Incredible PR5 Site - Must See!!1!eleven!1!

[mike]

I hate even bringing up anything to do with PR and all that, but sometimes I run into stuff with such a 'what the hell?!' factor that I just can't help myself.

For example:
I was trying to go to Google's video site and mistakenly typed in googlevideo.com instead of video.google.com.

At first I was just a little surprised that somebody other than Google owned the domain. Then I read their disclaimer about being non profit and all that and found that somewhat amusing. But when I looked at the PR and saw a big fat 5, I literally laughed out loud.

Here's a page with no content -there are literally 25 lines in the whole HTML document, they have no inbound links (ok, 6 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-16,GGGL:en&q=link%3Agooglevideo.com)), and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce why this non-commercial, non-profit site exists.

But they have a PR 5.

Anybody want to take a stab at explaining this?

[scanmonkey]

One good link can get you a PR5. Kind of amazed that Google would not have jumped all over googlevideo.com

googlevideo.com has a nice link here (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4114). Wondering if it is a mistake.

[kgun]

Is it different in Norway? Google toolbarrank = 0.

[StephenR.]

Could be the datacenters are just realigning right now kgun. It's a 5. Yep, one good link can give you that inflated PR value.

[southplatte]

Maybe google has a way of placing value on traffic or unique traffic that is not necessarily tied to inbound links? I bet they may have a way to determine the amount of traffic a site gets, and if this site is typed in often and gets really high traffic, maybe that's a factore. Not that I know anything, but who knows about google and their capabilities??

[effisk]

You might want to try this query instead of the google link: query as suggested in the first post:
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?p=http%3A%2F%2Fgooglevideo.com&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=s

This is the explaination.

PS: just so you know, Yahoo Site Explorer gives much better results for that kind of queries than Google. The link:, site:, etc. commands are being restricted by Google for a few reasons that have been widely discussed on the internet before.

[greeneagle]

effisk - please expand and cite - Good call Mike..

Ken

[williamc]

Mike, it only takes one link from a pr6 site to get a pr5. Or several links from pr5 sites even for that matter.

The site also has a few 301 redirects aimed at it from domains with links.

[timmathews.com]

That is very strong. I am curious how long G will let them have the domain before a cease and desist comes?

[williamc]

effisk - please expand and cite - Good call Mike..

I would have thought everyone selling SEO services knew googles link: command only showed around 5-10% of the links they actually know about by now. Guess I was wrong in your case.

[williamc]

That is very strong. I am curious how long G will let them have the domain before a cease and desist comes?

That, right there, is a far better topic. :)

[bj]

Geez, I have well over 800 incoming that Goog acknowledges (over 28k incoming according to that yahoo tool) and a pr of 6. Somehow this doesn't seem quite fair. :)

[commanderdave]

The contents of the page are outside of the body /body tags. Meaning in an old browser, this information wouldn't even been visable. Sloppy or forgiving? It makes me wonder what I could get away with.... hmmmm

[williamc]

Geez, I have well over 800 incoming that Goog acknowledges (over 28k incoming according to that yahoo tool) and a pr of 6. Somehow this doesn't seem quite fair. :)

Get one link from a PR8 page with less than 40 links on the page, you will hit PR7 next update without a problem.

[nottheusual1]

Google is very active in the Domain Name Dispute/UDRP arena. Here's what they've been up to at WIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/search/query.html?col=domain&qt=google&charset=utf-8

Just having the bogus WHOIS info (googlevideo.com's are obviously BS) will constitute a registration in bad faith, and the first two legs (similarity and use rights) are real easy when you are Google.

Disclaimers are worthless - they tend to show that you were already aware of the mark owner's rights.

Also, since they put the "google" bit in the front claiming non-commercial use won't work. WIPO UDRP panels have always frowned on this.

That's why "walmartblows.com" was transfered (and the fact that "blows" doesn't translate well to other languages, so there may be initial interest confusion) and "ihatewalmart.com" or "crappywalmart.com" won the complaint and stay up.

But, then all it takes is ONE LINK that you get ONE PENNY from and the site is now commercial, so it won't matter.

If you aren't aware of the UDRP and the things that are being done to domain name owners, get educated because you are subject to it as the result of registering your domain (you agree to arbitration in the service agreement, you know - that button you always agree to but rarely read).

Good thing is that there now exists an arena to tackle typo- and domain-squatters..... If you have $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 to do it.

Bad thing is that it is the perfect forum to let large businesses run roughshod over most of the rest of the world - they have the money and the lawyers.

Other good thing is that the complainant has to prove all 3 legs - similarity, rights, and registration/use in bad faith. All the respondent has to do is disprove 1 of the 3.

Another good resource for UDRP stuff (although they no longer seem to keep it current) is

http://www.udrpinfo.com

And, speaking from current (like right at this moment) experience, it is not a fun thing to go through responding to a UDRP Complaint. It leaves scars.....

[jtracking]

if there ever were to be a buyout of the name from google there would be a lot of not so complimentary sounding link text towards it.

[shoi]

PR is zero here (in UK)

[internet-engine]

I just went to the site (from the midwest US) and I see a PR of zero. I'm using an updated Google tool bar. Do you think that matters?

[craigmn3]

Anyone can put google in their urls with out fear or impunity from The big G

Perhaps the name of this site was Go Ogle Video


Just a thought

[jawn_tech]

I think it will be a short lived site. Google will be on them before long, if they haven't started already.

Google seems to take their trademark very seriously, and I doubt its 'non-profit' status impresses them.

Despite the fact Google.com was registered AFTER Googles.com.

As for taking a stab at it -- due to the way it was "thrown together", and only seems to have one viable high PR link, I think someone is testing the waters as an experiment. The purpose of the link was just to get Google's attention. In other words, maybe a legal experiment -- or to prove a point.

[Seminole386]

I am guessing they switched the page after is was spidered. I could not find the site on Google or Yahoo so could not check the cached version.

[StephenR.]

The contents of the page are outside of the body /body tags. Meaning in an old browser, this information wouldn't even been visable. Sloppy or forgiving? It makes me wonder what I could get away with.... hmmmmInteresting catch commander...

[DrTandem1]

I suspect that Google has already issued the cease and desist. If you look at the cite in the archives:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050202174333/http://videogoogle.com/

You will see that it is merely a skeleton, now. Probably removed the commercial aspects of the site to improve their position for a domain dispute, that Google will win. The PR5 is likely just a remnant of the site's past. Google can be very slow.

[commanderdave]

Here's a page with no content -there are literally 25 lines in the whole HTML document, they have no inbound links (ok, 6 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-16,GGGL:en&q=link%3Agooglevideo.com)), and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce why this non-commercial, non-profit site exists.

But they have a PR 5.

Anybody want to take a stab at explaining this?

Thank you StephenR. I'm glad you saw that too. When Mike pointed out that he saw no content in his browser I got curious. the search engines are reading the content before the body tag. ha ha. Maybe search engines aren't as specific or as picky as we think.

[Webnauts]

What about this? http://www.technorati.com/search/www.googlevideo.com or http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=www.googlevideo.com&bwm=i&bwmf=u&bwmo=d&searchbwm=Explore+URL

[Andilinks]

There's this:

http://www.sedo.com/search/details.php4?language=us&domain=googlevideo.com

They list the traffic at 37 visitors per month, this thread probably doubled their traffic.

[edwinj]

Google seems to take their trademark very seriously, and I doubt its 'non-profit' status impresses them.

There are over 9,500 domains that have been registered that contain the word "google" :
http://domainsurfer.com/ssearch.cgi?dom=google

[DrTandem1]

You know, there are probably a gazillion of those links that have the same typo of leaving out the period between video and google. This is really not a mystery and there is nothing to be gained as Google has obviously engaged this site with a cease and desist order.

[jawn_tech]

Maybe their switch to what they have now is just eliminating any claims that money is being made from it. Perhaps in order to buy time until they think of what to do with the domain now.

[jawn_tech]

Google seems to take their trademark very seriously, and I doubt its 'non-profit' status impresses them.

There are over 9,500 domains that have been registered that contain the word "google" :
http://domainsurfer.com/ssearch.cgi?dom=google

That should keep their legal team busy if they're still sticklers with them as they were with "Booble"... lol

Maybe they'll calm down eventually since there's too many to catch.

[ExtremeEzine.com]

I agree with those wondering why big G is letting them keep the site. I should have did a Who Is to see if they were before Google. Google has been to court more than once stopping sites from using their name. Very interesting find Mike.
Brian

[mnsandy]

PR5 is not that big deal at all. One link from PR6 and you're there :)

[Andilinks]

And while that green bar can lend credibility it does not necessarily send traffic.

I have PR0 pages on my site that get 20-40 times as much traffic from Google as some PR4 pages on the same site. My PR6 home page gets only 5-6 G referrals a day while the most heavily referred page is a PR4 and gets 7-800 visitors/day, most from Google.

[SearchEngineZ]

Google & Yahoo do their trademark thing in bulk. I got done by Yahoo and there were over 1000 other sites listed in the same action.

It is okay to have the word Google in your domain if your site is about Google (news, criticism etc), but if it has nothing to do with Google, or is trying to fool folk into thinking it is Google, or they try to sell the domain - then Google will get them.

[Trafficop]

Linksurvey returns 95 ibl's for googlevideo.com, including links from video.google.com and video.google.co.uk

[tobto]

I guess that 'mispelling' type of marketing will soon have more dominant positions, as indeed a lot of mistakenly typed letters people type. Try googleadsense, adwordsgoogle.com, mailyahoo.com, - in general subdomains is a great field for experimenting :) Use this fact (http://www.google.com/jobs/britney.html) as a rule.

[justicewhite]

Unless the owner is affiliated to one of the outbound links, it does look like a non profit site. I don't see any special redirects to these sites for tracking referrals.

[philosophian]

PR0 here in San Diego at 3am PST 10/19/06

[texxs]

the site in question kinda makes you wonder . . . "why?" I'm there's no adverts - Si I quess it's not about money, there's no content so it's not about a message, etc. etc.
Maybe one of the site's linked too is the real benefactor? Maybe it's just to sell the domain name?

I have to admit I never considered mispelled url's for PR sake. If someone would have mentioned it to me (as an idea), I probably wouldn't have beleived that that many people would mispell the url in their link.

Of course we could easily undo this site's luck by contacting the sites in question and telling them about thier mispelled url error, they probably would fix it.

[p5gal5]

Sorry, DrTandem, but the domain is googlevideo.com and not videogoogle.com. The waybackmachine has screenshots of this site back to 2004

http://web.archive.org/web/20040326050351/http://googlevideo.com/

...all of which redirect to hardcore porn!

[EArmand]

As a link broker, I have to deal with this issue on a daily basis with my clients.

Some clients will actually only buy a link from us if the link has a PR5 or higher because they think that will get them higher rankings. We try to explain to them that visual PR is not true PR, and that PR is easily manipulated. We also try to explain to them that visual PR does not affect rankings but some just refuse to believe it.

Well, this is a perfect example and I plan on using it to show my clients as to why a PR5 doesn't necessarily mean a strong website, thanks!

[aaron2005]

I still enjoy looking at my high PR and dreaming. :)

[EArmand]

I still enjoy looking at my high PR and dreaming. :)

aaron2005, are you referring to your PR6 http://www.h2g.org/? If so, I think that could be another example of a useless website with a high PR.

Please don't take offense, but I just can't see how that site would be a real PR6. There is no content, no real links, very little inbounds, what am I missing here?

It seems to me that your high PR site could also be used as an example of how PR is easily manipulated.

Hopefully you can prove me wrong and show me what I missed, but I just don't see it as a real or true PR6... maybe I am wrong.

[Andilinks]

As a link broker...

I'm not interested in your trade secrets but I have to ask the question even if it's rhetorical.

How do you research this market and under the circumstances you describe (which my experiences confirm), isn't this an impossibly frustrating occupation?

[Irishjim]

Thanks for actually finding the proof all of us have suspected for years... PR is totally bogus.

[EArmand]

How do you research this market
Very carefully :-)


...and under the circumstances you describe (which my experience confirms), isn't this an impossibly frustrating occupation?
Frustrating would be trying to solve world poverty or wars.

Successfuly promoting online businesses is kinda fun to me... I know, it's kinda nerdy, but what can I say? I do this 10 hours a day and never get tired of it.

[Andilinks]

Successfuly promoting online businesses is kinda fun to me...

Good for you! I would guess then that "link broker" describes a part of your job but is not your entire job title. :)

[EArmand]

You are right! Links are only 1 of many ways to promote an online business. (but they do play a big part of my job).

Best regards,

[aaron2005]

I still enjoy looking at my high PR and dreaming. :)

aaron2005, are you referring to your PR6 http://www.h2g.org/? If so, I think that could be another example of a useless website with a high PR.


Yes indeed, I believe PR value means nothing (other than for quicker crawls) so don't waste your time even thinking about it.

As for the strength of my network just one link (if approved and not spam) will send a new site on it's way simply because I gaurd my neighborhood like a pitbull. If your site is spam and I link to you, you hurt me and we can not have that. ;)

It really is all about who your friends are people, sorry to be so blunt. I am also accepting submissions now in my two directories.

[Andilinks]

It really is all about who your friends are people, sorry to be so blunt.

Yes, the best way to get valuable links is to cultivate real friendships with people who have valuable sites.

It's that "real friendships" part that shakes out the phonies. Real friendships take real work and the passage of time. You're very lucky to have one real friend in this world.

How's that for blunt. :)

[DrTandem1]

PR0 here in San Diego at 3am PST 10/19/06

I'm in San Diego (10:43 PST) and I still see it as a PR5. Also, going the reverse, videogoogle.com, is an empty HTML page owned by Google with a PR0.

Again, the original site in question, googlevideo.com, appears to have already been engaged by Google. As I mentioned previously, using archive.org you can see that this site had more "content" in 2005. Also, the domain was first registered in 2004 and renewed in 2006 for another year. So, it wasn't around before Google, if you actually think that matters.

Looking at it from a legal perspective, if Google has indeed engaged the owners of this site and they want to fight Google, I think the legal posturing that resulted was:

~The site changed its content to be non-commercial

~Google left the PR artificially at PR5, so that it could not be blamed or liable for any loss of "business" or damage, in the remote chance that it would lose the debate

There is no legitimate reason for the site in question to use the term "google" in their domain name. It is clearly an attempt to confuse visitors.

[aaron2005]

It really is all about who your friends are people, sorry to be so blunt.

Yes, the best way to get valuable links is to cultivate real friendships with people who have valuable sites.

It's that "real friendships" part that shakes out the phonies. Real friendships take real work and the passage of time. You're very lucky to have one real friend in this world.

How's that for blunt. :)

Well said, want to be my friend? Let me study your network, i'll show you mine if you show me yours. :)

As for the Googlevideo thing, they are dealing with the same thing we deal with when trying to register a cool sounding domain. Some freakin' splogger already owns it almost every time! Think of all the good domains these people (some of you call heroes) have ruined?

Note: I noticed the emotional heading in my email for this post, nice linkbait Mike. ;)

[kimber23]

i also see a pr 0 on this page.

[DrTandem1]

i also see a pr 0 on this page.

What else do you see on the page itself?

[kimber23]

i also see a pr 0 on this page.

What else do you see on the page itself?
------------------------------------------------
Check out these great video sites!

* real.com
* blockbuster.com
* divx.com
* vh1.com
* hollywoodvideo.com
* videohelp.com
* videomaker.com
* videolibrarian.com

NOTICE: googlevideo.com is non-commercial, nonprofit, nor is it associated with, endorsed by, in any way the property of, or responsibility of "Google™"

[aaron2005]

i also see a pr 0 on this page.

What else do you see on the page itself?

I see that in 2004 it was the hardcore movie forum: http://web.archive.org/web/20040922213925/hardcoremovieforum.net/

How do you do a nofollow in BBCode?

toolbarqueries.google.com shows 0 but all other datacenters PR5...

[meinking22]

Site shows as a PR5 for me...

I think Andilinks and Earman have already hit the nail on the head. PR is a hype value, and while usually good as a general indicator of a site's relevancy, should not be the be all and end all of any SEO efforts. After all, it's all about generating traffic and keyword ranking for free traffic. Anyone that chases PR, for the sake of PR, is bound to end up with a mediocre business.

Steve

Orange County Condos and Homes (http://www.ochomeandcondo.com)

[Andilinks]

Let me study your network...

Try my username dot com. But the single most important thing about that site's traffic is having been in the Google index since March, 2002. I have other sites with similar content and links which still await exit from the non-existent sandbox.

[EArmand]

I have other sites with similar content and links which still await exit from the non-existent sandbox.

That's Fun-E! I guess that non existent sand box is kinda like the Area 51 of the online world...

...The U.S. government does not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the Groom Lake facility, nor does it deny it...

BTW - Great job on your site, that is a TRUE PR6.

[dann]

I still enjoy looking at my high PR and dreaming. :)

aaron2005, are you referring to your PR6 http://www.h2g.org/? If so, I think that could be another example of a useless website with a high PR.


Yes indeed, I believe PR value means nothing (other than for quicker crawls) so don't waste your time even thinking about it.

As for the strength of my network just one link (if approved and not spam) will send a new site on it's way simply because I gaurd my neighborhood like a pitbull. If your site is spam and I link to you, you hurt me and we can not have that. ;)

It really is all about who your friends are people, sorry to be so blunt. I am also accepting submissions now in my two directories.

Your directories do not seem to be passing PR. That's ok but $99 hmm. You also state:
"The Environmental Directory is now sorting through current submissions and has removed 99% of them because they are clearly spam. The websites that were accepted and included in the directory are under a probationary period and will be monitored closely. We do this to ensure quality."
Was this after you became an expensive backlink after being a recip directory.
I noticed you do not have many outbound links either and your subcats have zero PR.
Now why would anyone pay to be in your directory unless the owner has a Plasma Cutting business (maybe you?).
Cut your price by $98.50 I submit all of my websites.
Cool?
[/img]

[DrTandem1]

That's Fun-E! I guess that non existent sand box is kinda like the Area 51 of the online world...

...The U.S. government does not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the Groom Lake facility, nor does it deny it...

Side note: The government acknowledges the existence of the base. They just deny calling it Area 51. Google denies almost everything, and that which it does not deny, such as its guidelines, it does not follow.

[Andilinks]

...92 percent jump in quarterly profit

Eat your heart out DrTandem1, they're doing something right.

[DrTandem1]

...92 percent jump in quarterly profit

Eat your heart out DrTandem1, they're doing something right.

I could double my quarterly profits too, if I over charged clients paying for advertising (AdWords) and then shorted the clients providing the space (AdSense). If the ads don't produce a good ROI, which they won't, look for another Google crash. I predicted the first two. Let's see how I do with the third.

I think if you look through the Google threads of the past couple of months, you will find many complaints of higher AdWords costs and lower AdSense revenue on average.

However, going back to the original topic, the domain, as someone corrected me, goes back to 2004, which doesn't change my point. The original content is gone, the domain was created long after Google existed and yet it still has a PR5 for most of us viewing it through the current data centers.

[Andilinks]

...look for another Google crash. I predicted the first two. Let's see how I do with the third.

Yes, the buying frenzy will form a bubble from time to time and insiders will take some money off the table. Calling those corrections "crashes" exposes your total lack of understanding of this market.

I would be wary of the IE7 effect but if AdWords earnings don't drop significantly on Nov. 1 I won't sell below 500, that may be a resistance point.

Yes, there will be corrections, don't embarrass yourself by calling them crashes.

[DrTandem1]

Calling those corrections "crashes" exposes your total lack of understanding of this market.


I wouldn't call a loss in the billions as a "correction."

[Andilinks]

I wouldn't call a loss in the billions as a "correction."

Did you lose billions? So sorry to hear that Tandem, you need more discipline.

[Andilinks]

BTW - Great job on your site, that is a TRUE PR6.

Thank you sir. :)

[Clint1]

Sorry I don't have time to read all these pages, I read the first page and I see Webnauts posted something along these lines.

http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googlevideo.com%2F&bwm=i&bwmf=u&searchbwm=Explore+URL

The site shows only 31 IBL's there, and 11 at the non-www. But look who's linking to it....WHY??? Why would ANY site want to link to that POS? Maybe they changed the site recently. ?

As far as why they have a high PR, I guess someone could check all of their IBL's at Y at that URL and run them through here http://www.seochat.com/seo-tools/future-pagerank/ (BTW, it shows a 5 at all DC's there). From the looks of it, what they have linking to that site looks like some crap, but we all know how bogus PR is.

Anytime sites get "ranked" opens up scams and ranking fraud, makes the big monopolies get even bigger, and the small mom & pop places--the very backbone of America, getting even smaller and pushed out of business. The biggest mistake G ever made was this PR crap. It has resulted in nothing but the aforementioned. Millions of link farms that clog up the net in efforts to boost one's PR; serious damage to small business that should, and WILL result
in a massive class-action lawsuit (they're already several in the making because of this), and misleading surfers into believing something about a site that is NOT TRUE.

I've seen TOTALLY BLANK PAGES except for TWO LINKS, with NO LINKS POINTING TO THEM, with a PR of 9!! People erroneously think that the higher the PR the better the site. This is another reason how G and this PR crap is ruining enterprise/commerce on the internet, not to mention the economy; creating more monopolies and ruining small business, which as I said is the real economical backbone of America.

Joe surfer goes to site A and sees "PR 3" (or a low Alexa rank) and thinks "this site blows" and leaves. Then goes to the same genre site B (with higher prices) and sees "PR 9" or higher Alexa rank and thinks it's awesome, then buys from site B. This is repeated millions of times daily where site A (99% of us) gets screwed. Whomever created this "PR" (and Alexa rank) BS should be skinned. It's done nothing but ruin small business, create scams, link buying and selling, link farms, etc. etc. not to mention ruined lives, ruined businesses, stress out frustrated people, and probably suicides.

Nothing good has come out of it for the overwhelming majority of site owners. But since when G ever done GOOD?? They violate this so-called "code" of theirs to "do no evil" on a regular basis.

[littlegiant]

Hey effisk, thanks for that Yahoo Site Explorer link. I never knew about that. Very useful. Kinda blows Google's link: tool right out of the water, don't it?

...

Er.... Uhhhh... I mean...

...

All hail Google, the Supreme Ruler of the Internet!

(*ahem*)... That's what I really meant to say..

:o)

[Clint1]

Hey effisk, thanks for that Yahoo Site Explorer link. I never knew about that. Very useful. Kinda blows Google's link: tool right out of the water, don't it?

...

Er.... Uhhhh... I mean...

All hail Google, the Supreme Ruler of the Internet!

(*ahem*)... That's what I really meant to say..

:o)
"Effisk"? BTW, Y is now using that idiotic "Site Explorer BETA" which sucks. It is so screwed up is shows one of my sites as a SUB-domain! It's also showing about 200 pages LESS than their regular site: command, and a few hundred LESS IBL's! So, they too are headed in the wrong direction just like G. I keep telling them daily about this, even posted it twice in their SEB forum, not a single reply. They don't care.

[littlegiant]

Screwed up or not, that tool showed me back links to my site that I never even knew existed.

[Clint1]

Screwed up or not, that tool showed me back links to my site that I never even knew existed.
Oh yeah, it's shows LOADS more than G does. But it's still missing a lot of them their regular search was finding.

[texxs]

People erroneously think that the higher the PR the better the site. But google does, therefore we do . . .

DEATH TO GOOGLE!

[DrTandem1]

Isn't it about that time of year when Google decides to do some sort of algo change or update that wipes everyone out of their SERPs? Then again, the Global Warming crowd was telling us how Katrina was only the beginning. Not one hurricane has hit the US this year from the warmer than ever oceans. Maybe sites will be spared from Google's wrath this year. Did someone sacrifice a virgin for them?

[Clint1]

Isn't it about that time of year when Google decides to do some sort of algo change or update that wipes everyone out of their SERPs? Then again, the Global Warming crowd was telling us how Katrina was only the beginning. Not one hurricane has hit the US this year from the warmer than ever oceans. Maybe sites will be spared from Google's wrath this year. Did someone sacrifice a virgin for them?

Hee hee. When is G NOT doing some kind of asinine "update"?? There aren't enough virgins in the universe to sacrifice to those people. (Believe me, I've tried). LOL.

[incrediblehelp]

Mike how do you know they only have 6 IBL's? Their might be more than 6 when checking on other search engines. Remember the operators from Google are not accurate or a true indicator of how many back links a website has. Now with that even being said it only takes one link from a high PR website (probably a PR6) to give a page a PR5, mnsandy mentioned this before. Another reason toolbar PR is worth poo-poo paper.

Just the keywords in this domain name alone can give this smallish website a big PR boost. I am sure many mistakenly link to this website on their own blogs and websites thinking they are linking to the truss Google Video website. Tandem mentioned this earlier.

Overall this is a good website to use a n example to those that think Google toolbar PR means something. BY the way this page has a PR5 for me.

[southplatte]

So, can it then be said that PR is junk in the game anymore?

I remember 2 years ago PR was what you wanted, you bragged about it, you strove to attain high PR, becuase supposedly it meant something back then?

That is the way Google operates folks. They watch the blogosphere, the forums etc...don't think that they don't. They knew exactly what was going on with the Big Daddy update and all the headaches and dropped results they were causing, and they know that PR was a game from the get go, and that by reading all the forums they had millions of web sites trying to attain PR, and now, from reading this thread it has become apparent that PR is a bunch of pucky junk, just like stuffing keywords in hidden text is now adays.

[williamc]

So, can it then be said that PR is junk in the game anymore?

PR still has a good amount of influence in the rankings. I think too many people are thinking of "toolbar" PR instead of actual internal PR values which are calculated in an ongoing basis. These are the values that google uses in its ranking algo. Toolbar PR is merely a numbered association for PR.

[Andilinks]

I think too many people are thinking of "toolbar" PR instead of actual internal PR values which are calculated in an ongoing basis.

The actual traffic that is sent to a site because of it's SERPS is "search engine result positioning" and PR is for better or worse just that green thingy.

Saying "internal PR" vs "toolbar PR" is a muddying of meaning here that I can do without and I refuse to recognize this.

[williamc]

The actual traffic that is sent to a site because of it's SERPS is "search engine result positioning"

Actually the traffic that is sent to a site because of it's SERPs is still just traffic. Not the spelled out meaning of SERPs.



and PR is for better or worse just that green thingy.

Saying "internal PR" vs "toolbar PR" is a muddying of meaning here that I can do without and I refuse to recognize this.

Regardless of what you wish to recognize, internal PR is a ranking factor as stated by Matt Cutts himself a number of times. Ignoring true PR completely is asking to be beaten down in the SERPs that you speak of above.

True SEO is knowing as many of the factors as possible and working with them to produce the desired effect, which is a sites positioning in the results pages.

Hobbyists need not reply.

[EArmand]

I hope this helps:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-pagerank/

[williamc]

I hope this helps:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-pagerank/

Thanks Earmand, I was just about to paste that in my above reply as well :)

[Andilinks]

OK, so it is Matt Cutts himself that has debased the meaning and value of the word "PageRank" declaring the visible indicator more or less worthless. That should answer all the questions posed by this thread.

A hobbyist then is someone who doesn't try to separate hapless site owners from their money by claiming to know things that only Google knows.

If "internal page rank" is not directly tied to SERPS it's just more bs. I've never trusted anyone calling themselves an "SEO" anyway, there are more horror stories than successes. I realize that I won't garner much sympathy for that view here and don't expect much.


I’m not sure if I’ve given the official word on a PageRank export before. It’s not a big event here at Google. Frankly, I didn’t even know we’d done our 3-4 month-ish push of this data.

edit: added Cutts' quote

[EArmand]

It's kinda of like visual PR is easily manipulated and internal PR does not affect your rankings... so why are so many people hung up on the PR issue?

Maybe it's because we love top 10 lists, keeping score and grades... I really don't know.

[williamc]

A hobbyist then is someone who doesn't try to separate hapless site owners from their money by claiming to know things that only Google knows.

No, a hobbyist is someone who just learns the bare basics to improve their own website a bit in the SERPs. Hobbyists do not do SEO on a regular basis and much like a backyard mechanic, can not do as good a job OR see results as quickly as someone who does it all day, everyday on a large number of sites.


If "internal page rank" is not directly tied to SERPS it's just more bs.

Umm, andi, I have found several of your posts intuitive, if not informative in the past, but which part of "internal PR is what counts in rankings" did you miss? It is "toolbar" PR that is just a pretty green bar.



I’m not sure if I’ve given the official word on a PageRank export before. It’s not a big event here at Google. Frankly, I didn’t even know we’d done our 3-4 month-ish push of this data.

Yes, and as Matt pointed out a "PR export" which is the public toolbar PR which is a pretty green bar, not internal which is continuosly upated and counts in rankings.

[incrediblehelp]

If "internal page rank" is not directly tied to SERPS it's just more bs. I've never trusted anyone calling themselves an "SEO" anyway, there are more horror stories than successes. I realize that I won't garner much sympathy for that view here and don't expect much.


I’m not sure if I’ve given the official word on a PageRank export before. It’s not a big event here at Google. Frankly, I didn’t even know we’d done our 3-4 month-ish push of this data.



Actually internal PR does effect your SERPs. Toolbar PR is a 3-4 monthly snapshot of internal PR, so your toolbar is usually way behind the times. That is why toolbar is junk and internal PR is worth something.

You can even Cutt's himself doesnt care or know much about the toolbar PR, that so many here preach as being worth something.

[williamc]

It's kinda of like visual PR is easily manipulated

Agreed.


internal PR does not affect your rankings...

There you have it wrong. Matt has openly stated that internal PR is one of the factors in scoring a website in the SERPs.


Maybe it's because we love top 10 lists, keeping score and grades...

That I would agree with also :)

[EArmand]

There you have it wrong. Matt has openly stated that internal PR is one of the factors in scoring a website in the SERPs.

cool - that's good to know, except it doesn't help me much since we don't know or see what the internal PR value of a site really is... why even have a visual PR then?

[williamc]

cool - that's good to know, except it doesn't help me much since we don't know or see what the internal PR value of a site really is

You can gauge it, it just takes more work than looking at the pretty green bar. Put it this way, if a site has been ranking top 3 for a good length of time and has tons of solid inbounds, then you can be pretty sure a link from that site is going to weigh in a bit heavier than many other links. Granted we can not get an actual perfect score of a sites internal PR, but we can guage it well enough from a plus/minus standpoint.



why even have a visual PR then?

To keep some of you focused on something that gets you nowhere?

[EArmand]

I was aware of how useless visual PR is, but wasn't sure if Internal PR is used for rankings or not. I've heard both, that it is and that it is not.

[Andilinks]

since we don't know or see what the internal PR value of a site really is...

Google and the SEO have a natural conflict of interest, Google works on behalf of the searcher and the SEO works for the searched. Without this "internal PR" secrecy the SEO would just steal traffic.

Obviously Google is better at this game since they are now trading at a 52 week high wiping out all those "crashes." Buy and hold Tandem, if not for your panic you wouldn't have lost all those billions.

[littlegiant]

Toolbar PR can't be totally useless. At least it shows Google at a PR10.. :o)

[EArmand]

yeah... isn't that the only site with a PR10? Yahoo and MSN get a 9 but only Google gets a 10? Is there any other site that has a 10? I've always wondered that... Another great example of how visual PR is worthless!

[deepsand]

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

[littlegiant]

...Is there any other site that has a 10? I've always wondered that...

Actually statcounter.com (http://www.statcounter.com/) and the W3C HTML validator site (http://validator.w3.org/) both also register a PR10. I'm sure there's a few others.

[Andilinks]

edit: littlegiant beat me to w3.org. Yes, there are others http://www.firstgov.gov/

[DrTandem1]

Obviously Google is better at this game since they are now trading at a 52 week high wiping out all those "crashes." Buy and hold Tandem, if not for your panic you wouldn't have lost all those billions.

Not really, they lost $20 Billion in a one week period. Taking almost a year to gain it back to where it was or a few dollars higher. So, if you had bought at the time of the last high, you've made five bucks a share over a year's period. Congratulations! During that same time, other stocks continued to gain value. The average Google stock trader is trying to make a quick buck. They are not in it for the long haul.

Google was a recommended "sell" for a long time. By the way, Google does not pay out a dividend. That means to make any real money, you will need to sell it at some point. Tell me, who would buy even one share of Goog at this price? Maybe you'll make thirty bucks on it in a year. Maybe you'll lose it all in a day.

[lunartcorp]

The main reason this site is being ranked with PR5 is because there is an article with PR5 that is referencing it with the anchor Google Video. This article seems to me a serious article so I do not find any reason why to link to this page when it is almost empty. Probably this site had something to do with Videos in the past and used the word Google to get indexed. Now, it might be in dispute with Google and cannot be used for this purpose anymore.

[DrTandem1]

The main reason this site is being ranked with PR5 is because there is an article with PR5 that is referencing it with the anchor Google Video. This article seems to me a serious article so I do not find any reason why to link to this page when it is almost empty. Probably this site had something to do with Videos in the past and used the word Google to get indexed. Now, it might be in dispute with Google and cannot be used for this purpose anymore.

Yes. However, I think the point has evolved from the question of "why" to a discussion of how toolbar PR values have little basis for use in real-time.

[Andilinks]

The average Google stock trader is trying to make a quick buck. They are not in it for the long haul.

I don't know how you'd define "average" here, I think most stockholders are still Google insiders. Yes, it is possible to make a quick buck trading and it is also easy to lose, traders know this. But as a buy and hold investment it is currently good even for those who bought at the earlier January '06 peak and held.

Stock traders know their game is risky and know they can win or lose, that is just market timing. "Buy and hold investing" works here, and as John Meynard Keynes put it so well, "in the long run we're all dead." Give your GOOG shares to your children and pay for their education.

[Andilinks]

...toolbar PR values have little basis for use in real-time.

If they did have real-time relevance SEO's would reverse engineer the algorithm and render it useless and Google worthless.

[EArmand]

I can see the .gov and the w3 sites being a pr10, but don't agree that statcounter.com would have a pr10 while yahoo.com and MSN get a 9... again, visual pr is worthless information.. does that mean that Google thinks statcounter.com is more important than yahoo or msn.com? Or does it show how visual pr can be manipulated by many IBLs?

[DrTandem1]

Andi,

While I don't disagree with your previous post, I think you have to understand that the average stock investor is far different than the average trader buying and selling Goog. Most average Americans can not afford to buy a share of goog, as if one share now will do any good. They would be better to invest their $500 bucks on a small group of stocks.

Yes, I'm sure most, if not all, of Google's employees are compensated with company stock. Many times these are in the form of options that are not immediately available. So, one day they could be a millionaire on paper, but a pauper at retirement.

Google is/was good at one thing, search. They have not proven to be good at much else, except hyping their stock. Other stock giants have "made their money the old fashioned way, they earned it." If one were to liquidate Google's assets, one would be hard-pressed to get more than a fraction of a fraction of their stock value.

Let's see, they mislead advertisers, they divulged proprietary company information onto the internet while trying to promote people storing their own data with them, their PR toolbar is a sham, they profess to do no evil (except in communist countries)...yeah, that's where I want to invest for the long haul...not.

[DrTandem1]

...toolbar PR values have little basis for use in real-time.

If they did have real-time relevance SEO's would reverse engineer the algorithm and render it useless and Google worthless.

Agreed. Then what is their purpose other than to deceive or show what was?

[Andilinks]

Then what is their purpose other than to deceive or show what was?

They do show historical credibility for the ordinary searcher, I will take note of a site's PR and Alexa rank when trying to gauge credibility even though I am acutely aware of how flawed these both are.

Only time will tell if Google will be a good investment long-term, that's the nature of the stock market. But I personally am long on GOOG, which you no doubt can see. Goog's genius is promotion, it follows then that its stock would trade at 60 times earnings while the competition struggles for 30. If GOOG keeps climbing and SD real estate stays flat I'll be moving to your neighborhood, I love markets. :)

[Clint1]

It's kinda of like visual PR is easily manipulated and internal PR does not affect your rankings... so why are so many people hung up on the PR issue?
Because joe surfer is hung up on it. I touched on that earlier: (in bold now).


Anytime sites get "ranked" opens up scams and ranking fraud, makes the big monopolies get even bigger, and the small mom & pop places--the very backbone of America, getting even smaller and pushed out of business. The biggest mistake G ever made was this PR crap. It has resulted in nothing but the aforementioned. Millions of link farms that clog up the net in efforts to boost one's PR; serious damage to small business that should, and WILL result in a massive class-action lawsuit (they're already several in the making because of this), and misleading surfers into believing something about a site that is NOT TRUE.

I've seen TOTALLY BLANK PAGES except for TWO LINKS, with NO LINKS POINTING TO THEM, with a PR of 9!! People erroneously think that the higher the PR the better the site. This is another reason how G and this PR crap is ruining enterprise/commerce on the internet, not to mention the economy; creating more monopolies and ruining small business, which as I said is the real economical backbone of America.

Joe surfer goes to site A and sees "PR 3" (or a low Alexa rank) and thinks "this site blows" and leaves. Then goes to the same genre site B (with higher prices) and sees "PR 9" or higher Alexa rank and thinks it's awesome, then buys from site B. This is repeated millions of times daily where site A (99% of us) gets screwed. Whomever created this "PR" (and Alexa rank) BS should be skinned. It's done nothing but ruin small business, create scams, link buying and selling, link farms, etc. etc. not to mention ruined lives, ruined businesses, stress out frustrated people, and probably suicides.

Nothing good has come out of it for the overwhelming majority of site owners. But since when G ever done GOOD?? They violate this so-called "code" of theirs to "do no evil" on a regular basis.

[williamc]

Joe surfer?

Joe surfer doesnt even know what alexa is or the google toolbar for that matter for the most part.

Maybe that is how YOU would act as a webmaster who is aware of those 2 items, but the average surfer doesn't have a clue they exist.

Joe surfer cares about two things, thats finding what it is they wanted, and feeling secure about buying from that site. If the site is professional all the way, has the proper policies in place, proper security, etc. then they will buy. PR and Alexa does not have a damn thing to do with that process.

[littlegiant]

Yeah I was just about to say the same thing. None of my friends and family have the faintest idea what Google PageRank is.

[Clint1]

Joe surfer?

Joe surfer doesnt even know what alexa is or the google toolbar for that matter for the most part.

Maybe that is how YOU would act as a webmaster who is aware of those 2 items, but the average surfer doesn't have a clue they exist.

Joe surfer cares about two things, thats finding what it is they wanted, and feeling secure about buying from that site. If the site is professional all the way, has the proper policies in place, proper security, etc. then they will buy. PR and Alexa does not have a damn thing to do with that process.
Huh?? You are TOTALLY uninformed if you believe that! If you don't think anyone uses the G toolbar (or Alexa toolbar for that matter), you need to look at some statistics! The G toolbar is used by more people than any other! It IS the "joe surfer" types that ARE using these types of toolbars because they are the "typical surfer" that doesn't know anything!

[williamc]

Huh?? You are TOTALLY uninformed if you believe that! If you don't think anyone uses the G toolbar (or Alexa toolbar for that matter), you need to look at some statistics!

Actually I think YOU need to look at the stats. A whole lotta webmasters use them to make decisions. Joe surfer doesn't much care.

[Andilinks]

Whomever created this "PR" (and Alexa rank) BS should be skinned. It's done nothing but ruin small business, create scams, link buying and selling, link farms, etc. etc. not to mention ruined lives, ruined businesses, stress out frustrated people, and probably suicides.

I tend to agree with williamc on this. Some of the worst consequenses of Google errors occured after the Florida, Bourbon and other Google updates as documented well in Chapter 7 of John Battelle's book The Search (for those who weren't bloodied by them or live through them as I did).

These had nothing really to do with the visible PR indicator or Alexa rankings but were accidental casualties of the Google updates. While I'm sure these things still happen from time to time they are currently much less frequent and mechanisms for remedying them are much easier to employ. There will always be business failures and many may rightly or wrongly be blamed on Google, but calling these a consequense of Google's intentional evil is a giant stretch.

[Clint1]

Whomever created this "PR" (and Alexa rank) BS should be skinned. It's done nothing but ruin small business, create scams, link buying and selling, link farms, etc. etc. not to mention ruined lives, ruined businesses, stress out frustrated people, and probably suicides.

I tend to agree with williamc on this. Some of the worst consequenses of Google errors occured after the Florida, Bourbon and other Google updates as documented well in Chapter 7 of John Battelle's book The Search (for those who weren't bloodied by them or live through them as I did).

These had nothing really to do with the visible PR indicator or Alexa rankings but were accidental casualties of the Google updates. While I'm sure these things still happen from time to time they are currently much less frequent and mechanisms for remedying them are much easier to employ. There will always be business failures and many may rightly or wrongly be blamed on Google, but calling these a consequense of Google's intentional evil is a giant stretch.

So....you're saying that PR has NOT created: link scams, link buying and selling, and link farms? You're saying that is has NOT ruined lives, ruined businesses, created stress-out frustrated people, and probably suicides due to these ruined businesses? (Other than suicides which I'm guessing), I see these things every day, have witnessed them first hand and they ARE a reality.

[EArmand]

If people are killing themselves over Google, they have issues already. You don't quit and give up, you keep trying until you figure out what it takes to get to the top of Google, again and again no matter what they change... Quitters never Win and Winners never Quit.

[Andilinks]

I see these things every day, have witnessed them first hand and they ARE a reality.

I think you exaggerate the magnitude of the problem, and yes these things may occur but to blame the visible PR indicator for this is absurd.

The actual and entire effect of Google on ecommerce and the economy in general is huge, but scams, business failures and suicides are a constant and their association with Google search is incidental.

The agora in ancient Athens was also responsible for scams, business failures and suicides--they were old news even then.

[langard]

Even Google's promotion capability, standing alone, is completely weak. It's like a clothes-make-the-person or book-by-it's-cover mentality.

On the Web, it's all about content. Inside the book cover and beneath the clothing. The DotCom crash weeded out the worst interlopers but I see a new wave of stupidity on the horizon.

[Andilinks]

Even Google's promotion capability, standing alone, is completely weak.

If promotion stood alone this would make Google a vapid interloper, but it stands with search, email, maps, and dozens of other products that people use. A few of them bring in a lot of money, and that is key.

If this looks like a wave of stupidity to you, look harder--utility is content.

[EArmand]

I understand that a lot of webmasters hate Google because they've lost their rankings. Google isn't out to get you, but you do have to adapt to their constant changes if you want to be succesful online.

In today's world, if you're going to make $ online, you better figure out how to get to the top of the SERPS in Google, whether you like them or not, they can not be ignored. <-- Period. :-)

[langard]

Andilinks,

The Web's Be-Here-Now, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately frenzy doesn't mix very well with utilitarianism. Promoting stock today doesn't mean Jack tommorrow either.

Nobody questions Goggle's current superiority in the search/tool Web market. I use them all myself. But I certainly don't mold my sites around what the flavor of the day is. I've seen it change radically and frequently too often.

There's a middle ground -- some modicum of sensibility -- that Web developers must understand in order to give their clients some product that doesn't have to be seriously altered everytime some propeller-head comes up with a new scheme and gets it adopted by the W3C.

[Andilinks]

The Web's Be-Here-Now, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately frenzy doesn't mix very well with utilitarianism.

When I said "utility" I did not mean the Bentham/Mill philosophy of utilitarianism. Though in my opinion Google and the web do bring the greatest good to the greatest number and these do mix well. A pragmatic utilitarianism is a guiding light in my life.

No, the "utility" I used in this context is the generic English word defined as "The quality or condition of being useful; usefulness..." This word predates the philosophy and was used by Bentham in the naming of his teleological theory of ethics.

Other than that I have no quarrel with you because I don't understand what you're getting at here... Change is a constant in our society, you'll just have to deal with it. Though I recognize your complaint.

[langard]

Hmmm. Yes, I understand.

Seems to me like Google blew the tires out from under their "Power to the People" image when they went IPO and began to monkey around trying to make their algorythms more holistic ... or something.

What, with dark little sandboxes and wild supplimentals and crazy datacenter updates it set every SEO on the planet back ten months.

Sure the tools are tops. But everything that's designed around the greatest good for the greatest number ultimately ends in utter mediocrity somehow.

So you end up with, say, a thousand real estate sites sporting weird GoogleMaps with a hundred mouseover marker points plastered on some metropolitan grid...

But so far as bedrock, so-called "organic" SERPs are concerned, all of Google's tools -- including the highly overrated PageRank -- don't do anybody any good so far as separating the wheat from the chaff.

I run Google's AdSense for content, AdSense for search, Urchin, SiteMaps and GoogleMaps all on one site and none of them have an ounce of impact upon the actual SERP. But it looks cool.

So while everybody is eager to crown Google as the next-best thing to Maple-Nut ice cream, I'm more inclined to view them as a bunch of hard-core capitalists who are probably creating these great tools to shore-up their defenses against an oncoming horde of competitors. Not that they don't love us all.

[Andilinks]

I'm more inclined to view them as a bunch of hard-core capitalists who are probably creating these great tools to shore-up their defenses against an oncoming horde of competitors.

My kinda guys. :)

Those socialist search engines are just incompetent, like France.

[EArmand]

Those socialist search engines are just incompetent, like France.


LOL tht's funnee

[langard]

That makes me chuckle too. I guess a french-based Google would be kind of intuitive and fashionable ... and a little like pastry, but tart and slow as an escargot.

[Andilinks]

<Homer Simpson voice>
mmmmmm.... French food.
</Homer Simpson voice>

[DrTandem1]

Even Google's promotion capability, standing alone, is completely weak. It's like a clothes-make-the-person or book-by-it's-cover mentality.

On the Web, it's all about content. Inside the book cover and beneath the clothing. The DotCom crash weeded out the worst interlopers but I see a new wave of stupidity on the horizon.

So true!

[southplatte]

I understand that a lot of webmasters hate Google because they've lost their rankings. Google isn't out to get you, but you do have to adapt to their constant changes if you want to be successful online.

In today's world, if you're going to make $ online, you better figure out how to get to the top of the SERPS in Google, whether you like them or not, they can not be ignored. <-- Period. :-)

Yeah, but that is the game of all games in the web world. How to be number one in Google. It used to be some other search engine, but Google became better. I am not so much sure about how much better Google really is anymore - I tend to use several search engines and in the past 3-4 months I have been getting more relevant and higher quality results with ones other than Google.

There comes a time when the web master and developer world and SEO world will realize that they are spinning their wheels against the true giant and realize that with each update that Google puts out, comes more ways for them to profit, which sends SEOs and web masters into frenzies and creates a panic that is widespread.

Think of it in terms of a hypothetical car - what if Ford decided that it was going to make a new engine and it slammed it out in a great new care and millions of people took hold of it - but they had to learn how to operate it just right to get to 75mph, or to number 1. You know, certain combinations that match the algorithm of Ford, that only Ford knows would get you to be able to drive the speed limit.

Then 6 months later, Ford issued a computer update, that the users had no control over at all, and the chip that controls the EFI and emissions suddenly is programmed different. You know have to re-figure out how to get your car to go top speed (if you ever got it figured out in the first place) in order to keep your position on the freeway. Imagine those who didn't figure it out, the crashes there would be from going 75mph to 0mph instantly.

Now imagine that this is your car, you use everyday to provide food for your family, your children, and your employees' families and children. Imagine that each time it updates, you have personally know those who have lost out completely.

Let me ask this question in the end:

Are you comfortable buying that technology?

Because whether or not you pay Google directly for anything, you are "buying" their technology by spending time trying to learn it, use it and profit from it and they "play" with it for supposed "improvements" too often. And each time they do, there is such a whiplash in the web master, design and SEO community - and it seems there are more losers than winners most times - and yet Google is still held in such reverence, and for what?

Are they still the most relevant, accurate and timely search engine? Are people learning the Google game is controlling their lives, whether they are a consumer or a developer or SEO Google has too much and will soon, in my non-intelligent predictions, have a stigma that equals Microsoft - millions will use it, millions will hate it and there will be a staunch group that absolutely refuses to use it.

In the end, we will have mediocre search, with an empire that takes money left and right, and poor service that costs even more. Just like windows, mediocre operating system, with an empire that takes money left and right and poor service that costs even more.

There is not way to win as a consumer or as a developer when the product is changed so often for "quality" purposes and yet does so much damage each time it is changed. Sure, there are those that say, "Well, you just have to keep up with the changes." And the funniest part of that is the fact that 90% of them don't even know what the exact changes are they are trying to keep up with, but simply mirror the few that had success - which is what Google loves as far as I can tell. The last update found many high ranking sites dropped completely, and those that played follow the leader to do the same - it will happen that way again, and that is a poor business model.

Google shoots web developers and SEOs in the face with almost every update I have seen, and sends them scrambling to get patched up to maintain the almighty page one results. What's worse is the web developers and SEOs accept this, kiss their butts and constantly try to adapt to unknown standards, practices and algorithms.

How's your car running today?

**sorry to vent - and yes I will get off my soapbox - but this forum used to be about more than Google and in the past 1 1/2 to 2 years almost every newsletter that comes out, almost every day one of the (if not THE) main topic is Google - there is much more to web developing than Google - btw what is with all the domains that show up high in google searches that are nothing more than ad sites or affiliate sites or parked domains that link to other sites and have no real content???? I dont' get near that many using msn or yahoo**

[deepsand]

[quote=EArmand]
<snip>

btw what is with all the domains that show up high in google searches that are nothing more than ad sites or affiliate sites or parked domains that link to other sites and have no real content???? I dont' get near that many using msn or yahoo**

You noticed that too.

All I can think of is that they "promised" to do no evil; I don't recall anything about seeing none.

[EArmand]

I actually prefer Yahoo's search results and use them more often than Google, but that is not the norm in today's world...

Google has over half of all Internet searches, which is why I said that they can not be ignored if you are serious about making $ online.

As a link broker, I actually benefit every time that Google throws updates in the mix that end up causing loss of traffic to the webmaster community, so I'm ok with whatever Google wants to do... Every update means more webmasters and business owners coming in for help.