page in the SERPs. But that's because the page may have a pure rank based on the total PR flowing in, but the links that 'fuel' the PR may not be related to a given search query.

It is clear to me, though, that Google has somehow adjusted the PageRank factor; in the last year, as Google has stripped many pages of PR (related to link trading) I haven't seen a change in SERPs among my sites that lost a PR point.

So, something has changed in the way PR influences SERPs and it would appear to be a smaller factor than before.

[wige]

Webnauts, is your question purely in relation to the article - is on-site pagerank important? If that is the question, I don't think it is as important as, for example, external links. Because your internal pagerank flow is something entirely under your control, to a further extent now than ever before, I think it may be drifting downward in importance. Is it still significant, I think so, but I think two or three quality inbound links from an outside site would have more impact in most situations.

As far as pagrank in general, I think it is still one of the most important factors, probably the second or third most considered weighting factor in the presentation of the results on Google.

Of course, this is based on theory and what I would do if I worked at Google, as opposed to empirical evidence and actual knowledge.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, that article is about using rel-nofollow internally to manipulate PageRank ... and as I recall from a recent thread, Webnauts, you say you don't do anything for search engines, so I am wondering why you are showing us this.

I did not recommend using the "nofollow" attribute. As you must have noticed, I posted the other day that I have eliminated all "nofollow" attributes from my site, as it was just a temporally quick and dirty work, as we did not have time to fix that. My point was just about the weight of on-page PR when it comes to rankings.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

On your other comment, I am not sure I remember much debate about whether PR is important.

If you are really not sure, I can help you recovering the threads when I have time.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

It has always been the central concept of the Google algorithm;

In terms of rankings?

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

It is clear to me, though, that Google has somehow adjusted the PageRank factor; in the last year, as Google has stripped many pages of PR (related to link trading) I haven't seen a change in SERPs among my sites that lost a PR point.

Allow me to doubts if you can't show numbers. If you are talking about keywords and keyphrases you mentioned a while ago on another thread, that makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

So, something has changed in the way PR influences SERPs and it would appear to be a smaller factor than before.

If that is true I guess I must look for another job.

[wige]

I haven't seen a change in SERPs among my sites that lost a PR point.

This is, from my understanding, expected. The toolbar value is calculated by sorting all "known" pages by pagerank in order from the highest to lowest. The top .05% or so get a pagerank of 10, and the lowest 40% get a pagerank of 0, and everything else falls somewhere in between. If you happen to fall somewhere near the border between, for example, TBPR 5 and TBPR 4, the simple fact that the index gets bigger can drop you by a point, or more if you are near the top, unless your working pagerank has increased significantly.

As a result, you would not notice a difference in the SERPs, since the toolbar PR number shown in the toolbar does not accurately reflect the (potentially unchanged) actual working PR value of the page. This then makes determining the effects of different pagerank levels very difficult.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

This is, from my understanding, expected. The toolbar value is calculated by sorting all "known" pages by pagerank in order from the highest to lowest. The top .05% or so get a pagerank of 10, and the lowest 40% get a pagerank of 0, and everything else falls somewhere in between. If you happen to fall somewhere near the border between, for example, TBPR 5 and TBPR 4, the simple fact that the index gets bigger can drop you by a point, or more if you are near the top, unless your working pagerank has increased significantly.

As a result, you would not notice a difference in the SERPs, since the toolbar PR number shown in the toolbar does not accurately reflect the (potentially unchanged) actual working PR value of the page. This then makes determining the effects of different pagerank levels very difficult.

AMEN!

[weslinda]

MJ, one other point, that is a little different from Wige is that TBPR and live PR are very different, or can be very different. Therefore, your PR used for SERPs could have been updated 4 months ago, but you're only now seeing the TBPR change and therefore you're rankings might have already been affected without you being able to tie the two events together.

Definately like the point by Wige though, finally someone thinking through something.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by weslinda

MJ, one other point, that is a little different from Wige is that TBPR and live PR are very different, or can be very different. Therefore, your PR used for SERPs could have been updated 4 months ago, but you're only now seeing the TBPR change and therefore you're rankings might have already been affected without you being able to tie the two events together.

Reasonable point ... but let's put it this way ... over the course of a year I do know that PR has changed for the worse on a lot of sites that I control or monitor. And I have not seen a change in SERPs ... I keep saying that, because it's true. It is my observation. These sites have been stable for years ... so the toobar changed and the SERPs didn't.

I do not dispute the value of PR in ranking ... I never have. It is central to Google's algorithm. Nor do I see any reason to get panty twisted when SERPs and or traffic have not changed.

PR has changed because of Google's assault on link trading ... and it has affected sites pretty much across the board ... not all, of course there are exceptions ... many ... and we can look at Webnauts new site for an example ... but I would guess if he acquired a PR6 this year that in a previous year he would have achieved a PR7 or better.

That's how I see it.

Originally Posted by weslinda

Definately like the point by Wige though, finally someone thinking through something.

Wige always thinks things through and expresses himself clearly.

[Feydakin]

Webnauts, just curious, what do you have on your web pages that make you want to use a nofollow "type" of solution?? (javascript, nofollow, etc.)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Webnauts, just curious, what do you have on your web pages that make you want to use a nofollow "type" of solution?? (javascript, nofollow, etc.)

Server side scripting (PHP).

[Feydakin]

Why do those things need a nofollow style solution on them??

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Why do those things need a nofollow style solution on them??

I do not share my PR with affiliate sales landing pages. Doesn't make sense.

[Feydakin]

Fair enough - but

Manipulating PR is also a way to manipulate search results. Exactly like cloacking, snicky redirects, etc.

Doing nothing and allowing to pass PR is "manipulation" = bad
Doing something to "not" pass PR is "manipulation" = Good
Check.

please look at my web site and tell me what have I done to conform Googles requirements.

Hmmm.. Adding a "nofollow" type of solution to not pass PR looks like doing something to conform to Google's guidelines..

I do not do any search engine a favor.

Except not passing PR to affiliate links..

[Tubby]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Fair enough - but



Doing nothing and allowing to pass PR is "manipulation" = bad
Doing something to "not" pass PR is "manipulation" = Good
Check.



Hmmm.. Adding a "nofollow" type of solution to not pass PR looks like doing something to conform to Google's guidelines..


Except not passing PR to affiliate links..

Yes. . But This is webnauts page. He decides he does not want to pass PR, He decides to take into consideration all the factors that might affect his site. He can do this.

I never liked the practise of telling people they should follow Google guidelines I think it would be fair so say I do not like the practice of telling people they should not follow Google guidelines.

this is, and always has been something that Irks me. look at the web page and decide it it works. looking at a Webmasters motives will always cause problems. you could at best only take a guess at what motivates another person. . Webnauts can only bee seen as an honest contributor. . he almost bears his soul on this topic. don't be picky, (unless of course he calls us 'Dirty" I think he apologised for that. or at least clarified it)

[Feydakin]

I agree with you totally Tubby.. But when people begin to declare others unethical, or morally wrong, or dirty, or even black hat, based on what some company that is driven solely by profit decides, I will take them to task for playing the holier than thou card.. I am more than happy to play nice, but when people come out and declare others Black Hat in an effort to show how much better they are than them, I will hold their feet to the fire..

I freely admit I can be a right bastard, and am FAR from pure, but then, so is everyone else at one time or another..

[Tubby]

personally, I think if webnauts has any affiliate links on his site, they would probably be the best he could find. . I think its a shame that webnauts personal endorsement of these links is not forwarded to search engines. If every ethical site did this then searching for good affiliates at Google would give crappy results.

We really do need the most effective and better user experience sites to pass on their recommendations to the rest of the searching world... 'top sites using ' nofollow' tags is fully understandable. . . But I do not like it..

Yes a few site use this for evil purpose (PR manipulation) just a very small percentage, probably less than .05%

[weslinda]

I don't remember seeing anything about Black Hat previously in this thread Feydakin, can you show me where John was calling people out?

[weslinda]

Tubby, obivously, I'll let John speak for himself, but I think that since he is being financially rewarded for those links, he wants to draw that line for the sake of seperating those links from others that are simply items he's discussing and not making an income from.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by weslinda

I don't remember seeing anything about Black Hat previously in this thread Feydakin, can you show me where John was calling people out?

Not on this thread, but on the recent "ethics of link selling" thread ... and Webnauts didn't exactly accuse me of being Black Hat ... but the term was used ... I think that's what he was referring to ...

[Tubby]

feydakin mentioned
playing the holier than thou card..

Yes I know. . But I do recognise sometimes that some people, in some respects, given specific conditions, Are in truth a bit 'Holier' than me. ( I just do not like being told that ) I get the urge to defend my actions . . sometimes not very well. Sometime effectively.

But we do need both views out there in public where we can contemplate them. . A silent forum is a dead one. . nothing to see. learn, agree with, disagree with, make you mad, or change the way you do things. Or even make new friends.

continue to hold their feet to the fire mate. . I always had a soft spot for 'right Bastards" (I might even be on sometimes myself)

[Tubby]

Originally Posted by Tubby

We really do need the most effective and better user experience sites to pass on their recommendations to the rest of the searching world... 'top sites using ' nofollow' tags is fully understandable. . . But I do not like it..

If the topic is about passing page rank then I thought I might repeat myself.

If the best sites are manipulated through ethical considerations into preserving their page rank. Why would we want to discount the input from the best sites? Why would we simply leave it to unethical sites to pass on page rank to sites that wish to simply pay for ranking?

I want to see ethical sites passing on rank to the pages they think are good. The last thing Google needs Is the great sites worrying about passing on their rankings. . . the great sites have the PR. . Crappy sites only have great PR through UNETHICAL SEO practises.... getting the ethical ones to change is not much more than bloody stupid...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Doing nothing and allowing to pass PR is "manipulation" = bad

Only if you are passing PR with paid links or to irrelevant to your site theme web sites.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Doing something to "not" pass PR is "manipulation" = Good

My web site PR is my site's property! And I simply don't have to share it with someone else.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Hmmm.. Adding a "nofollow" type of solution to not pass PR looks like doing something to conform to Google's guidelines..

I do not use the nofollow attribute.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Except not passing PR to affiliate links..

I do not pass PR to affiliate sites, and: I DO NOT USE NOFOLLOW.

I thought you really had a question about your site and I was honestly willing to help.
Anyway I see that was not not the case. So I am not willing to debate about SEO with Jewelry Experts.

Don't expect me to answer any further questions. We are done buddy. OK?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Webnauts can only bee seen as an honest contributor. . he almost bears his soul on this topic. don't be picky, (unless of course he calls us 'Dirty" I think he apologised for that. or at least clarified it)

I apologize again to make sure that no one missed that.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Tubby, obivously, I'll let John speak for himself, but I think that since he is being financially rewarded for those links, he wants to draw that line for the sake of seperating those links from others that are simply items he's discussing and not making an income from.

Exactly Wes. That is my intention.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Not on this thread, but on the recent "ethics of link selling" thread ... and Webnauts didn't exactly accuse me of being Black Hat ... but the term was used ... I think that's what he was referring to ...

I said in that thread:

If that is not morally wrong, why don't you do Black Hat SEO? Or do you do already, and I have not noticed yet?

Here is my original post: Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

You all know that my English is not the best. Do you understand reading that, that I mean that you do black hat SEO?
If you do, I did not mean that. I was just asking IF you do that. Did you probably miss the question mark?

Anyway...

If you understood so, I am honestly very sorry for that. And by the way I hate my damn English, because I cannot express myself as I want too. Very frustrating...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

I want to see ethical sites passing on rank to the pages they think are good.

Then look at my site Tubby. I link to many external web sites passing them PR.

[Tubby]

off topic
john said
I was just asking IF you do that.

I just asked a police officer if he took bribes. (oops)
I just asked my platoon Captains wife if she sold her sexual services (oops)
I just asked the local Magistrate if he thought he was God (oops - that one cost me)

Back on topic now

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

off topic
john said
I was just asking IF you do that.

I just asked a police officer if he took bribes. (oops)
I just asked my platoon Captains wife if she sold her sexual services (oops)
I just asked the local Magistrate if he thought he was God (oops - that one cost me)

Back on topic now

Off-topic:

And the winner iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis: Tubby!!!

[nipplecharms1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Then look at my site Tubby. I link to many external web sites passing them PR.

Merry Christmas to all the believers. Happy Tuesday to the rest of you!

John, I am glad you qualified this. I was going to say that if you never pass your PR to other sites, why should the other site pass their PR to you. But again, bad English or not (and I have seen others who's first language IS English write and speak worse than YOU), you make your points well.

Additionally, and people at WPW know I respect you as you have helped me beyond explanation, some people here will question you if you say at noontime that it is light outside. They will go to the window and verify it. READ: they do not believe a word you say even after you have proven it 5 different ways. To them you must say “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” And John, you are righteous!

My two bits on this most holy of days.

Keep up the good work John,

Michael

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by nipplecharms1

And John, you are righteous!

John is, indeed, a righteous dude.

[mtuba4u]

Question ...I am new at this and was wondering if some body could explain the make up of page rank ?


I was under the impression that page rank was the value the search engine attatched to your individual page in trems of relevance to the central theme of your site, and that each out bound link shareded a percentage of this total.

This would thus imply that if you had a page rank of 4 and you had 50 out bound links each out bound link would carry 4/50 or 0.08 points with it.

it would thus fololow that if you reduced the number of out bound links to say 40 then each out bound link would carry 4/40 or 0.1 points.

This does not sound like an awful big difference from .08 to .1 but is infact a 25 % increase in the value that you tramsfer to any individual out bound link that you value, and passing 0 or zero points along to links that you do not value so highly.

is my assumption right ?

please tel me either way.

[flanok]

Originally Posted by mtuba4u

Question ...I am new at this and was wondering if some body could explain the make up of page rank ?


I was under the impression that page rank was the value the search engine attatched to your individual page in trems of relevance to the central theme of your site, and that each out bound link shareded a percentage of this total.

This would thus imply that if you had a page rank of 4 and you had 50 out bound links each out bound link would carry 4/50 or 0.08 points with it.

it would thus fololow that if you reduced the number of out bound links to say 40 then each out bound link would carry 4/40 or 0.1 points.

This does not sound like an awful big difference from .08 to .1 but is infact a 25 % increase in the value that you tramsfer to any individual out bound link that you value, and passing 0 or zero points along to links that you do not value so highly.

is my assumption right ?

please tel me either way.

Pretty much right except that experts believe there is a 15% filter built in, so if you reduced your calculation by 15% to only 85% of value you would be near enough.

This is why when someone links to you with say a high PR, you should count how many links are on that page to get an idea of the real value of that link. Presuming the link is of a relevant subject etc, etc

[flanok]

One thing we must not forget is that every new page has its own base PR. By adding relevent pages you can increase your PR.

So the above is really only valuable when you are restricting unimportant pages (as in SEO), so that the PR can be given to more important pages (as in PR).

There is a good chance that privicy pages, discrimination pages, contact us etc, etc are similar to the millions of other pages out there and are deemed a duplicate content anyway. How many unique ways can you write a privicy page?

How does a privicy page help Google determine what your site is about and where it should rank? I believe you are doing the Search engines a favour by removing any page that does not have a relevance to the subject matter, to help them decide where to rank your site.

Mark

[khurramali]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

In Greece they have a proverb: Who laughs first, cries as last.

The saying as i remember it goes He who laughs last, laughs best.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mtuba4u

Question ...I am new at this and was wondering if some body could explain the make up of page rank ?


I was under the impression that page rank was the value the search engine attatched to your individual page in trems of relevance to the central theme of your site, and that each out bound link shareded a percentage of this total.

This would thus imply that if you had a page rank of 4 and you had 50 out bound links each out bound link would carry 4/50 or 0.08 points with it.

it would thus fololow that if you reduced the number of out bound links to say 40 then each out bound link would carry 4/40 or 0.1 points.

This does not sound like an awful big difference from .08 to .1 but is infact a 25 % increase in the value that you tramsfer to any individual out bound link that you value, and passing 0 or zero points along to links that you do not value so highly.

is my assumption right ?

please tel me either way.

I am sorry but I assume that you are are going off-topic and you are hijacking my thread. If you have questions about how to increase PageRank, etc, please start a new thread.

Thanks,

John

[Feydakin]

I was unaware that starting a thread gave you ownership of it..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I was unaware that starting a thread gave you ownership of it..

I am an ex-moderator and I can make a difference between going off-topic or hijacking threads.
If you are provoking me again looking for stress, let me know and I will see what I can do for you.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am an ex-moderator and I can make a difference between going off-topic or hijacking threads.

A decision to be made by the moderators and/or the administrators of WPW. As you are very aware, there is a report post function. Each of them are reviewed, many times discussed, and acted upon by the moderators and/or administrators if neccessary.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If you are provoking me again looking for stress, let me know and I will see what I can do for you.

Please do not make what reads as a threat to other forum members.

Thank you

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

A decision to be made by the moderators and/or the administrators of WPW. As you are very aware, there is a report post function. Each of them are reviewed, many times discussed, and acted upon by the moderators and/or administrators if neccessary.



Please do not make what reads as a threat to other forum members.

Thank you

Dave

It was not a threat. It was a warning. And if you followed up the recent happening, you will realize that have been very provocative. One of the mods already had to deal with those issues.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

A decision to be made by the moderators and/or the administrators of WPW. As you are very aware, there is a report post function. Each of them are reviewed, many times discussed, and acted upon by the moderators and/or administrators if neccessary. Dave

That is new to me. Good to know.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

It was not a threat. It was a warning. And if you followed up the recent happening, you will realize that have been very provocative. One of the mods already had to deal with those issues.

Please do not warn any members of WPW. If you have concerns about other members, please bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator.

Thank you

Dave

[espmartin]

I was going to comment, had all my ducks in a roll...then a few posts about moderating, warnings (that may be to
some "threats") - and now I forgot my original comment.

Hum...something about the PageRank of my main site lowering a point, but now I'm gaining in my SERPs. A noticeable
gain in SERPs.

On vacation now, so Merry Christmas to you all!

John (Webnauts) and MJ - an especially merry one to you both!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Please do not warn any members of WPW. If you have concerns about other members, please bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator.

Thank you

Dave

It is ok with me Dave. But I assume that if member has a problem with my posts, should do the same. Or?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by espmartin

I was going to comment, had all my ducks in a roll...then a few posts about moderating, warnings (that may be to
some "threats") - and now I forgot my original comment.

Hum...something about the PageRank of my main site lowering a point, but now I'm gaining in my SERPs. A noticeable
gain in SERPs.

On vacation now, so Merry Christmas to you all!

John (Webnauts) and MJ - an especially merry one to you both!

Merry to you too Martin.

And at this point I am unsubscribing from this thread. I got the answers I wanted.

[full house]

As of now! I'm not focusing on PR. I'm looking forward to SERP and Traffics!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by full house

As of now! I'm not focusing on PR. I'm looking forward to SERP and Traffics!

Wise choice.

Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by espmartin

Hum...something about the PageRank of my main site lowering a point, but now I'm gaining in my SERPs. A noticeable
gain in SERPs.

My understanding is that this is how it is supposed to work. Lets imagine Google's index contains 100 pages. Lets say your web page's pagerank is 22 (pagerank in the toolbar is calculated by taking all of the sites in Google's index, and sorting them from most to least - at least that is part one of two). Now, lets say that the line between pagerank 2 and 3 is 20, since your page is higher than that, your TBPR is 3. Now, your pagerank could go up in the six month it takes for the TBPR to be updated, all the way to 24. However, because the size of Google's index has also increased, to maybe 150 pages, the bar between PR2 and PR 3 is also raised. It goes to 25. As a result, your toolbar pagerank now shows as a 2, even though your actual pagerank has increased - just not enough to keep pace with the increase in the size of Google's index. This is completely normal and expected. You would still get your normal bump in rankings, even though the toolbar shows your page having dropped in rank.

Can anyone say TBPR is absolutely worthless yet?