Why WPW Should Not Discuss Google Toolbar PR Anymore - Page 3

ctabuk · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-08-2006, 10:25 AM

If the topic is moved to the breakroom, it will be moved back here.

greeneagle · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-08-2006, 10:53 AM

It seems as though that we are debating the topic around how "real", "real time" data is, and how effective it is to act upon it.

As marketers we have certain tools available that are slices of the "holy grail" (real time data) that we have never had access to before.

Even when I check most of the stats for the Sites I manage, most of the time they are yesterday's info, so from one perspective, they are "historical".

However, they are close enough to "real time" data to effectively act upon.

Even 2, 3, 4 week or 2 month old data, are better in most cases than what "marketers" had to work from before digital tools walked over our horizon. They also maintain their respective "windows" into "relativity" - IMO.

Ken

**crankydave** · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-08-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

It seems as though that we are debating the topic around how "real", "real time" data is, and how effective it is to act upon it.

As marketers we have certain tools available that are slices of the "holy grail" (real time data) that we have never had access to before.

Even when I check most of the stats for the Sites I manage, most of the time they are yesterday's info, so from one perspective, they are "historical".

However, they are close enough to "real time" data to effectively act upon.

Even 2, 3, 4 week or 2 month old data, are better in most cases than what "marketers" had to work from before digital tools walked over our horizon. They also have their "window" into "relativity".

Ken

Only to a point Ken.

It's more about the validity and usefulness of the data than anything else.

PR is computated by using corrupted data. Not only is the toolbar indication of PR "outdated" slightly, but the data used to compute it outdated, in many instances grossly.

Additionally, the "votes" used to tally PR are placed with self promotion being the prime motivating factor. This unto itself, makes PR a measure of webmasters and not Google.

A single link from a PR8 page can get you a PR7, a link easily bought. That PR7 is simply not Google's measure of importance. That PR7 is a worthless measure of the ability to buy a link in this particular instance that tells you nothing about the importance of that particular site.

Furthmore, it remains my opinion that PR is nothing more than the by product of linking. The URL passes PR regardless of text. If a site were to use URL only links, they would have PR, BUT that PR is no way an indication of the importance of that site or page and is in no way any indication of the importance of the content that is contained upon the page.

Dave

incrediblehelp · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-08-2006, 02:38 PM

Well said Dave.

kgun · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-26-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I am really starting to cringe at all these Google Toolbar PR threads that happen at WPW.

As mods, you guys can all move/merge threads as needed. Additioinally, non-mods have the ability to use the report post feature and suggest a thread be moved merged if they find one they feel is out of place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Everyday more and more threads are being posted here everyday on Google Toolbar PR rising or failing. Google Toolbar PR mattering or not mattering. Who cares? Seriously?

Apparently, lots of people care if there are so many threads popping up about it. If we have 50 threads on Toolbar PR mattering or not, perhaps they need to be merged?

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

If WPW is ever going to legitimize itself in the world of SEM and SEO these types of threads need to stop.

Wow, yeah, the first thing that pops in my head every morning and what I worry myself to sleep with every night is 'legitimizing' WPW. Even if it were indeed a fact that the discussion of toolbar (or anything else) wasn't what the 'cool' kids in SEO were talking about, it certainly doesn't mean that the community here isn't interested in the subject.

I have not, and do not intend to start, telling people they can't or shouldn't post about Google Toolbar in a forum that discusses Google and search engines. How much sense would that make exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

OK lets be sensible, you cant ban these talks. Lots of times when Google Toolbar PR comes up it is slightly interesting, but not of late that is for sure. The honest question here and there by newbie's are going to happen every day and we should be here to field these questions properly or point them to the right thread explaining why Google Toolbar PR doesn't matter. But when we have long time posters asking about Google Toolbar PR updates, Google Toolbar PR values going up and down and how this relates to rankings, I shed a little tear for WPW credibility.

So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you actually suggesting that if I have a WPW member who has been attending this forum for the past 4 years, and they ask a question about Google Toolbar PR or, hell, the meta keywords tag... that is somehow something WPW (or I) should be ashamed of?

I don't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Google Toolbar PR is garbage and the more that we discuss it here the worse it is for WPW.

I have actually posted many many times what I think about Google Toolbar PR. That is certainly not to say I am going to begrudge someone else a different opinion nor will I belittle or think less of someone's qualifications for asking a question about it in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I really want this place to become a leader in communication and information for SEO, SEM and other topics. One of the great things about WPW and one of the biggest reasons I am here is now, is how open they are with members using links and the posting of information in threads.

You applaud openness and yet your post is advocating we mitigate that very aspect of the community. So we should be open, but selectively open depending on whether or not the 'other SEO people' will approve of the subject matter?

I think not.

Great post by the site admin. I found this excellent article about Pagerank.

incrediblehelp · #**106** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

I found this excellent article about Pagerank.

Anyone that thinks PR is calculated by a simplistic formula like this and it is made public for everyone to know shouldn't be in online marketing and dealing with clients.

Feydakin · #**107** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 04:33 PM

So how does it work if that article (which is based on the patent) is incorrect??

incrediblehelp · #**108** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 07:05 PM

well I doubt anybody that doesnt work at Google knows for sure. That is why that article is pretty funny.

kgun · #**109** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Anyone that thinks PR is calculated by a simplistic formula like this and it is made public for everyone to know shouldn't be in online marketing and dealing with clients.

I am not in online marketing and dealing with clients. But I have just ordered ad-university.com :-)

Have you read the article? May be a better place to search is the Stanford University search page.

Here is a related link where the assumed nonlinear (logaritmic) scale is explained in greater detail.

Do you know something that I do not know or what do you base your arguments on? Answer that question, please.

But I agree with you, that PR is (most probably) not computed by that simplistic formula and that only some people inside Google knows the exact forumla in august 2006. Trust factors may be incorporated into the formula by using AI.

williamc · #**110** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

I found this excellent article about Pagerank.

Anyone that thinks PR is calculated by a simplistic formula like this and it is made public for everyone to know shouldn't be in online marketing and dealing with clients.

Maybe you fail to realize that google does not own the PageRank algo?

kgun · #**111** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by williamc

Maybe you fail to realize that google does not own the PageRank algo?

So you mean that they can not use that name and compute it in another way?

incrediblehelp · #**112** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

But I agree with you, that PR is (most probably) not computed by that simplistic formula and that only some people inside Google knows the exact forumla in august 2006. Trust factors may be incorporated into the formula by using AI.

I also agree with you here.

williamc · #**113** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 09:17 PM

Here's another excellent article about PageRank, which seems to agree with the first one, and is just as laughable. The authors of it certainly shouldn't be in the search engine business! Maybe we should send them the URL of this thread so that they can learn a few things.

kgun · #**114** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 09:34 PM

Digression.

"Generally, you can do a KW search for a term, and then do an allinanchor check and you'll see a almost exact correlation."
Source: Google Search Codes

KW search on Google.

allinanchor:"web search engine"

Google no 1.

allinanchor:"advanced search engine"

Alta Vista no 1.

Description:
"AltaVista provides the most comprehensive search experience on the Web!"

Then delete the allinanchor operator and repeat the search.

Related link:
The importance of relevant anchor text in IBL's

Feydakin · #**115** (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

well I doubt anybody that doesnt work at Google knows for sure. That is why that article is pretty funny.

Seems to be a pretty flimsy defense of your comment.. The issue is that Google doesn't own the PR algo, Stanford does I believe.. And even if the PR algo has been modified, which is very likely, it does not negate the value of any of the articles referred to in this thread.. Especially not to the point you went..

So, if this isn't how it works, how does it work?? And if you can't say how it works, how can you say that the article is wrong??

Is this why you didn't want PR discussion to happen at WPW??

incrediblehelp · #**116** (**permalink**) 08-28-2006, 01:20 PM

Funny stuff Feydakin. Here is how I look at it. The Google toolbar PR is completely worthless. Any SEO with a grain of salt will agree with this.

Now internal PR that only Google knows is worth something and has considerable value when computing how your website will rank. Do you know how that is computed? No. No one but those that work for Google knows how this works. This is obviously true. So why in the world would I (or anyone for that matter) believe that data posted in the articles above?

The bottomline for me is I don't worry much about PR. SEO on a organic basis is not rocket science and it sure as hell cant be define through mathematical formulas posted by Phil Craven.

We need to stop the madness of making organic SEO harder than it should be. Sure every website is different and presents its own unique set of problems when trying to get it ranked, but I know than last thing on my mind when optimizing a website is Google PR, internal or from that shitball, confusing as hell toolbar.

Feydakin · #**117** (**permalink**) 08-28-2006, 03:38 PM

First, I agree that the publicly available PR in the toolbar is just this side of worthless as anyhting other than a way to get webmasters to install the toolbar..

But three years ago, when Phil's article was written, it was quite relevant, and quite accurate on the details of how PR worked at the time.. Mostly because it was based on Brin and Page's paper that was published at Stanford.. To say that anything holds it's relevance in the search engine world for three years would be stretching the imagination, and to outright attack someone based on 3 year old information is indiciatve of an underlying issue between you and Phil, and not on the actual information at hand.. Especially when presented the way you did..

Hence my reaction and questions.. It's intellectually irresponsible to declare something invalid without being able to back up your claims with fact.. I think that we can all agree that three years ago that article was probably pretty accurate.. And it is at least based on some valid research.. But it may not be as relevant today.. But no one knows for sure, so attacking someone over it seems irresponsible, especially when it comes from a MOD..

And this leads us back to one of the many reasons I rarely participate here at WPW (not that anyone here probably cares).. It seems that many of the threads devolve in to pissing matches between people that should know better.. Sure, controversry spawns posts.. But it also spawns contempt..

incrediblehelp · #**118** (**permalink**) 10-31-2007, 10:27 AM

I just wanted to bump up this old thread, since the useless TBPR is so hot right now.

ctabuk · #**119** (**permalink**) 10-31-2007, 11:10 AM

And obviously that has my full support also.

kgun · #**120** (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I just wanted to bump up this old thread, since the useless TBPR is so hot right now.

Message: Be careful with closing threads that kgun starts

Here is another.

Programming, internet and rocket science.

Potential heading for a new one. "When SEO and SEM experts crash out of orbit."

This was what the democratic WWW could not tolerate.

ctabuk · #**121** (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 10:04 AM

Kgun, you are like a dog with a bone, you bury it, dig it up, chew it bury it etc. So I closed a thread - big deal.

The simple afct is that I was one of the first guys to have a go at TBPR and guess what?

Who was correct?

And if you want to start a thread on SEO vs SEM please do so. But - I will tell you here and now. There is no difference between the two.

kgun · #**122** (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Kgun, you are like a dog with a bone, you bury it, dig it up, chew it bury it etc. So I closed a thread - big deal.

No, not a big deal, but it is funny that it is the most discussed topic at WPW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctabuk

The simple afct is that I was one of the first guys to have a go at TBPR and guess what?

Who was correct?

Google has not deleted it. IMO, Google listens more to webmasters than any other big company I know. The philosophy in their corporate information states that you can make money without doing evil (heading 6).

In democratic spirit, they have made a choice for you to install it or not when you install their ToolBar.

ctabuk · #**123** (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 10:52 AM

I never said they would scrap it - I said it was crap

kgun · #**124** (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 10:57 AM

Was?

What about is

and the new Google Toolbar for Enterprise ? Potential for another hot topic, bringing Google, you and me traffic?

It starts at Google Toolbar for Enterprise home.

webiff · #**125** (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 06:42 AM

Can any one explain in easy and proper steps to get Page Rank for a new site. Because newbies do not know how to get into it they go here n there. For the behalf of those i am asking this. Reply needed.

kgun · #**126** (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 08:03 AM

I can give you an example: The Norwegian site W3 Schools.

Study that site in detail, and you may get it. Observe how content is organized. Look at the content.

If the content is better than average, links follow. Then follows a green Tb indicater, a derived metric of the importance of votes carried by IBL's. The little green indicator is the best measure of the importance of IBL's for informed outsiders. The rest is guessing.

It is so very difficult for me to count and weight the links in Google's index, so I need a metric to quantify the importance. Does anybody have a better measure / indicator?

P.S: Also study the Tb indicator of the different pages. It says something about relevant IBL's to that specific page.

Re: Why WPW Should Not Discuss Google Toolbar PR Anymore. Case settled. Q.E.D.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode