Google Page Rank Slap

[Tony_V]

Ok, I see this one as causing a bit of frustration for everyone if it is true. I hear talk that the last google page rank update was a slap directed towards link exchangers.

I have a big problem with this if it is true.

I am a web designer who has the need to show a portfolio of work that I have done for reference which does help me land future work. So I list some of my clients sites on my site and as a matter of signature, I always put my logo and link back to my site for advertising reasons as do most webmasters.

How in the heck is Google going to differentiate from this type of reciprical linking versus link farmers? It can't. So if this is Googles way of playing internet god once again the flaws show more then the capabilities. Not that PR realy means anything to me. lol ... Just making a point.

Also, just taking a stab at the hornets nest before you all do.

I maintain PR as being only an EGO that makes little to NO Sales.

Targeted traffic and your wallet truely are the only real measuring factors when it comes to Internet Marketing.

Does targeted traffic really only come to your site because you have the highest PR? Heck no.

PR stands for Popularity Rucks!

Actually any site that has great value, great tools, great fun, great search, what ever is popular will have high PR. Look at youtube. We all know that the reason it is so big is not because of its marketing, but rather because of the toolz.... what you can do with it....

If you have the suckiest site out there, and you spend millions of dollars advertising it, your visitors will only come once and see it sucks and never return again.

If however you have a site, like youtube, google, yahoo, all the socail big sites, just by word of mouth eventually your site will be huge and so will your PR because of it.

PR is only a measure of how popular your site is, and has nothing to do with out ranking your competitors. If they have a bigger PR than you, it is because their site has more to offer. Bottom line.

I say, kick PR out the window, and get back to the roots. What can you offer on your site to make it such a big hit with the world?

Good Luck!

[Jomo]

Althougfh PR is not an exact science (and it never will be), it's a good algorithmic measure of all the things you mentioned that make a good site. It's as good a measure as you can probably get i think.

You make an excellent point that high PR doesn't always transfer into success. Targeted traffic and an engaging/sticky site is the key.

I'm like you, i've got a portfolio (http://www.dynamicdeveloper.co.uk/web_sites_portfolio.cfm) pointing to external sites i've built, and they point back. I see your point about google penalizing us, but you know what, I don't care. As long as i'm within their webmaster guidelines (which i'm well within) i 'm not gonna worry too much and trust that the quality of my work, and targeted traffic will keep me fed.

Also, algorithmically it's not to tricky to recognise the concept of a 'portfolio', especially on web design company sites, and treat these reciprocal links accordingly. I'm sure they've got it in hand.

[david_324]

Yes I too agree with Dynamic about high PR site can't transverse in more success as low pr site also rank at #1 in major search engines as well

[TrafficProducer]

The Big Google PageRank Slap - Perception Is Everything (http://www.site-reference.com/articles/General/The-Big-Google-PageRank-Slap-Perception-Is-Everything.html)


Recently Google did a major PageRank update where a lot of sites were downgraded. Many experts believe this PageRank update was Google's response to link selling - sites which sell links lost points in their PageRank.


REF: site-reference

[ctabuk]

Tony said ' If they have a bigger PR than you, it is because their site has more to offer. Bottom line'.


Nothing could be further than the truth. Concentrate on your own internal page rank and that means those sites that link to yours and the sites you link out to. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what a site has to offer.

If you are looking at the greenline on the toolbar - do yourself a favour - delete it.

[jeffposaka]

I agree with ctabuk. Try to ignore the PR. Mine dropped from 6 to 5, but my ranking and traffic didn't change. I think Google is just shooting shots across the bow. We will find out next week at Pubcon what Matt is thinking.

[ctabuk]

Or what Matt is being asked to say:rolleyes: - he is a PR man - and Google do NOT give away secrets - they do however drop hints:D

[Tony_V]

I respectfully disagree with ctabuk.

Although I honestly do not follow pr... I think I explained quite well why in my first post... Lets give a look at a site with a high pr and find out why they have it.

Bringing up my point of popularity visit your friendly neiborhood google and search up cars.
hmm... only about 420 million competitors.

now visit the first organic listing cars.com of course.
PR 7 not bad.

back to google site:cars.com (put the www before cars.com for this to work) brings up only about 64,500 pages.. must be this site has a lot to offer so it needs many pages to offer up its services.

google search once again links:cars.com (put the www before cars.com for this to work) only brings back 3 links.... interesting.
could it be that this particular site just happens to be something popular.
I would say so.

check out ant racing
cool.... competition for that term is about 2 million
all listings on the first page that comes up are under pr 3 in fact, most are pr 0.
must be a very unpopular search phrase, or better yet, unpopular subject all together.

PR watching has become a great past time for people only interested in how their site looks to their competitors.

It's a waste of time!

There is a market for everything. If you have a passion for what you do, what you sell, what you offer for services, nothing else should matter, but getting it in front of those who would be interested in them. Forget about the PR, concentrate on presentation, proper seo, and ease of use... navigation etc.

PR is only a gauge letting you know how popular your subject is. nothing more. Has little to nothing to do with inbound, outbound links. Sure you get some credit for it, but it's not much if your subject is not all that popular in the first place.

You are all wasting your time trying to figure out the science to inbound outbound linking to get your pr up. It will not work!

Love what you do, do what you love and keep on keeping on!

[ctabuk]

Greetings Tony - I don't read everything that Matt Cutts has to say on PR and I have been one of the most 'noisy' on this whole debate - I do not have a Google toolbar - but you are mistaken on Internal Pagerank and linking

Here

More info on PageRank (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-pagerank/)

Cheers David

[brian234]

There must be some low quality links directing towards your site...otherwise it never happens..To which google reacts sharply..

[Tony_V]

:\ :| :(

[Tony_V]

I stand corrected... Sorry....

I just found a problem with my argument...
to everyone who has read my posts here, I apologize.... sorry for running my mouth.
I am out of line here.... Bitch slap me. but please don't lose respect.... thanks.

in my example of cars.com I said that there were only 3 link backs to the site.

the reason I only saw 3 is because I did the search like this.

links:www.cars.com which does only show 3 link backs

I just now did a search like so

link:www.cars.com and found some 225,000 link backs. seems leaving the "s" off of links has different results.

SORRY!

I will crawl back to my hole now, and pretend to know what I am talking about to myself.

[Webnauts]

Have you noticed Googles update?

Old:
“Buying links in order to improve a site’s ranking is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.”

Now:
“Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.”


Webmaster Help Center - Why should I report paid links to Google? (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66736)

[scanmonkey]

PageRank isn't a guage of Google traffic or Google Rankings.

[Webnauts]

PageRank isn't a guage of Google traffic or Google Rankings.
Can you please explain what is PageRank about? What it is or what it does?

Thanks.

[ctabuk]

I stand corrected... Sorry....

I just found a problem with my argument...
to everyone who has read my posts here, I apologize.... sorry for running my mouth.
I am out of line here.... Bitch slap me. but please don't lose respect.... thanks.

in my example of cars.com I said that there were only 3 link backs to the site.

the reason I only saw 3 is because I did the search like this.

links:Buy New & Used Cars, Research Prices, Sell My Car, Find Auto Dealers (http://www.cars.com) which does only show 3 link backs

I just now did a search like so

link:Buy New & Used Cars, Research Prices, Sell My Car, Find Auto Dealers (http://www.cars.com) and found some 225,000 link backs. seems leaving the "s" off of links has different results.

SORRY!



I will crawl back to my hole now, and pretend to know what I am talking about to myself.


Posts like that deserve merit - I have added to your rep points - keep posting:D:D

[scanmonkey]

Can you please explain what is PageRank about? What it is or what it does?

Thanks.

Which PageRank do you mean? Internal PageRank or what Google shows us in the toobar?

[tamecrow]

Which PageRank do you mean? Internal PageRank or what Google shows us in the toobar?

Oooh, you've just won some Webnauts-points with that :D

[Webnauts]

Which PageRank do you mean? Internal PageRank or what Google shows us in the toobar?
Please remember in the future that when I talk about PageRank I am only talking about the internal one.

So can you explain now?

Thanks. :)

[Webnauts]

Oooh, you've just won some Webnauts-points with that :D
Not yet Adam... ;)

[mjtaylor]

Please remember in the future that when I talk about PageRank I am only talking about the internal one.

So can you explain now?

Thanks. :)


What exactly is it that you want to know about PageRank, Webnauts? What don't you understand? Maybe *I* can help you out ... :wink:

[wige]

I always thought PageRank existed purely as an anti-spam device. Is this inaccurate?

In the time before there was Google, search engine results were unreliable because the only factor they used to rank pages was the on-page content, determining how relevant that content was with the search term entered, but that on page content could be manipulated by the webmaster to get artificially high placement. Google revolutionized this method by adding a new factor - PageRank is a recursive analysis of the number of links a page has, weighed based on the page rank of each linking page, and so on. However, this is a secondary ranking factor. The primary, number one ranking factor for any web page is a combination of on-page and off-site content relevance to the entered search term. Once the engine determines the most relevant documents based on those two factors, Pagerank gets added to further temper the results, shifting around the pages. This is why a PR 2 document can outrank a PR 6 document for a search term, provided the first document is so relevant to the search term that the greater PR of the second page can not outweigh it.

If Pagerank were the major determining factor in ranking, the SERPs would have all the pages relevant to the search query, sorted by PR, no? Content is King, Relevance is Queen, and PageRank is, well, the moat. Or something like that.

This is also why reciprocal links are no benefit from a search engine standpoint. When search engines see exchanged links, the engine assumes that there is some sort of relationship between those two sites. A perceived relationship is grounds for the link to not be counted by a system that attempts to make its decisions based in large part from links from neutral parties. You don't actually get penalized for reciprocal links (unless you are blatantly spamming), however the links themselves are not given any weight.

[Webnauts]

What exactly is it that you want to know about PageRank, Webnauts? What don't you understand? Maybe *I* can help you out ... :wink:

Oh, can you probably help me? Well then give it a try. You will do me a huge favor if you can answer me only this very simple and single question:

"Is PageRank important, but not the sole factor in how pages are ranked? In other words, is PageRank also a part of the story about what results get displayed high up in a Google listing?"

A Yes or a No. That will be enough. :)

[Webnauts]

I always thought PageRank existed purely as an anti-spam device. Is this inaccurate?
That is not PageRank. That is PhraseRank (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20060294155.PGNR.&OS=dn/20060294155&RS=DN/20060294155).


In the time before there was Google, search engine results were unreliable because the only factor they used to rank pages was the on-page content, determining how relevant that content was with the search term entered, but that on page content could be manipulated by the webmaster to get artificially high placement. Google revolutionized this method by adding a new factor - PageRank is a recursive analysis of the number of links a page has, weighed based on the page rank of each linking page, and so on. However, this is a secondary ranking factor. The primary, number one ranking factor for any web page is a combination of on-page and off-site content relevance to the entered search term. Once the engine determines the most relevant documents based on those two factors, Pagerank gets added to further temper the results, shifting around the pages. This is why a PR 2 document can outrank a PR 6 document for a search term, provided the first document is so relevant to the search term that the greater PR of the second page can not outweigh it.

If Pagerank were the major determining factor in ranking, the SERPs would have all the pages relevant to the search query, sorted by PR, no? Content is King, Relevance is Queen, and PageRank is, well, the moat. Or something like that.

This is also why reciprocal links are no benefit from a search engine standpoint. When search engines see exchanged links, the engine assumes that there is some sort of relationship between those two sites. A perceived relationship is grounds for the link to not be counted by a system that attempts to make its decisions based in large part from links from neutral parties. You don't actually get penalized for reciprocal links (unless you are blatantly spamming), however the links themselves are not given any weight.
Great post. But this is new to me that someone at WPW agrees that on-page factors are also highly important.

I hear here for years:

Get some backlinks here,
get some backlinks there,
here some backlinks,
there some backlinks,
everywhere some backlinks ....

That other pages with lower PR rank over pages with higher PageRank, does not make PageRank less important. If a page on-page optimization sucks and has higher PR, and another page has an excellent on-page optimization and lower PR, the second one can rank higher, though depending and based on other factors, like domain age, etc.

Before I go further into this, I prefer to wait for MJ to respond to my post above. ;)

[mjtaylor]

Oh, can you probably help me? Well then give it a try. You will do me a huge favor if you can answer me only this very simple and single question:

"Is PageRank important, but not the sole factor in how pages are ranked? In other words, is PageRank also a part of the story about what results get displayed high up in a Google listing?"

A Yes or a No. That will be enough. :)

I do not understand why you ask questions tho which you and I already know the answer.

Yes, PR is important but not the only factor in SERP position.

PageRank is one of more than 100 factors (closer to 200 according to Google itself, I think) that Google uses to determine where a page will appear in the SERPs for a given search string.

Webnauts, I do not believe that we are helping others to learn what we already know (or think we know) when we approach it this way. Socrates used such a dialectic style, but neither of us has just returned from the Oracle. ;)


But this is new to me that someone at WPW agrees that on-page factors are also highly important.

Really? Because we talk about title optimization and content and internal linking and a host of other types of on site SEO factors on a fairly regular basis. And there's a wonderful Sticky call SEO: Where do I Begin (http://www.webproworld.com/But%20this%20is%20new%20to%20me%20that%20someone%2 0at%20WPW%20agrees%20that%20on-page%20factors%20are%20also%20highly%20important.) ? which talks about many more on site factors than link building ... etc. etc. etc.

Cheers, MJ

[Webnauts]

I do not understand why you ask questions tho which you and I already know the answer.
How do you know that I know the answer? And if you and me do, what about other members here?


Yes, PR is important but not the only factor in SERP position.
I agree! :)


PageRank is one of more than 100 factors (closer to 200 according to Google itself, I think) that Google uses to determine where a page will appear in the SERPs for a given search string.
When posed this way, do you mean that the weight of PageRank in terms of rankings is only 0,5%-1%?


Webnauts, I do not believe that we are helping others to learn what we already know (or think we know) when we approach it this way.
What do you mean? Do you know how many people are greatful for my help I offer since years, and always used the same dialectic method?



Socrates used such a dialectic style, but neither of us has just returned from the Oracle. ;)
Dialectic style? And how do you know if I returned from the Oracle. Are you asking me to show my cards?



Really? Because we talk about title optimization and content and internal linking and a host of other types of on site SEO factors on a fairly regular basis. And there's a wonderful Sticky call SEO: Where do I Begin (http://www.webproworld.com/But%20this%20is%20new%20to%20me%20that%20someone%2 0at%20WPW%20agrees%20that%20on-page%20factors%20are%20also%20highly%20important.) ? which talks about many more on site factors than link building ... etc. etc. etc.
MJ how long are you a member here? I am here since 2003. And I know what I read and heard. Anyway I do not want to wake up sleeping dogs. Its OK MJ. Maybe my statement is outdated after all...
[/quote]

Peace

[Tony_V]

so webnauts,
page rank is important per page? or per site? does it outweigh popularity per industry or not?

[nottheusual1]

Oh, can you probably help me? Well then give it a try. You will do me a huge favor if you can answer me only this very simple and single question:

"Is PageRank important, but not the sole factor in how pages are ranked? In other words, is PageRank also a part of the story about what results get displayed high up in a Google listing?"

A Yes or a No. That will be enough. :)

Part 1 = yes.

Part 2 = no.

You asked 2 different questions. It is important, but not the sole factor. I've posited before that it is such a small part that we feel it is insignificant if kept 3 or above.

And no - I really don't think that it is weighted enough to keep low scores off the first page of results or below/above the fold.

google the keyword "pens". Top 2 are both PR3, and all below that are 4's or better and are manufacturer's sites.

How if PR is so important?

[Webnauts]

Part 1 = yes.

Part 2 = no.

You asked 2 different questions. It is important, but not the sole factor. I've posited before that it is such a small part that we feel it is insignificant if kept 3 or above.

And no - I really don't think that it is weighted enough to keep low scores off the first page of results or below/above the fold.

google the keyword "pens". Top 2 are both PR3, and all below that are 4's or better and are manufacturer's sites.

How if PR is so important?
As I mentioned above, PageRank is not the sole factor. But I assume that you agree that it is a ranking factor. But how much weight does it reserve, if we would try to estimate that in percent?

Your argument about the 2 pages having PR3 is not strong enough to claim that PageRank has a very low weight when it comes to rankings.

As I mentioned previously, there are many factors for rankings. Could you exclude the possibility that PageRank has i.e a weight of 49% and all other factors together 51%?

Lets take your example of the top 2 pages which both have PR3, and all below have PR4. Lets say now that both PR3 pages meet 51% of the factors like i.e domain age, on-page optimization, etc and PR 3/4 of the PR4 pages, and the PR4 pages achieve less of those 51% factors. Whats then?

And I guess I must post here what I posted elsewhere this morning, as I do not want to hijack this thread:


Why should you care?
When search engines crawl identical content through varied URLs, there may be several negative effects:

1. Having multiple URLs can dilute link popularity. For example, in the diagram above, rather than 50 links to your intended display URL, the 50 links may be divided three ways among the three distinct URLs.

2. Search results may display user-unfriendly URLs (long URLs with tracking IDs, session IDs)
* Decreases chances of user selecting the listing
* Offsets branding efforts

How we help users and webmasters with duplicate content
We've designed algorithms to help prevent duplicate content from negatively affecting webmasters and the user experience.

1. When we detect duplicate content, such as through variations caused by URL parameters, we group the duplicate URLs into one cluster.

2. We select what we think is the "best" URL to represent the cluster in search results.

3. We then consolidate properties of the URLs in the cluster, such as link popularity, to the representative URL.

Consolidating properties from duplicates into one representative URL often provides users with more accurate search results. Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Google, duplicate content caused by URL parameters, and you (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/google-duplicate-content-caused-by-url.html)


- What do they mean with negative effects? If PR has nothing or only very little to do with rankings, what is the negative affect for webmasters?

- What do they mean with dilute link popularity? Isn't link popularity measured with the PageRank algorithm? If yes, does that have something to do with rankings? If not, what is the reason to worry about that? What is the problem if you dilute of link popularity? What are the effects?

- When they detect duplicate content, such as through variations caused by URL parameters, they group the duplicate URLs into one cluster. Is that probably what we call supplemental index? If not, then what is that cluster?

[mjtaylor]

How do you know that I know the answer? And if you and me do, what about other members here? <snip>What do you mean? Do you know how many people are greatful for my help I offer since years, and always used the same dialectic method?

I find this style disingenuous. And confrontational. I believe you could be even more helpful in teaching others from a more honest and less combative approach. That's just my personal opinion. I think you are very knowledgable and I believe you could be an even more effective teacher with a gentler attitude.




When posed this way, do you mean that the weight of PageRank in terms of rankings is only 0,5%-1%?

I don't think PR is that small a factor, no.




Dialectic style? And how do you know if I returned from the Oracle. Are you asking me to show my cards?

No need. I know you haven't just returned from Delphi ... would that you or I could! And if you had, you would tell us without *any* prompting!




MJ how long are you a member here? I am here since 2003.


I joined in 2003 as well, a few months after you did ... 8-)

[Webnauts]

MJ my apologies for not being gentle. I think if anyone else had my workload and sleepless months, they would not be able to just stay cool either. Or maybe yes? Well me not.

I would like to tell much more, but I do not have the time and the mood to debate about things which are obvious for me.

I started a discussion on this topic at another forum (not mine), and there I play with wide open cards, because I found others who go so advance as I do. Once again someone told me yesterday morning that my posts here are too academical, so I think I shall drop all topics here. I honestly feel that I disturb here. And I guess I always did. If you would like to know where the discussion is taking place, just drop me a PM.

Peace and good luck!

[mjtaylor]

I think I need a cold shower! Forgive me for getting too close to the flame!

I do think you have so much to offer, John, and I do think that it would take less energy on your part to present your point of view in a straightforward manner.

I am sorry if I have become combative! You are an asset to any forum, in any case.

Sincerely, MJ

[Webnauts]

I think I need a cold shower! Forgive me for getting too close to the flame!
MJ I am not a person who can be angry more than some minutes. :lol:
No need for apologies. Originally my problem relies elsewhere. ;)


I do think you have so much to offer, John, and I do think that it would take less energy on your part to present your point of view in a straightforward manner.
My girlfriend tells me that all the time too. :lol:
The reason I do not present my point of view in a straightforward manner is, because I do not want people to understand what I say. I prefer that they perceive what I say. :)


I am sorry if I have become combative!
I said you do not need to apologize. You had a good reason for that. :)


You are an asset to any forum, in any case.
I am probably an asset to many forums on the web, and in many cases, but for sure not here at WPW. Do you want an evidence? Why am I not a mod here anymore?

There are so many forums that highly value me and wish me to hang around there, but that is physically not possible. But as I said I found a new nest, and I can assure you that there is an enorm number of people who will come to find me there. :)

My best wishes,

John