Value of Page Rank..

[anuj_pandit1]

Hello Friends,
I have some different views with one Optimizer, he is saying that

1- Ranking is depend on Page Rank 80%.
2- He is saying that SubDomain is not supported by Google.

But My Experience is different i have optimize website Without keeping mind Page Rank and many of keywords are in Top using the subdomain.

I am looking to your valuable thoughts and experiance.

I hope you will give me sharp view...

Regards
Alok Kumar Upadhyay

[janeth]

You can get a page ranked number one even if the key word is not on the page just by using links to the page and using the key word in the link.

But you can not get a page ranked at all unless it has a link coming to it from some where.

You can but the key word in the text 2,000 times but will not be able to get ranked number one for the popluar key word unless you have incoming links using that key word.

So I would say yes links carry more weight with Google then text.

[rlrouse]

Relative to other factors (especially link anchor text), PageRank doesn't affect the SERPS all that much. Good incoming links and on-page factors are more important than PageRank when it comes to getting the page ranked well for specific search terms.

If all the other factors are approximately equal however, the page with the higher PR will win out in the SERPS.

[LinkAdage]

Are what define what PRyour site gets. Content is not used in the PR calculation at all.

[janeth]

I did not see the pr part I thought he was talking about links my bad.

[HillsCap]

Here's my experience:

We had had a PageRank (PR) of 4/10 for the longest time, and our search rankings were dismal... we were ranked deep into the hundreds.

I did some research on competing sites and tried to figure out how they did it. I found out that some of the top ranked sites were using various search engine spamming techniques ranging from keyword stuffing to outright cloaking. I reported them to Google, then changed our site title and H1 tags to more directly compete with the sites that were doing well in the search rankings.

The result? One site (who was using very sleazy tactics to get a high ranking) stayed where it was in the rankings, but cleaned up their code (I think that since they are such a large advertiser with Google, that Google didn't remove them from the index as they would have normally done. Instead, I think Google contacted the company and told them to clean up their act.). One site dropped out of sight, one site actually rose up in rankings a bit, and one site dropped a bit.

What happened with our site? Well, due to the change in site title, our PR first went to 0, then for a long while, we had a gray PR bar. But our search rankings began climbing, topping out at #19. We're now at #33, but will rise as I add more content. It took a little over a month for our index.shtml page's PR to come back from the grave, but it's now at PR5, so it's even better than it was, and our internal pages are all ranked PR4 or PR5, whereas before, most of them were ranked PR0.

I think there is an association between Search ranking and PR, but it's got to be a very loose association.

All the web development professionals I converse with on the web tell me to work on the fundamentals of site design, keywords, back links, and content, content, content... and to forget about PR.

[minstrel]

All the web development professionals I converse with on the web tell me to work on the fundamentals of site design, keywords, back links, and content, content, content... and to forget about PR.

I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better summary recommendation than that... anywhere...

[cbp]

Here is a copy of how I recently explained to someone how PR can affect search results (I apolgise for it lack of technospeak):

*********************************************
One way too look at it is, lets assume that Google gives each site a "relevancy score" (it does not do this in reality) - so if someone type's in a search for '<keyword>' - it will give all sites that have
the word <keyword> in them a relevancy score ... this could be based on the use of the word in anchor text of incoming links (this now appear to be the
most important relevancy factor); density of the word on the page (not as important as it used to be); location of keyword (in title; in meta description; in H1, H2, H3 tags; in bold; in italics; at beginning of page; at end of page; in alt tags; etc); prominence of keyword (near beginning of title; near beginning of body text); etc etc. Those that have all these factors (and have more of them) will get a higher hypothetical "relevancy score". Those sites that overdo some of the factors (eg the over stuffing of keywords in alt tags) may get the factor ignored (or penalised).

It could then take all the sites that are relevant to '<keyword>' - but then Google has to decide what order to place them in - it will want the most relevant first (based on this hypothetical "relevancy score") - BUT, it also wants the most important first (based on the PR of the
page, which is based on the number and quality (PR) of the incoming links) - so the hypothetical way of doing this would be to multiple the 'relevancy score' by PR = ranking in results. A low linked site
with low PR can beat out a high linked and high PR site because of its hypothetical "relevancy score". Also a high PR site, that is bearly relevant to a search (but still just relevant) can still rank high and appear on the surface to be irrelevant.
********************************************

CBP

[minstrel]

Here is a copy of how I recently explained to someone how PR can affect search results

Thanks, cbp: somewhere in the middle of your post my head started to hurt but by the time I got to the end it all made sense :-)


(I think I need more coffee)

[cbp]

What worries me about what I said is that this hypothetical "relevancy score" I used to illustrate the link between PR and relevancy, starts turning up in messages here and elsewhere as a fact ... ever noticed that happen before?

We have no idea if Google or other search engines actually does it this way or not - but I find the concept useful in explaining when a low PR site outranks a high PR site

CBP

[minstrel]

What worries me about what I said is that this hypothetical "relevancy score" I used to illustrate the link between PR and relevancy, starts turning up in messages here and elsewhere as a fact ... ever noticed that happen before?

Sadly, yes - my introduction to this was a report I wrote my first year out of graduate school - I found my report, with numerous phrases highlighted, next to another report drawing conclusions about what I had said and using the highlighted phrases as proof. The problem was that the phrases were taken out of context and the conclusion of the second report was the opposite of the conclusion of my own report. I've seen this happen numerous times since in newspaper stories where I had first hand knowledge of the facts and saw them distorted beyond belief in the published articles.


We have no idea if Google or other search engines actually does it this way or not - but I find the concept useful in explaining when a low PR site outranks a high PR site.

We all need to remember this, I think: the bottom line is that what Google does (and how Google does it), only Google knows - their guidelines to webmasters tells us what they are willing to share about that process but let's not be misled into thinking they are foolish enough to tell us how to go about trying to subvert the process by which they determine their rankings.

[HillsCap]

cbp wrote:

We have no idea if Google or other search engines actually does it this way or not - but I find the concept useful in explaining when a low PR site outranks a high PR site

Now, Google actually DOES have something similar to that, they call it 'Authoritativeness'. It's achieved by linking out to other websites that are well ranked within your 'theme' or 'genre'.

In our case, we've got links to every stock and futures exchange in the world. They are the trade clearinghouses for stocks and commodities, so I figured, "Hey, you can't get more authoritative than that!".

Note that I said 'linking OUT', not inbound or reciprocal linking. You'll hear a lot on the web about how linking out without getting a reciprocal link will cause 'PR leak'. I haven't found this to be the case when linking to authoritative sites.

Of course, you'll also want to get reciprocal links, as well. Even better, if you can get reciprocal links from those high-PR-value authoritative sites; but usually, they're so large that they don't do reciprocal linking, or won't give a link to a small website without charging for it.

[cbp]

[quote]Google actually DOES have something similar to that, they call it 'Authoritativeness'. It's achieved by linking out to other websites that are well ranked within your 'theme' or 'genre'.[quote]

I am not sure how much weight Google is placing on this sort of thing at the moment.

Teoma is placing a lot of weight it and I like it (I have started using Teoma for some searchs lately) - they are more relevant than Google's for what I am looking for and I like the refinement/"hub" options. My guess is that Google will start putting more weight on it .... if anyone has the search algorithm or technology to catch up to Google, it could be Teoma (without knowing anything about the rumoured Microsoft SE) and if Google want to stop it, they will start doing it .... thats if they have not already.

CBP