Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

[kevsta]

do you guys not see those pages in searches with higher PR and less relevance all the time?

PR is not insurmountable but if a page has a higher PR you can get away with far less onpage relevance and still rank higher than more relevant, lesser PR pages for the term.

G would have us believe its all about relevance, but it isnt, yet.

[incrediblehelp]

Yeah I also see pages with no PR ranking above those with PR. Whats the point?

Sure Google results are not as relevant as they could be, but that is because they put to much credit in the anchor text weight of backlinks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Yeah I also see pages with no PR ranking above those with PR. Whats the point?

Sure Google results are not as relevant as they could be, but that is because they put to much credit in the anchor text weight of backlinks.

If I have better on-page optimization and PR 5, and another site has worse on-page optimization and PR6, it is possible that I rank can better.

It is a combination of on-page and off-site optimization.

Don't you think that makes sense?

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Sure Google results are not as relevant as they could be, but that is because they put to much credit in the anchor text weight of backlinks.

not always Jaan.

there is a page belonging to youtube knocking around in a search we targeted a little while ago that has low relevance by comparison and it hasnt got 1/20th of the backlinks (if any at all) nor any focused anchor text we had to point at ours to get past it, but there it is still floating around anyway, keywords in title and high enough PR.

theres also another page in the search a little lower down that does not have the 2 word phrase on it anywhere on the page at all, one word is there, but the other is only present in a navigation url in the source code of Google's cache of the page, with no anchor text. their IBL link profile also shows not one instance of the phrase as inbound anchor text. its PR4 sub page of a PR5 site.

it doesnt leave much alternative as to how the basics of this must be working IMO.

[incrediblehelp]

Well I hope you dont wonder why a YT page out ranks you in Google. Google owns them, nuff said.

As for the other page, how do you know what back links Google truly see for it? I hope you dont say through the operator?

[kevsta]

lol no not through the link: operator

through alltheweb, yahoo, altavista & msn so unless G have some secret ones no-one else has found. but they dont, its not the kind of page that someone may link to with the world's mightiest single (invisible) link using exactly my phrase

edit and they dont outrank me, got past it a few weeks ago now

[Peter (IMC)]

G would have us believe its all about relevance, but it isnt, yet.

Of course it is. But relevance is a subjective matter. Different people different opinions. The way they judge relevance is their way. They use links a lot. That actually makes sense looking at the available data online.

Sure Google results are not as relevant as they could be, but that is because they put to much credit in the anchor text weight of backlinks.

If you know of a better way to judge relevance then you can say that. But I think using anchor texts still is the best way to judge relevance.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Of course it is. But relevance is a subjective matter. Different people different opinions. The way they judge relevance is their way. They use links a lot. That actually makes sense looking at the available data online.

the example im talking of above has a page that the term does not appear anywhere at all on. it also has not a single backlink into that page with that anchor text, (or any) by comparison ours has 60+

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

If you know of a better way to judge relevance then you can say that

But I think using anchor texts still is the best way to judge relevance.

in this case any relevance whatsoever would do, there simply isnt any there whatsover, either onpage or IBL anchors, which isnt very surprising really as its quite unlikely that anyone would link to an inner page with a specific phrase like this, which wasnt on the page.

and certainly not more linkpower than our work to rank for it.

and re-edit, google dropped my page from the index a few days ago, although the site is still showing another page in it's place, but YT is back up there again for the moment.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

the example im talking of above has a page that the term does not appear anywhere at all on. it also has not a single backlink into that page with that anchor text, (or any) by comparison ours has 60+

Can't be known kevsta.

You can't know what links are pointing to another site/page. You can't know if a page or site has been 301'd to it. Links you'll never see but are attributed.

Show me the page and phrase.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kevsta

the example im talking of above has a page that the term does not appear anywhere at all on. it also has not a single backlink into that page with that anchor text, (or any) by comparison ours has 60+

I want to see that too!

[kevsta]

search phrase is seo demonstration.

page is CSS Menus - Vertical CSS Menu with Popout and Dropdown Menus @ about #8, has been as high as #4.

and my page is back in the index again where it belongs

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

search phrase is seo demonstration.

page is CSS Menus - Vertical CSS Menu with Popout and Dropdown Menus @ about #8, has been as high as #4.

and my page is back in the index again where it belongs

allinanchor:seo demonstration - Google Search

Dave

[kevsta]

indeed.

if i'm not mistaken it's in line 5 of the code of that page (google cache only, not the page code itself, strangely) the code is shown below. (I broke it up to stop it turning into html)

" Click here for the < A - HREF="http://66.102.9.104/search?q= cache:arUDoE6Uo3MJ: www. seoconsultants. com/css/menus/vertical/+seo+demonstration&hl=en&strip=1"><font color=blue>cached text</font> </a> "

ie only onpage, not IBL anchor shows up in that search. and nowhere else pointing at it from anywhere that any of my various link investigation tools can find.

so like i said earlier they either have the world's single strongest (and invisible to any backlink checking software) link pointed at it, or its not IBL anchors and relevance keeping that page there

or its domain redirects like dave suggested earlier, hadnt actually thought of that but seems a bit unlikely doesnt it?

[dartman]

Originally Posted by kevsta

so like i said earlier they either have the world's single strongest (and invisible to any backlink checking software) link pointed at it, or its not IBL anchors and relevance keeping that page there

Consider -
Results may be a function of a site as a "whole domain" (pr, relevance, etc) rather then any 1 independent factor.
I would figure that Johns site would rank well with high results for any search term that includes "seo".

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by dartman

Consider -
Results may be a function of a site as a "whole domain" (pr, relevance, etc) rather then any 1 independent factor.
I would figure that Johns site would rank well with high results for any search term that includes "seo".

for sure, but how can we argue that it has anything to do with relevance, when the word "demonstration" only appears once inside a hidden link somewhere in the page code, on the whole site?

the site has an impressive inbound link profile for sure, hence their good PR, but not one incidence of the word demonstration onpage for a searcher or viewer to see, nor least "seo demonstration" which is the actual search term, neither onpage nor as IBLs, the two word phrase is not found anywhere on it.

to my mind this is not the best relevance to my search term. whichever way they decided that page or whole site is similarly relevant to my highly targeted page and IBLs, i cant agree. and i dont think it would be there if it was part of a PR 1 or 2 site.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by kevsta

... but not one incidence of the word demonstration onpage for a searcher or viewer to see, nor least "seo demonstration" which is the actual search term, neither onpage nor as IBLs, the two word phrase is not found anywhere on it.

Possibly G equates "tutorial" or other similar kw's with "demonstration" when there are too few results for "demonstration".
Just a guess.

[crankydave]

How many redirected pages/URL's does your tools show you?

The only person trying to target that exact phrase is you. What do you expect? Google to only show your pages or pages you have posted on or else they're not relevant?

Relevance is a matter of being related as well. It's also subjective.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

there is a page belonging to youtube knocking around in a search we targeted a little while ago that has low relevance by comparison and it hasnt got 1/20th of the backlinks (if any at all) nor any focused anchor text we had to point at ours to get past it, but there it is still floating around anyway, keywords in title and high enough PR.

Actually, anyone looking for the TaeKwonDo Master, whose name appears to be Seo, demonstration would find your pages of zero relevance.

How about if Google decided that everyone searching for that phrase was only interested in Master Seo's demonstration.

Dave

[kevsta]

good points guys. and lmao @ the taekwondo guy wondering what my seo demo was about

but thats not the page im contesting really. maybe it is something along the lines of what rick suggested, google word association.

but are you also all saying that you think it (the css page) would be there if it were a lower PR page?

[crankydave]

I don't think it's about Toolbar PR.

I think it's about relevance taking into account a variety of factors.

Stop and think about all the words and phrases that can a variety of different meanings or levels of relevance depending upon the person making the query.

An example, how many people interested in the fruit... McIntosh Apple search for Macintosh Apple? What is relevant?

Here's another...

bartlett - Google Search

Which results are not relevant?

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

inanchor:demonstration site:seoconsultants.com - Google Search
It's got SEO all over the page and "demonstration" in its backlinks.

More an example of Google knowing more about a page than you do yourself and for that reason knows more about relevance of this page than you.

You could argue that not having the word on the page makes it less relevant, but we passed the times that a search engine was just a word matching engine. They are more focused on being an information retrieval system. Which means that it's more about the meaning of the content than about the individual words.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kevsta

not always Jaan.

there is a page belonging to youtube knocking around in a search we targeted a little while ago that has low relevance by comparison and it hasnt got 1/20th of the backlinks (if any at all) nor any focused anchor text we had to point at ours to get past it, but there it is still floating around anyway, keywords in title and high enough PR.

A link from a PR 9 youtube would be hard to beat.

[kevsta]

this is my feeling Janeth too. Peter I have studied their link profile in depth, on 3 different link tools. there are 91 external links to that page and no "D word" anywhere in the anchors

so yes there is "demonstration" in (1) backlink pointing at that page from within the same site and nowhere else visable on any other engine by any other tools, whereas as of this morning theres showing about 120+ with "seo demonstration" pointed at my page in WMT.

so i cant buy the anchor text answer except if the one link on their site has greater power (120x or more) than the various we have pointed externally.

so to recap, it actually only has "SEO" on the page twice (in the nav menu, not even in content) doesnt mention the D word at all, and when you read the page is not exactly full of info about either keyword and especially not the both of them put together.

and that's google's idea of better relevance these days? class.

whichever way i toss it around I always come back to the same thing.

& not toolbar PR dave

this page CSS Pop-Out Menu Tutorial Page 1 is a showing as a strong link to our page and from a potentially very relevant page, bt using the anchor text "here"

i believe this page along with one other on the same site, - 2 x PR4 (and lowish links offpage) giving strong links out, combined with a good PR on our page is the reason that its in this search.

linkstrength ..which all comes back to PR/ links out ratio again? plus of course the fact the links are from a more relevant page (says demo 4 times, and uses "sample" etc as demo variants i suppose) even if the page they point at is not

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

& not toolbar PR dave

That's the only PR you can see kevsta. You are the one who keeps mentioning PR and giving numbers.

Here's how many pages Google see's that use that exact phrase kevsta...

"seo demonstration" - Google Search

Remove all of yours and everyone you posted.

How many are left?

I'll ask you you again, do you think your pages are the only relevant ones?

And again I'll ask you, how pages/sites does your "tools" show that have been redirected?

And in case you missed it the first time...

allinanchor:seo demonstration - Google Search

Where does Google show that page ranking for the allinanchor: search kevsta?

Dave

[full house]

if not thats the factor what should be it?

[kevsta]

if you guys all think that's a perfectly good and natural page to be returned in those search results i'll leave it there, as i can see we're maybe all getting a bit tired of this? i wasnt expecting answers anyway, being as none of us actually knows the truth.

im only talking about PR because its the thread title. ..whether it is still a significant (primary) factor in rankings anymore or not. and I only showed the example because people asked to see it, not because i think its a fantastic achievement on our behalf.

& i havent heard or seen anything here that makes me think any different, (I've looked at all those searches myself guys long ago pondering this) & IMO if that page had a significantly lower PR (real or imaginary) it wouldnt be showing up in that search where it does.

it doesnt even have the text on the page and has only one IBL anchor at it from within it's own site. I only ever see this kind of thing with PR4 + sites.

of course it could have a redirected site pointed at it... ? but thats a bit teapot orbiting jupiter for my liking tbh.

[Peter (IMC)]

so i cant buy the anchor text answer except if the one link on their site has greater power (120x or more) than the various we have pointed externally.

If course it has greater power. It's one of the words in the anchor text. That is extremely powerful in Google. And you'll see this effect very strongly for a keyword phrase that has no competition what so ever. (practically also isn't searched for.)

[dartman]

Regardless of "why" the results are what they are and I think you'll lose a lot of sleep trying
to figure it out. Who would search for "seo demonstration" anyway? That's like me worrying about someone searching for "two ball".

[Roshan]

I do not think PR is primary matter to get ranking, it not necessary.

[ninaway]

depending on what you mean by primary,i think is true because i consider primary as the number one.that is the first.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Roshan

I do not think PR is primary matter to get ranking, it not necessary.

Incoming linke - PR is the primary way to get websites ranked.

Do a search for computers and you will see both dell and apple there. Click on the cache and you will get this "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: computers"

PageRank is a algorithm that assigns weight to each link coming into and leaving a website. As you can see from the above example the only thing making that site rank is the incoming links.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

If course it has greater power. It's one of the words in the anchor text. That is extremely powerful in Google. And you'll see this effect very strongly for a keyword phrase that has no competition what so ever. (practically also isn't searched for.)

you misunderstand me peter I apologise. most of our links inbound to our page have the exact 2 word anchor text phrase.

the internal one into the "rogue" page has only "demonstration" ..so one internal link on their site is comparable to many external IBls on ours? hmm, ..now why could that be?

Originally Posted by dartman

Regardless of "why" the results are what they are and I think you'll lose a lot of sleep trying to figure it out. Who would search for "seo demonstration" anyway? That's like me worrying about someone searching for "two ball".

lol. im not worrying, and am fairly confident that I know why it's so.

we took that phrase on the way past only because the whole website is themed as an ongoing seo demonstration, not because we thought that it was difficult or would bring a lot of traffic.

I was quoting it as an example of a high PR page in a search that doesnt have the term on it, nor any IBLs to it, and only wondering if anyone could shed any fresh light or see something we missed when we spotted it and investigated thoroughly back in Jan.

& so far, unfortunately, thats a "no"

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

you misunderstand me peter I apologise. most of our links inbound to our page have the exact 2 word anchor text phrase.

the internal one into the "rogue" page has only "demonstration" ..so one internal link on their site is comparable to many external IBls on ours? hmm, ..now why could that be?



lol. im not worrying, and am fairly confident that I know why it's so.

we took that phrase on the way past only because the whole website is themed as an ongoing seo demonstration, not because we thought that it was difficult or would bring a lot of traffic.

I was quoting it as an example of a high PR page in a search that doesnt have the term on it, nor any IBLs to it, and only wondering if anyone could shed any fresh light or see something we missed when we spotted it and investigated thoroughly back in Jan.

& so far, unfortunately, thats a "no"

You're obviously missing a lot and a few of us have been trying to point it out. It just seems that you can't see the forest through the trees.

Do you really think exact phrase matches is the only determining factor for "relevance"?

MSN has it on the first page and they don't use PR. Now what?

Dave

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You're obviously missing a lot and a few of us have been trying to point it out. It just seems that you can't see the forest through the trees.

Do you really think exact phrase matches is the only determining factor for "relevance"?

MSN has it on the first page and they don't use PR. Now what?

Dave

lol.

look guys i do know that being lead to something via a series of riddles and clues is often the best way to learn but but all im really hearing is "well why are you trying to get that silly / easy phrase" or look at this search etc."

people may as well say "Well my son, Google moves in mysterious ways.." dont try to understand, just accept..

i have looked before, believe, and if there is some obvious factor ive missed staring me in the face, then i am clearly lacking the comprehension abilities needed to glean this info. woods? what woods?

if thats the case then there are most likely people on here who could "point it out" if they so wished (which is why this is the forum i would come to if i had a problem every time) but mostly they choose to answer questions with more questions or speak in riddles instead..

so can we just out with it whatever the answer is now please? this all started in february

Do you really think exact phrase matches is the only determining factor for "relevance"?

no. but for an obscure search having the words on the page at least once is usually quite a good start?

[crankydave]

LOL kevsta.

Not a bunch riddles. Just pointing.

Especially when it comes to phrases not being specifically targeted by most, SE's need to find "relevance" outside of exact matches otherwise they'd have a very, very, limited number of results to return in these instances.

Next best thing? How about 3 words where 2 of the 3 match?

The company name/site is Seo Consultants. One of the 2 words. What about any links that use "SEO Consultants Demonstration" as the anchor.

Let's also not forget that "SEO" is in the URL. What about links that use "demonstration" in the anchor combined with "Seo" in the URL. Relevance?

What about varied links that use one or the other word of the phrase? When looking at the links in their totality doesn't this increase relevance? Peter was pointing to this.

How about where the links originate? How about related text on pages where the links originate?

There's a plethora of ways "relevance" can be "attributed" beyond exact phrase matches that can make a page "relevant" when targeting the exact phrase is not competitive.

Dave

[kevsta]

regarding phrase & ibl variations etc, agreed. & that site has a hugely strong ranking for seo and a great link profile. no-one is going to outrank them for seo consultants anytime soon.

so if ive understood correctly, youre saying that maybe they've ranked on the strength of their seo + everything standings generally, and that page shows up because of one occurance of the d word in an internal anchor? (..and really it is nowhere else externally i just went thro 10k links again)

...if that's what youre saying its very plausible for sure. but isnt that bringing us full circle again in a chicken and egg kind of way..?

how do you get a high PR? plenty good links inwards. what does plenty of good links give you? good serp standings? - if the anchors are used well, an ability to rank well for your main terms plus an incidental word if there's not many others in the race?

so why don't i ever see this kind of occurance from lesser (PR / linkstrength call it what you will) sites? because they dont have the "serp standings" of this site, or the inbound linkstrength which is whats is reflected in that little green bar?

we could go round & round on this one I think, but thanks for your patience and the best answer so far, more to think about..

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

r

so if ive understood correctly, youre saying that maybe they've ranked on the strength of their seo + everything standings generally, and that page shows up because of one occurance of the d word in an internal anchor? (..and really it is nowhere else externally i just went thro 10k links again)

...if that's what youre saying its very plausible for sure. but isnt that bringing us full circle again in a chicken and egg kind of way..?

kevsta...

I found this in less than a minute or 2...

CSS Down Menus - Horizontal and Vertical

How many more, and how many other things do you suppose you're missing?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Alan if you are in and about the car boot sales in Swindon over the weekend - see if you can locate a crystal ball - they are 100% more accurate than the toolbar.

In Norway Ad from a car company goes like this:

We don't sell cars. We sell a dream

Google's TbRank is like a dream (and not like driving by looking in the mirror or out the back window).

Links are to Site as Oxygen tanks are to Diver


Strongest Links - Directory list

Like smell is the driver (dream) for Gucci TbRank is the dream for some webmasters.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Alan-Hart

The only point i am making is that a site with lower PR can come higher in SERPs than one with a lower PR.

Of course, PageRank is a derived metric of IBL's. There are n other factors in the algorithme. Some say:

n > 200.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by benc007

"But Internal Pagerank is the only way to go"

ctabuk, can you elaborate on how you can build internal pagerank?

Can't you see the dream or feel the smell

[janeth]

Alan-Hart View Post
The only point i am making is that a site with lower PR can come higher in SERPs than one with a lower PR.

Originally Posted by kgun

Of course, PageRank is a derived metric of IBL's. There are n other factors in the algorithme. Some say:

n > 200.

That is where the anchor text comes in.

[kgun]

Yes, and I should add, the TbRank of the page where the link comes from may be 0, but the hompage may have a higher TbRank than the homepage TbRank of the other page.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Yes, and I should add, the TbRank of the page where the link comes from may be 0, but the hompage may have a higher TbRank than the homepage TbRank of the other page.

TB does not mean anything. My site went from a pr6 to a pr3 to a pr0 back to a pr4 in the last 6 months.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by kevsta

this page CSS Pop-Out Menu Tutorial Page 1 is a showing as a strong link to our page and from a potentially very relevant page, bt using the anchor text "here"

i believe this page along with one other on the same site, - 2 x PR4 (and lowish links offpage) giving strong links out, combined with a good PR on our page is the reason that its in this search.

i didnt miss it? bolded txt above. i already said that IMO those 2 pages are the reason it's there.

they both feed "strong" links at our page , in the region of 40x the average "vote" between them. ..look at the PR vs links offpage ratio on the one you linked to.

IMO our rogue page is "hot" because of pure PR / OBL ratio of the 2 pages linking to it on the tanfa site and that's why it shows up there.

edit ..i wonder if they'd nofollow them for us so we can see if the page drops away?

[Peter (IMC)]

you misunderstand me peter I apologise. most of our links inbound to our page have the exact 2 word anchor text phrase.

the internal one into the "rogue" page has only "demonstration" ..so one internal link on their site is comparable to many external IBls on ours? hmm, ..now why could that be?

You do realize that seoconsultants.com is a well known site and has many more positive variables than just the couple that you are comparing, right?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

so if ive understood correctly, youre saying that maybe they've ranked on the strength of their seo + everything standings generally, and that page shows up because of one occurance of the d word in an internal anchor? (..and really it is nowhere else externally i just went thro 10k links again)

That is simply not correct. I even showed you one. How many more do you think there are that you are missing?

My bolding.

Dave

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

You do realize that seoconsultants.com is a well known site and has many more positive variables than just the couple that you are comparing, right?

of course. its a very powerful seo related site generally. their link profile is excellent.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by crankydave

That is simply not correct. I even showed you one. How many more do you think there are that you are missing?

My bolding.

Dave

lol. dave my apologies, i cannot believe i see it NOW. doh!!

there it is that's my uber powerful (and previously invisible) link.

before that last post i would have bet a lot of money on there being no more

but there doesnt need to be any more, that one is strong enough all by itself.

thank you

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

TB does not mean anything. My site went from a pr6 to a pr3 to a pr0 back to a pr4 in the last 6 months.

1. Is that a scientific conclusion or an informal personal observation / experience?
2. Do you know the reason why?

Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

Aren't you a distingushed member at the "home of pagerank"?

[janeth]

And there are some of us that post the quote in the same thread it was taken out of. Now wouldn't that of been a crazy thing to do.

Originally Posted by kgun

[LIST=1][*]Is that a scientific conclusion or an informal personal observation / experience?

It is what happened, I don't think and eye witness report needs to be a scientific conclusion.

Originally Posted by kgun

1. Do you know the reason why?

Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

And there is where the question should have been asked.

Originally Posted by kgun

[LIST=1]
Aren't you a distingushed member at the "home of pagerank"?

I am a member and believe with all my heart that incoming links from high pr sites with good anchor text can rank a site but I was talking about the tool bar PR.

What you see in the little green bar on your browser not what Google sees.