Google is destroying website rankings

[Martinscholes]

I have sent the following email to a couple of key players in the field of UK public relations. I think THIS stunt by Google is what is skewing so many website rankings and also stuffing up Adsense, for example.

This is a copy of the email I sent out to two of the key players in the UK public relations industry:-

Hi.

Having spoken with a client, we have identified a problem that Google is causing to publishers of newspapers and magazines that use your website's press releases in their online versions.

Google penalises publishers who use press releases. What happens is that Google spots the press release on your website. When it identifies the press release used as a story on a website it penalises the website by claiming it is duplicate content. Should any other website use the same content, then both could be further penalised. The rankings of the websites could, effectively, be destroyed by Google.

I feel that it would be worthwhile public relations portal websites and public relations agencies contacting Google as a matter of urgency to enable Google to fix the problem that Google have caused. As it is damaging the interests of not only publishers but also the public relations industry and clients. It is possible that Google's action might be against EU legislation regarding competition and the fair operation of businesses.

[danlefree]

Did you miss the statement from Google: There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty." - or do you simply disbelieve that it is true?

In either case, if Google does not acknowledge the existence of a penalty, you cannot expect to accomplish much by petitioning them to take action to correct it.

[james113]

Originally Posted by danlefree

Did you miss the statement from Google: There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty." - or do you simply disbelieve that it is true?

In either case, if Google does not acknowledge the existence of a penalty, you cannot expect to accomplish much by petitioning them to take action to correct it.

I just read the google blog post you referred to, and it states that duplicate content penalties do exist in some instances. An ex-client of mine is still suffering from a dup. content penalty that has existed for over 4 months, which makes me lol. I could clear this issue up easily.

Google penalises publishers who use press releases. What happens is that Google spots the press release on your website. When it identifies the press release used as a story on a website it penalises the website by claiming it is duplicate content. Should any other website use the same content, then both could be further penalised. The rankings of the websites could, effectively, be destroyed by Google.

I don't believe a penalty exists like this.

[martty]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

IGoogle penalizes publishers who use press releases. What happens is that Google spots the press release on your website. When it identifies the press release used as a story on a website it penalizes the website by claiming it is duplicate content. Should any other website use the same content, then both could be further penalized. The rankings of the websites could, effectively, be destroyed by Google.

Thats just a load of rubbish! Google can organise their search index anyway they like. How is the searcher served if the search results contain a zillion copies of the the same content (ie press release)? If I am searching for something how is having the search results cluttered with a zillion copies of the same thing helping me as a searcher?

BTW - Google NO NOT penalize a site for duplicate content! They just filter out duplicate copies of the same thing to provide better search results. Shame you did not get your facts right before sending your email.

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

I feel that it would be worthwhile public relations portal websites and public relations agencies contacting Google as a matter of urgency to enable Google to fix the problem that Google have caused. As it is damaging the interests of not only publishers but also the public relations industry and clients. It is possible that Google's action might be against EU legislation regarding competition and the fair operation of businesses.

You are advocating damaging the quality of the search results that Google provide me and everyone else. .... fortunately Google will just ignore you.

[Martinscholes]

"You are advocating damaging the quality of the search results that Google provide me and everyone else"

No, Martty. I am not. I am merely advocating that Google actually think about the likely consequences of their actions. And I did get my facts right.

I used to work for a firm that used the 'Googlish' approach to problems. And caused more problems than were solved.

Someone would point out to IT that the system had a problem. Rather than examining the problem and properly coming up with a solution, they'd do a quick fix. Which would cause another problem somewhere else on the system. They'd be appraised of this problem, so they'd then do a quick fix for the problem they had caused. Which would then cause another problem in another part of the system. And so on and on.

Google had a problem with duplicate content. They fixed it. But the fix seem to have caused problems for webmasters.

As you will be aware, this website is for webmasters and others who run websites and e-businesses. So I raised something that is causing concern for some website publishers. Especially those who publish news-related sites.

Martty, I am not organising a petition. Where on earth did you get that idea?

All I want is for Google to come up with an equitable solution to the problem. Yes, reduce duplicate content, if Google perceives that to be a problem.

But do not penalise online news publishers when they use quotes and or press releases as the basis of a news story. That just makes Google look amateurish, in my opinion.

[martty]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

"You are advocating damaging the quality of the search results that Google provide me and everyone else"

No, Martty. I am not.

Yes you are. You want Google to include all copies of press releases in the search results. I don't want that and neither do most other searchers (one copy is enough).

And I did get my facts right.

No you didn't. You claimed that Google penalized sites for duplicate content when that is just not true. All they do is filter out duplicate copies.

Google had a problem with duplicate content. They fixed it. But the fix seem to have caused problems for webmasters.

So? Google are providing search results for searchers; not a ranking service for webmasters.

All I want is for Google to come up with an equitable solution to the problem. Yes, reduce duplicate content, if Google perceives that to be a problem.

What problem? Google just filter out duplicate copies of pages so that multiple copies do not come up in the search results. Thats not a problem for the searcher. It might be a problem if your site is one of teh ones that Google chooses to filter out, but why should Google care?, they only care about the quality of results for the searcher.

But do not penalise online news publishers when they use quotes and or press releases as the basis of a news story.

But they are NOT penalizing them!

That just makes Google look amateurish, in my opinion.

Given that Google's market share continues to grow at the expense of other search engines, Google have obviously got it right in what they serve up to searchers. It does not matter how your or my site gets ranked or what they filter etc etc,.... its all about what the searcher wants and as the market share is increasing, they obviously on teh right track.

[Martinscholes]

Marrty, I think you have not understood what I want Google to do. You think I want Google to include press releases?

No, that's not what I want Google to do at all!

I want Google to exclude all press releases from the results of searches.

That way, any publisher who wants to publish a press release would not be penalised for publishing a press release or for using a part of a press release to make a story, or using a quote from a key person in a story.

Google need Webmasters. After all, without webmasters there would not be anything for Google to search, would there?

And filtering out is a penalty if it is your website search result that is filtered out.

[ctabuk]

Funnily enough this came from my publishers today
This is the settlement administration website for the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement. The purpose of this website is to inform you of a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by authors and publishers, claiming that Google has violated their copyrights and those of other Rightsholders of Books and Inserts (click for definitions), by scanning their Books, creating an electronic database and displaying short excerpts without the permission of the copyright holders. Google denies the claims. The lawsuit is entitled The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 05 CV 8136 (S.D.N.Y.) The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement. For further information, please review the Notice.


So complaining about what google gets up to is not unusual.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

Google penalises publishers who use press releases. What happens is that Google spots the press release on your website. When it identifies the press release used as a story on a website it penalises the website by claiming it is duplicate content. Should any other website use the same content, then both could be further penalised. The rankings of the websites could, effectively, be destroyed by Google.

Google will penalize the site by only showing one copy of the press release. They don’t penalize the whole site.

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

I feel that it would be worthwhile public relations portal websites and public relations agencies contacting Google as a matter of urgency to enable Google to fix the problem that Google have caused. As it is damaging the interests of not only publishers but also the public relations industry and clients. It is possible that Google's action might be against EU legislation regarding competition and the fair operation of businesses.

Ask them to rank all my sites #1 for my keywords while you’re at it. As not ranking for all my keywords is damaging my ability to spend money at will.

[Tubby]

As I understand it,
Google search engine provides results as selected by Google. Google uses a sophisticated method to select the pages that it presents to the searcher as 'the best of the bunch' for any query, (example top 10 Google results)

Are you suggesting, if someone releases a press item, google should ignore it and simply go searching for an incomplete or partial version of that press item that has been partially published for the sole purpose of having Google find the incomplete item so that its search engine can direct its searcher to the original Press Item via the third site.

The Google searcher arrives at the original page via the longer route (covered in adverts).

Did I read you right? or have I got totally confused by this entire thread..

[Martinscholes]

The problem that was pointed out to me was that if a press release distribution company puts a press release on their website, then if Google sees the press release -or even recognises a quote from it- on any other website, Google would penalise the website for having duplicate content.

Some people say that Google is not penalising websites, but if the action by Google causes a website to slip in rankings, then it is, in effect, a penalty, even if Google argues that it is not.

Should the press release distibution firms block their press release holding sections from Google bots?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

The problem that was pointed out to me was that if a press release distribution company puts a press release on their website, then if Google sees the press release -or even recognises a quote from it- on any other website, Google would penalise the website for having duplicate content.

I'd find a better place to get my information from.

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

Some people say that Google is not penalising websites, but if the action by Google causes a website to slip in rankings, then it is, in effect, a penalty, even if Google argues that it is not.

No it's not.

If Google decides to change their algo (which they have every right to do) and it affects my site and I drop a couple places in the ranking it does not mean my site got a penalty. It just means they are counting something more or less than they were before.

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

Should the press release distibution firms block their press release holding sections from Google bots?

You are getting a benefit from the link pointing to your site, you remove the link and you’ll most likely do more damage to the site than what’s already been done.

[Martinscholes]

"I'd find a better place to get my information from."

That depends on what you define by better. If a press release is issued that I find of interest, then I want to use it on my website. I don't want a badly written bot hurting my ranking.

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by danlefree

Did you miss the statement from Google: There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty." - or do you simply disbelieve that it is true?

I missed that post... This part is awesome...

"(Note that while scraping content from others is discouraged, having others scrape you is a different story; check out this post if you're worried about being scraped.)"

I thought a duplicate content penalty meant that multiple pages on your own site or within your group of domains causes a division of page rank. Exact or near exact copies of pages without enough page rank from multiple domain sources simply get filtered from the results...

Duplicate Content Penalty On...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=quantu...lling&filter=1

Duplicate Content Penalty Off...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=quantu...lling&filter=0

Some people say that Google is not penalising websites, but if the action by Google causes a website to slip in rankings, then it is, in effect, a penalty, even if Google argues that it is not.

There is a difference between what some feel are on site structural issues with a website which may result in an on-site penalty and competition. In your case competition shouldn't be confused with duplicate content... but that's jmo...

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

"I'd find a better place to get my information from."

That depends on what you define by better. If a press release is issued that I find of interest, then I want to use it on my website. I don't want a badly written bot hurting my ranking.

You misunderstood. I’m not talking about the information from the press release I’m talking about your information.

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

The problem that was pointed out to me was that if a press release distribution company puts a press release on their website, then if Google sees the press release -or even recognises a quote from it- on any other website, Google would penalise the website for having duplicate content.

The person pointing out the problem is your biggest problem. The information is not correct.

[janeth]

There seems to be a lot of people disagreeing on rather there is or is not a duplicate content penalty and I’d like to take a moment and explain why there is not. I’ll back up everything I’m about to post with a little proof.

First there is not a penalty but there is a filter however, there seems to be some misunderstanding on how the filter works. I made a post here today about lawnmowers to prove my point Lawn Mowers - Keep The Beauty Of Your Lawn Maintained please ignore the ugly design and messed up text header. I’ll try and fix that as soon as I finish writing this.

If we check Google Lawn Mowers - Keep The Beauty Of Your Lawn Maintained - Google Search we will notice that I rank # 3 and the original article ranks #1&2.

It’s an exact copy and my site was not penalized banned or anything else. However I wanted to test something else so I took another blog and made another post. This time about silicone wristbands WHAT ARE THE RUBBER SILICONE BRACELETS MADE OUT OF? | Silicone Wristbands and it’s an exact copy of another article that’s on another one of my sites.

This time the site does not rank at all for the key phrase. The second is a stronger site and should have ranked but it doesn’t. The reason is that the second site is an exact copy of the site that the original article is on.

This means that copying a quote, sentence, statement, phrase or the whole darn article want get your site banned, penalized or anything else. It also means that if you duplicate your site and have different text on every page then you’re fine. But if you duplicate your site and have the exact same content on the site then Google will pick one and drop the other.

Unless someone has copied your site and the text on your site they can’t affect your ranking.

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by janeth

There seems to be a lot of people disagreeing on rather there is or is not a duplicate content penalty and I’d like to take a moment and explain why there is not.

It's debatable... This post from touches the on-site duplicate content penalty issue...

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Duplicate content summit at SMX Advanced

"Duplicate content doesn't cause your site to be placed in the supplemental index. Duplication may indirectly influence this however, if links to your pages are split among the various versions, causing lower per-page PageRank."

That was when low page ranked sites fell into the supplemental index. Now the supplementals are gone and from what I have witnessed duplicate content no longer splits page rank (I'm not testing though). In any event... I have never truly witnessed and severe traffic problems. But I don't have a lot of traffic to work with in the first place really...

At one point the problem was very real... I am not to sure if it still exists. But I suspect they are still issues. jmo...

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

It's debatable...

Not really.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

This post from touches the on-site duplicate content penalty issue...

There is no penalty

Originally Posted by MrGamm

"Duplicate content doesn't cause your site to be placed in the supplemental index. Duplication may indirectly influence this however, if links to your pages are split among the various versions, causing lower per-page PageRank."

This is saying that if there is only one copy everyone will link to you however if there are two copies some people will link to you and others will link to the second copy.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

That was when low page ranked sites fell into the supplemental index. Now the supplementals are gone and from what I have witnessed duplicate content no longer splits page rank

Duplicate content never split page rank.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

At one point the problem was very real... I am not to sure if it still exists. But I suspect they are still issues. jmo...

I just showed you how it works, what issues did you see?

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by janeth

Duplicate content never split page rank.

Oh yes it did... it still might... ( I am not testing though... but I was... ) Really bad duplicate content could drop a websites page rank to zero. After fixing it you could get all your page rank consolidated onto one page.

I don't mean duplicate content in the form of a few paragraphs of similar text all through-out the site. I am referring to really bad url structures, multiple aliased domains without absolute urls, that sort of thing. It's really hard to tell when page rank updates once every few months. I am only going off what most people were saying a few years ago and what I perceived when I was watching for it.

I'm not saying it would substantially alter the traffic to your site (it didn't when I was watching for it), just the page rank... unless you consider the crawl rate of the GoogleBot traffic...

I just showed you how it works, what issues did you see?

I saw websites with really bad urls structures lose all their page rank. I have no idea if Vanessa Fox is correct in saying it would effect your supplemental ratio. At the time I was trying to figure out if supplementals were influenced by seasonal trends. I could never differentiate the two... I gave up...

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

Oh yes it did

Where is the proof?

Originally Posted by MrGamm

Really bad duplicate content could drop a websites page rank to zero

I'd say taking it away is not splitting it. When you were a kid and your mom said split that with your brother did that mean you didn’t get any?

Find a couple websites we can do together and we can split the money.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

After fixing it you could get all your page rank consolidated onto one page.

If all your page rank is on one page I'd say you've got some pretty big problems.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I don't mean duplicate content in the form of a few paragraphs of similar text all through-out the site. I am referring to really bad url structures, multiple aliased domains without absolute urls, that sort of thing.

Thats not duplicate content.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

It's really hard to tell when page rank updates once every few months.

You get a penalty and Google want make you wait. They’ll move they think right on to zero for you today.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I am only going off what most people were saying a few years ago

Don't believe anything you read unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction.

This is known as "doing your homework."

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I'm not saying it would substantially alter the traffic to your site (it didn't when I was watching for it), just the page rank... unless you consider the crawl rate of the GoogleBot traffic...

I could careless about the PR as long as the traffic stays the same.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I saw websites with really bad urls structures lose all their page rank.

We are not talking about the website structure even though I have to wonder how it could be so bad that it got pr but then so bad that it lost it.

We are talking about duplicate content.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

Oh yes it did... it still might... ( I am not testing though... but I was... ) Really bad duplicate content could drop a websites page rank to zero. After fixing it you could get all your page rank consolidated onto one page.

Not accurate. If a page is in the index, it has pagerank. The only way it can have "zero" is if is not in the index at all. Ignore the toolbar.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I don't mean duplicate content in the form of a few paragraphs of similar text all through-out the site. I am referring to really bad url structures, multiple aliased domains without absolute urls, that sort of thing. It's really hard to tell when page rank updates once every few months. I am only going off what most people were saying a few years ago and what I perceived when I was watching for it.

Whether a URL is absolute or relative doesn't matter. URL structure doesn't matter when it comes to PR. Pagerank updates continuously. Again, ignore the toolbar.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I saw websites with really bad urls structures lose all their page rank. I have no idea if Vanessa Fox is correct in saying it would effect your supplemental ratio. At the time I was trying to figure out if supplementals were influenced by seasonal trends. I could never differentiate the two... I gave up...

At the very least, you appear to be relying on very, very, old outdated information. Once upon a time, back when the supplemental index was originally created, it was used (in part) for URL's that Google had problems with. That however hasn't been the case since Moses lost his sandals.

The only way to lose "all" pagerank is for the page to be deindexed. If it's in the index, by default, it has pagerank.

Dave

[MrGamm]

Where is the proof?

I just gave you the statements from Google staff. Other than that... the proof lays in your hands... I'm not looking to make anything of it...

The only way to lose "all" pagerank is for the page to be deindexed. If it's in the index, by default, it has pagerank

That's not true either. A page can "grey out" and remain in the index. A page rank drop to zero (white bar) was at one point an indication that duplicate content due to bad url structure was causing the issue.

I cannot ignore the toolbar. It's specifically what page rank is. I'm not talking about a raw calculation. I am referring to the Google ToolBar Pagerank.

Whether a URL is absolute or relative doesn't matter. URL structure doesn't matter when it comes to PR. Pagerank updates continuously. Again, ignore the toolbar.

It can make a difference if you much up your url structure. Allowing the GoogleBot to crawl a single sets of pages under the assumption that they belong to two different urls without providing an absolute path is a way to trigger a duplicate content filter. To prove it to yourself you could launch a single website and sporadically drop an absolute url on one out of every 10 links using one of two domain absolute paths. It will increase the number of pages crawled on your site. What you "intend" for Google to crawl an analyze is different from what it physically does due to your url structure.

At the very least, you appear to be relying on very, very, old outdated information.

That's what I've been saying... That at one the point the issues were real. I couldn't tell you what's current. I stopped paying attention after discovering there are more important things to worry about.

Once upon a time, back when the supplemental index was originally created, it was used (in part) for URL's that Google had problems with.

Exactly...

"Duplicate content doesn't cause your site to be placed in the supplemental index. Duplication may indirectly influence this however, if links to your pages are split among the various versions, causing lower per-page PageRank."

I could careless about the PR as long as the traffic stays the same.

I agree... It is better to do things correctly than to try and do it the wrong way and then the correct way to figure out what the right way is when you could just do it the right way. jmo...

We are not talking about the website structure even though I have to wonder how it could be so bad that it got pr but then so bad that it lost it.

We are talking about duplicate content.

Imo... It's where the current misunderstandings regarding on-site duplicate content penalties lay or where they did lay at one point. Duplicate content at one point would spit your page rank across different pages ( it still could to a certain extent but I doubt it's more than a very minor influence) and some believed it could be called a penalty. The term duplicate content is used interchangeably to refer to both onsite url structural problems and off site content scraping or syndication.

[xuchunfeng1984]

Originally Posted by danlefree

Did you miss the statement from Google: There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty." - or do you simply disbelieve that it is true?

In either case, if Google does not acknowledge the existence of a penalty, you cannot expect to accomplish much by petitioning them to take action to correct it.

i agree with it. google dont accomplish that their duplicate content penalty,
so you cant do anythings for it.

[ctabuk]

Mr Gamm Said

I cannot ignore the toolbar. It's specifically what page rank is. I'm not talking about a raw calculation. I am referring to the Google ToolBar Pagerank.


Then Mr Gamm, you really need to start off by tracking the posts of Webnauts, Incrediblehelp and Crankydave, of course there are dozens of other excellent exponents of the greenline, but it will be in your own long term SEO interest to identify facts over fiction.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

That's not true either. A page can "grey out" and remain in the index. A page rank drop to zero (white bar) was at one point an indication that duplicate content due to bad url structure was causing the issue.

I cannot ignore the toolbar. It's specifically what page rank is. I'm not talking about a raw calculation. I am referring to the Google ToolBar Pagerank.

You are really confused. You need to do some (a lot) of research and reading.

The tool bar is not a metric used by Google. The toolbar counts for nothing. The toolbar tells you almost nothing. The toolbar is not used for indexing or ranking. A page in the index has PR by default.

Dave

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You are really confused. You need to do some (a lot) of research and reading.

The tool bar is not a metric used by Google. The toolbar counts for nothing. The toolbar tells you almost nothing. The toolbar is not used for indexing or ranking. A page in the index has PR by default.

Dave

I realize that TBPR "means nothing"... It is however a reflection of something. At one point it was a really good ballpark indicator as to whether or not your page rank was being split due to duplicate content.

I understand that a page cannot reach the index without a score of sorts.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I just gave you the statements from Google staff. Other than that... the proof lays in your hands... I'm not looking to make anything of it...

Google said that the page rank is split because some people will link to one and others will link to the other one. It's nothing in their algo that does it.

I've tested it and continue to test it really does not matter to me how you think it works.

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by janeth

I've tested it and continue to test it really does not matter to me how you think it works.

I don't think it really matters if it works the way I think it works either. No traffic changes were noticed... just correlations between the TBPR and onsite duplicate content issues.

Personally... I don't really think it matters how any of us think it works. Google is built to reflect what a human wants to see. It's the humans were building websites for. Not search engines. Jmo...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

I realize that TBPR "means nothing"...

No, that is not correct. It is Google's measure of the importance of a page, a reflection of stable semantic inbound links.

It is a projection from a high dimensional system onto the 0-10 green (logarithmic) indicator like temperature is the projection from a high dimensional system onto the thermometer.

Related post here:
An Ethics Question...

[New Method]

Originally Posted by kgun

No, that is not correct. It is Google's measure of the importance of a page, a reflection of stable semantic inbound links.

It is a projection from a high dimensional system onto the 0-10 green (logarithmic) indicator like temperature is the projection from a high dimensional system onto the thermometer.

Nope, Mr Gamm is correct the 'toolbar pagerank' is updated every couple of months and so technically you could be seeing pagerank from two or three months ago. The PageRank for sites on Google changes everyday although the change isn't visible on the toolbar.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by New Method

Nope, Mr Gamm is correct the 'toolbar pagerank' is updated every couple of months and so technically you could be seeing pagerank from two or three months ago. The PageRank for sites on Google changes everyday although the change isn't visible on the toolbar.

You have at least three PageRank metrics.

1. Directory.
2. Toolbar.
3. Internal.

It is like fund rating. Would you like a fund rating to fluctutate from day to day? What decisions can be made based on that?

So you mean that Google is not serious when they state that TbRank is their measure of the importance of a page?

I rely more on Google than on you.

P.S. I know something about ratings:

I have rated funds for the global company Skandia (Fidelity, BNP Paribas etc. funds) with the worlds largest Unit Linked portfolio.

I used Morningstar ratings, Fiancial times ratings, Standard & Poor ratings (my favorite fund rating method - a combination of a qualitative and a quantitative rating) and other methods.

I can tell you. That was a sensitive matter.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. If you have a too open mind, people will soon throw rubbish at you.

Here

http://www.redcarpetrank.com/

is my qualitative ranking.

Give me a better, and it may get a stable IBL that may increase the sites TbRank.

I think some WPW members have alternative ranking sites. Since it is against the TOS to drag their site into the discussion, I leave it as an exercise for you to find it.

[MrGamm]

Originally Posted by kgun

You have at least three PageRank metrics.

1. Directory.
2. Toolbar.
3. Internal.

It's debatable... Some believe that page rank is just a superficial indicator of link popularity while the actual content is pre-compiled and "word rank" is what matters.

Word Rank effectively being what places you within the search results for any given term. I'll admit I'm making the term up. But essentially there is no other way to rank for a search term unless there is a word rank score. Even if it is simply the position your site sits in the search results for a search term. Then things like proximities (regions), and search preferences(personal search histories) would go one step further to alter those results.

The page rank which is shown in the Google Toolbar is pushed to the end user every few months. It is very possible that additional page rank calculations are used by Google practically, "on-the-fly" as many pages which receive good links to their websites from authoritative/popular/trusted sources will gain ranking benefits before the PR update is pushed.

[redpower]

interesting discussions about page rank. google always do they job penalize PR every month. we can see our PR up and down every time they update PR for the site/blog. if you have PR 4 and get down to PR 0, it's so hardworking need to do better to get back PR up and up again. Get good ready for Penalizes from google.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

It's debatable... Some believe that page rank is just a superficial indicator of link popularity while the actual content is pre-compiled and "word rank" is what matters.

PageRank is Googles rude (far from ideal) algorithmic measure of the importance of a page that is a mathematical function of stable (hopefully semantic) inbound links.

A thermometer measures temperature. Another tool measures air pressure.

Go to the home of pagerank and read / ask if there are something you don't understand.

Originally Posted by MrGamm

It's debatable...

Like the construction of the thermometer.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MrGamm

It's debatable... Some believe that page rank is just a superficial indicator of link popularity while the actual content is pre-compiled and "word rank" is what matters.

Word Rank effectively being what places you within the search results for any given term. I'll admit I'm making the term up. But essentially there is no other way to rank for a search term unless there is a word rank score. Even if it is simply the position your site sits in the search results for a search term. Then things like proximities (regions), and search preferences(personal search histories) would go one step further to alter those results.

The page rank which is shown in the Google Toolbar is pushed to the end user every few months. It is very possible that additional page rank calculations are used by Google practically, "on-the-fly" as many pages which receive good links to their websites from authoritative/popular/trusted sources will gain ranking benefits before the PR update is pushed.

And is your word rank on site or off site?

Keep in mind that if enough sites are linking to a site then that site can write content, link to it from the high pr page and rank for those keywords.

You can do the same thing on a low pr site and it want rank.

[MrGamm]

Page Rank, Toolbar Page Rank, Word Rank, Want Rank, it's all so confusing...

What ever happened with my shares in pigeon rank...

Google Technology

Does it really matter in the end? Soon enough FaceBook rank is going to the the only thing that matters...

Google Trends: facebook,google,wiki,britney spears

[kgun]

I think the new concept is shark rank

Did somebody mention PageRank?

Related:

http://www.seocompany.ca/pagerank/pr-10-pages.php

http://www.strongestlinks.com/directories.php

Please don't fill WPW's server with nonsense.

I have more important things to do, like upgrading my own forum.

[New Method]

Originally Posted by kgun

Please don't fill WPW's server with nonsense.

I have more important things to do, like upgrading my own forum.

Sorry, I stupidly thought this was a message forum!

[kgun]

Yes it is (and my answer was too short so I had to expand the message).

[kgun]

Related old thread that may be of interest:

Google PR just a BIG joke says Employee