Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

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

If the value is random, there can not be a relationship. It is not. There may be an advanced algorithmic reason why the value fluctuated.

[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?
2. Or a personal experience (observation)?
3. There may be an algorithmic reason why the value fluctuated.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

1. Is that a scientific conclusion?

eye witness report

Originally Posted by kgun

1. There may be an algorithmic reason why the value fluctuated.

Or an error in the tool bar, Google making changes or they thought I was selling links. There could be a lot of reasons why.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

eye witness report

Not good enough.

Originally Posted by janeth

Or an error in the tool bar,

That is a possibility. I doubt it.

Originally Posted by janeth

eye witness report
Google making changes or they thought I was selling links. There could be a lot of reasons why.

More probable.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Not good enough.



That is a possibility. I doubt it.



More probable.

I don't sale links and if the fact that I saw it is not good enough then I guess there is no reason to continue. You can go on believing that the tool bar is correct makes no difference to me.

[kgun]

By "not good enough", I mean:

not good enough to draw a scientific conclusion.

And your conclusion is ... ?

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.

My bolding.

If that is your conclusion, my conclusion is:

That is not a scientific conclusion.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

By "not good enough", I mean:

not good enough to draw a scientific conclusion.

And your conclusion is ... ?


My bolding.

If that is your conclusion, my conclusion is:

That is not a scientific conclusion.

If I am driving my car and the gas gage goes from empty to full to half a tank.

I'd stop trusting the gas gauge.

[kgun]

I think there are steep Mountains in Colombia. There are in Norway. The gadge may (on some cars) indicate nearly half to empty depending the following:

1. Steep up hill.
2. Steep down hill.

But that is not a good analogy. So forget that and answer this question:

1. Look at 10 000 sites (may be, large enough sample to draw a scientific conclusion) with different page rank on the home page and on similar sub pages.
2. Compare similar sites / pages in the same industry, e.g. the SEO business.
3. Do you think you could by statistical mehods be able to measure a relation beteween (stable) TbRank and SERP position for the exact same KW's?
4. But the cause is relevant IBL's with good anchor text. TbRank should reflect that.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

I think there are steep Mountains in Colombia. There are in Norway. The gadge may (on some cars) indicate nearly half to empty

Mine is electric and not affected by the hills and it happened in a flat area.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

But that is not a good analogy. So forget that and answer this question:

1. Look at 10 000 sites (may be, large enough sample to draw a scientific conclusion) with different page rank on the home page and on similar sub pages.
2. Compare similar sites / pages in the same industry, e.g. the SEO business.
3. Do you think you could by statistical mehods be able to measure a relation beteween (stable) TbRank and SERP position for the exact same KW's?
4. But the cause is relevant IBL's with good anchor text. TbRank should reflect that.

The tool bar rank has not been updated in three months. All the data is old.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

Mine is electric and not affected by the hills and it happened in a flat area.

So you choose to answer that part of my post. I see that you are a woman with a beautiful new picture.

Sometimes, discussing with a woman is like pi**ing against the wind, you walk in the water

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

The tool bar rank has not been updated in three months. All the data is old.

Like permanent income is more important for your consumption level than transitory.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

So you choose to answer that part of my post. I see that you are a woman with a beautiful new picture.

Thank you

Originally Posted by kgun

Sometimes, discussing with a woman is like pi**ing against the wind, you walk in the water

Maybe you should try to discuss something that is not so obvious, then you want get wet.

[kgun]

In additon you are funny. Lucky husband and children

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Like permanent income is more important for your consumption level than transitory.

That would be one of the reasons we are closing our web design business this month.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

In additon you are funny. Lucky husband and children

Thank you.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

That would be one of the reasons we are closing our web design business this month.

Sometimes you have to adjust your business level.

If you have time, study this article.

Permanent income hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permanent income is more important for a sustainable consumption level than transitory or random income.

From spectral regression analysis, that is regession analysis at different frequencies, the trend component (read: Stable page rank) may be more important as an explanatory factor than seasonal or cyclical (fluctuations around the trend) factors (read: Fluctuacting page rank).

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by kgun

So you choose to answer that part of my post. I see that you are a woman with a beautiful new picture.

Sometimes, discussing with a woman is like pi**ing against the wind, you walk in the water

By observation only (no scientific research) when not being able to win an arguement with a woman, just focus on the fact that she's a woman and at least you'll feel like you won.

Something more scientific:

Post x + 1: kgun 08:16 AM
Post x + 2: janeth: 09:03 AM
Post x + 3: kgun 09:07 AM
Post x + 4: kgun 09:29 AM
Post x + 5: janeth 09:58 AM
Post x + 6: kgun 10:38 AM
Post x + 7: janeth 10:42 AM
Post x + 8: kgun 10:46 AM
Post x + 9: janeth 10:54 AM
Post x + 10: kgun 11:06 AM
Post x + 11: janeth 11:21 AM
Post x + 12: kgun 11:24 AM
Post x + 13: janeth 11:24 AM
Post x + 14: kgun 11:26 AM
Post x + 15: janeth 11:32 AM
Post x + 16: kgun 11:33 AM
Post x + 17: janeth 11:33 AM
Post x + 18: janeth 11:34 AM
Post x + 19: kgun 11:42 AM

Average reply time kgun: 10.7 minutes
Average reply time Janeth: 12.4 minutes

Average post length kgun: 3.8 lines
Average post length Janeth: 2 lines

Statistically we can determine here that Janeth thinks longer about what she wants to say and uses less words to say it. Kgun thinks shorter about what he wants to say and uses more words to say it.

This scientifically supports the research that suggests that the behaviour of men and women are inverted online, compared to the offline world.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

By observation only (no scientific research) when not being able to win an arguement with a woman, just focus on the fact that she's a woman and at least you'll feel like you won.

My bolding.

Reread post 156 - 161 again.

Note:
Her post 159 posted Yesterday, 02:24 PM

Mine post 160 posted Yesterday, 02:24 PM

Yes, that was my polemic reaction when she gave that first ( post 159 ) answer. My answer should have come just after her first post, but she posted another answer (post 160) at the same time I posted mine, that I did not see, so I thought the first (post 159) would be her only answer.

I awaited that response but not from you Peter. And what is your contribution and intention? Starting a flame? Did you note my bolding of sometimes?

My goal is not to win a discussion. But she did not answer. May be you can follow up with better arguments where she stopped.

Originally Posted by kgun

From spectral regression analysis, that is regession analysis at different frequencies, the trend component (read: Stable page rank) may be more important as an explanatory factor than seasonal or cyclical (fluctuations around the trend) factors (read: Fluctuacting page rank).

So that is not an argument.

Originally Posted by kgun

So forget that and answer this question:

1. Look at 10 000 sites (may be, large enough sample to draw a scientific conclusion) with different page rank on the home page and on similar sub pages.
2. Compare similar sites / pages in the same industry, e.g. the SEO business.
3. Do you think you could by statistical mehods be able to measure a relation between (stable) TbRank and SERP position for the exact same KW's?
4. But the cause is relevant IBL's with good anchor text. TbRank should reflect that.

Are you joining the strong majority here at WPW that say that there is no relation between the TbRank and IBL's and between IBL's and SERP position? That is definitely easiest. So I await your argument.

TbRank is Google's measure of the importance of a page.

You mean that that is a joke, like some other members here, that are remarkably silent seem to mean, too?

My conclusion to this:

Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I was debating, day and night, for weeks, for months, for years. And I was obviously telling that I was not about that toolbar. Simply use the search function of WPW, and you will find those posts if you have any doubts of what I am saying.

It could have been that I could not pose my position as Andy achieved here: PageRank Is The Primary Google Search Ranking Factor | Andy Beard - Niche Marketing

After reading his article, tell me what you think: Is PageRank the Primary Google Search Ranking Factor?

As I said: For me it was, it is and it will always be a major factor.

Anyway, I feel once again confirmed...

At least, IBL's with semantic anchor text (semantic links) was the primary Google Search Ranking Factor. I still think it is one of the most important search ranking factors.

My conclusion:
I personally think that semantic stable IBL's that are mirrored in the green TbRank (Googles measure of the importance of a page) are more important than most of us are willing to accept.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Average reply time kgun: 10.7 minutes
Average reply time Janeth: 12.4 minutes

Average post length kgun: 3.8 lines
Average post length Janeth: 2 lines

Statistically we can determine here that Janeth thinks longer about what she wants to say and uses less words to say it. Kgun thinks shorter about what he wants to say and uses more words to say it.

This scientifically supports the research that suggests that the behaviour of men and women are inverted online, compared to the offline world.

lmao v funny

i would respectfully suggest that as janeth's first language is not english (nor kgun's i know) and that she has only learnt the language in the last few years, and that as she by her own admission is not technical to the extent of kgun (as are extremely few of us on here IMO)

..that perhaps thinking & response times, although appearing to suggest your conclusion, are an excellent example of the use of statistics to prove that black = white

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Statistically we can determine here that Janeth thinks longer about what she wants to say and uses less words to say it.

Or Janeth was doing other things and had to work in her post.

[janeth]

I'll start by saying I really thought you were just playing. I had no idea that you really felt a tool that was only updated a couple times a year could be considered a major factor in anything that is changing daily.

Google spiders the web all the time. The toolbar is nothing more than an idea for us to see what Google is seeing.

Originally Posted by kgun

Originally Posted by kgun View Post
From spectral regression analysis, that is regession analysis at different frequencies, the trend component (read: Stable page rank) may be more important as an explanatory factor than seasonal or cyclical (fluctuations around the trend) factors (read: Fluctuacting page rank).

There is a difference between being book smart and being truly smart. A truly smart person could dumb that down for the rest if us.

Originally Posted by kgun

So that is not an argument.

Not even close.

Originally Posted by kgun

Are you joining the strong majority here at WPW that say that there is no relation between the TbRank and IBL's and between IBL's and SERP position? That is definitely easiest. So I await your argument.

The truth is always the easiest path.

Originally Posted by kgun

TbRank is Google's measure of the importance of a page.

PR is TB is nothing more than an idea of what Google sees.

Originally Posted by kgun

At least, IBL's with semantic anchor text (semantic links) was the primary Google Search Ranking Factor. I still think it is one of the most important search ranking factors.

Links from on topic sites with good PR with few links leaving the page and good anchor text is a primary factor in getting a site to rank.

Originally Posted by kgun

My conclusion:
I personally think that semantic stable IBL's that are mirrored in the green TbRank (Googles measure of the importance of a page) are more important than most of us are willing to accept.

My conclusion:

Since the TB is only update once every 3-6 months I'd say there are a lot of sites that we have no idea what their true PR is.

[Peter (IMC)]

My post was not to be taken too serious. It was funny to see how a forum for a short while turned into a chat box... so I merely was trying to shake things up a bit. (which made me lose some reprank points, but no problem, if I'm always politically 100% correct I'd be a boring forum member. )

i would respectfully suggest that as janeth's first language is not english (nor kgun's i know)

English isn't my first language either.

I'll start by saying I really thought you were just playing. I had no idea that you really felt a tool that was only updated a couple times a year could be considered a major factor in anything that is changing daily.

I think Kgun is saying that even though TBPR is updated not as frequent as we'd like, it still gives information. Real PR is likely to be more stable than one would think. Sometimes TBPR jumps up and down for which there may be many possible reasons, but in the majority of cases TBPR is pretty stable. And you can pretty much conclude that if TBPR didn't change for a whole year, the real PR hasn't been changing a lot either.

Remember the days that PR was updated monthly. Did PR in those days change every month? Not that I remember. It took a long time to get it to go up, and when you stopped link building, it often took like a year before it dropped a point. Which was more because of the scale being changed, rather than you actually losing real PR.



The 2 conclusions:

I personally think that semantic stable IBL's that are mirrored in the green TbRank (Googles measure of the importance of a page) are more important than most of us are willing to accept.

and

Since the TB is only update once every 3-6 months I'd say there are a lot of sites that we have no idea what their true PR is.

These 2 conclusions are both correct. They´re not eachothers opposites. They are 2 different conclusions about 2 different things.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

My post was not to be taken too serious. It was funny to see how a forum for a short while turned into a chat box... so I merely was trying to shake things up a bit. (which made me lose some reprank points, but no problem, if I'm always politically 100% correct I'd be a boring forum member. )

I can't believe someone gave you a bad rep for the post. I loved the post.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

and

These 2 conclusions are both correct. They´re not eachothers opposites. They are 2 different conclusions about 2 different things.

I agree on an older site the TB may very well be correct but on new sites that are sitting at a pr0 while the site owners are working hard on the sites, I think it would be a bad indication of what is really going on with the site.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

My post was not to be taken too serious. .

Enjoyed your "scientific analysis" - quite refreshing and a good laugh.

[kevsta]

i would have to agree with both "sides" on this.

no, it doesnt tell us very much, and yes a new site can be a long way ahead of where it's shown tbPR wise, or conversely a site could be dying link-wise and still reading legacy tbPR levels, but in the absense of the real figures (which i think we pretty much all agree are important? ) its better than nothing.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kevsta

i would have to agree with both "sides" on this.

no, it doesnt tell us very much, and yes a new site can be a long way ahead of where it's shown tbPR wise, or conversely a site could be dying link-wise and still reading legacy tbPR levels, but in the absense of the real figures (which i think we pretty much all agree are important? ) its better than nothing.

I did a redirect from one of my domain names to another and now that site shows the pr and backlinks to the site I redirected it to.

But I agree that it is better than nothing.

[kevsta]

i dont understand? thats what its supposed to do when you redirect correctly?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kevsta

i dont understand? thats what its supposed to do when you redirect correctly?

It means that I could redirect my domain name to a pr9 website wait until after the next update then remove the redirect and start using the name again. Everyone that saw it would think it was a pr9.

[kevsta]

oh yea i see, but we werent planning on trying to sell our PR were we? arent we using it to rank with ourselves?

although if I had a PR9 I would definitely be open to offers i'm sure. & id be inspecting its pretty closely before i bought one from you too now

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kevsta

oh yea i see, but we werent planning on trying to sell our PR were we? arent we using it to rank with ourselves?

although if I had a PR9 I would definitely be open to offers i'm sure. & id be inspecting its pretty closely before i bought one from you too now

It shows that TB PR can't be trusted.

[kevsta]

lol, yea, but surely that applies much more with a domain you dont know the history of? if you've had it from new & loved and nurtured it to say a 6, and never done anything wrong, you'd have fair grounds to assume it sits roughly somewhere between a 5 and 7 or their equivalent "real" figures ?

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

I agree on an older site the TB may very well be correct but on new sites that are sitting at a pr0 while the site owners are working hard on the sites, I think it would be a bad indication of what is really going on with the site.

A new site is a special type of site to Google. It takes a while before links to the site are implemented and then found by Google bot. It's a normal that new sites rank very well in the beginning and then drop like a stone (which is called the Sand Box effect.)

What makes a new site so special for Google? Well there is a huge problem with new sites.... They don't have pagerank. Pagerank being the base of everything Google does, would result in new sites not being able to rank at all.

So why do new sites rank so well? The answer to this I can not proof, but a little bit of common sense tells us that it is only logical that untill the day that Google calculated the Pagerank of the pages in the site (and age factors as well for that matter) they have no choice but to ignore Pagerank (and age factors).

So when you see a PR0 in those new pages, what you´re actually seeing is "no PR calculated yet."

If anyone is wondering if this is just a stupid mind game of my own, go check your Google Webmaster account and check the "crawl stats" in the statistics menu. It will give you 4 options for "The PageRank of your pages in Google". High, Medium, Low and "Not Yet Assigned".

When ignoring PR (and age factors) they need to do something in order to rank these pages. I don't know what they do, but based on observations they are treating these pages as if they have a certain PR (and age), which is on the low side, but enough to rank good for if there's not too much competition.

The problem is of course that once they have calculated PR (and age factors), you´re pretty much alway set up with not enough PR and a way to young website. So you drop like a stone.

Since most sites are old enough and have reasonably stable PR, you can pretty much conclude that once a site is stable, PR won't change that much either. Of course if you´re lucky and you all the sudden do get a very high PR backlink, things can change dramatically for your website. But for most sites that's not the case. So pretty much you can conclude that ToolBar PR has some value when analizing a website.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

I think Kgun is saying that even though TBPR is updated not as frequent as we'd like, it still gives information. Real PR is likely to be more stable than one would think. Sometimes TBPR jumps up and down for which there may be many possible reasons, but in the majority of cases TBPR is pretty stable. And you can pretty much conclude that if TBPR didn't change for a whole year, the real PR hasn't been changing a lot either.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Since most sites are old enough and have reasonably stable PR, you can pretty much conclude that once a site is stable, PR won't change that much either. Of course if you´re lucky and you all the sudden do get a very high PR backlink, things can change dramatically for your website. But for most sites that's not the case. So pretty much you can conclude that ToolBar PR has some value when analizing a website.

My bolding.

Yes, and I stand by my conclusion written above.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

My conclusion:
I personally think that semantic stable IBL's that are mirrored in the green TbRank (Googles measure of the importance of a page) are more important than most of us are willing to accept.

I personally think the same.

[kevsta]

me too.