What Does Pagerank Mean in 2004?
Posted 18 September 2004 - 02:26 AM
Posted 18 September 2004 - 08:38 AM
PageRank increasingly means little unless the page predates 2003. Even then it probably means nothing because this old page is probably "stuck" on the old PageRank.
Google stopped computing PageRank the old-fashioned way in April 2003, with update Cassandra. Since then I believe they've been using shortcut methods to "fake" PageRank. Anchor text in links is far more important than PageRank if that anchor text includes keywords. The classic computation of PageRank never considered text at all -- it was just number crunching based on the number and strength of links to a page.
Please, start a new thread if you are going to discuss PageRank. Don't append a comment to a thread that was started two years ago. You will have everyone confused.
Posted 18 September 2004 - 09:17 AM
I've also given it a new title, which I thought might allow us to examine the topic that James started, and also the points that Everyman makes in his post.
Google doesn't send people notices that their pages might be penalized. If your pages were though, then a notable drop in pagerank might have been an indication. Though, there were other reasons for a drop in page rank, and even the disappearance of a ranking sometimes happened out of error, or the loss of links.
If page rank isn't being updated on a toolbar, or in the Google directory, does that still mean that there isn't a calculation of page rank, and it's just not being displayed?
Or is pagerank being calculated in some different manner, as Everyman suggests?
Will we see updates to pagerank again?
If you've been keeping an eye on referrals from Google in your log files James, a drop in traffic being delivered from Google might be an indication that something is wrong.
But that could be that other people have moved past the site in search results, or created a much more persuasive page title, which people are clicking upon instead of the one that you are concerned about, or they are deciding to click on adwords displayed in those topics instead of pages shown in the search results.
Posted 18 September 2004 - 09:54 AM
Since last Spring, when I first began to notice AdWords and AdSense that were blatantly offering high-PageRank links for sale, it became clear to a lot of entrepreneurs that Google would not go after link selling the way they did when they zapped SearchKing in 2002. They allowed those AdWords to appear without screening them out, and continue to do so, as far as I know. GoogleGuy was very noncommittal on the topic when he was directly asked about it.
Now we have a fair number of SEOs who are selling links. Today they're all in danger of going out of business because the toolbar is showing zero for new pages. Their clients are starting to ask questions about what they got for their money by paying for links. That's just about the only reason why folks are getting nervous about the lack of a PageRank update, as far as I can tell. You're hearing from SEOs who are dependent on rapid toolbar feedback because that's what their customers think they paid for. It doesn't even matter that the new pages may be ranking okay.
You have to ask yourself whether it is in Google's interest to update the toolbar PageRank. Why not just let things drift? That would solve much of the link-selling problem. I argued two years ago that the toolbar PageRank indicator was contributing to the link spam problem, and that Google should stop showing PageRank on the toolbar. But of course, if Google did that then they'd have a hard time justifying the "phone home" behavior of the toolbar, and they want this data.
I think Google has taken a middle position of not updating PageRank on the toolbar (assuming that they even have a credible number to display these days for newer pages). That way they get to eat their cake and have it too. The link vendors go out of business, and the toolbar still phones home -- for a number that is increasingly meaningless.
Posted 18 September 2004 - 12:24 PM
I heard that this week google has changed the checksum computation of the toolbar that had been cracked and was allowing sites like prog and webmasterbrain to offer "pagerank search", it may be that once google has put them out of business it will start updating the toolbar again.
Posted 18 September 2004 - 12:40 PM
I honest believe business should pay to be in the search engines, as you do to be in the yellow pages, and then I think the highest payer should be at the top. However, one other curve to it. I think the consumers must have a part in this too, and this would be to rank the site once they are done.
This would give the consumers the best search. It is nice thinking of the old days when the little guy could be #1, just because is was savvy on the net, but now the big boys are playing, so the system must change.
My crazy question OT who owns the internet itself- the www?
Posted 19 September 2004 - 08:34 PM
Now, how to value somebody getting you to a PR7. does it cost less to just pay google or to have somebody for $6 an hour send out emails to good links for exchange?
I know I would not do the link farm, because in time it will fall. Creating your own link system will always stand stronge.
Now to finding a net savvy college student. The other part of it is to have them do it in house, or pay the employee per each success link exchange not through a link farm that is a PR 4 or higher.
I feel if I have 2000 links coming in I am solid, so I got a long way to go.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 12:54 AM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 01:06 AM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 01:09 AM
The SERVERS which power the internet, are under public use licence from the US government. If the government decides to pull the plug internet servers would no longer be able to find one another.
The DNS for the internet is owned by the US government, pure and simple.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 01:37 AM
Overseeing the Internet as a whole is the Internet Society. On their page about the infrastructure of the Internet you can see some organisations listed that you have possibly mistaken for US government privilledged ones.
The US government comes into the picture when in 1993 the US Dept. of Commerce created InterNIC. InterNIC ensures there are no domain name duplicates.
So, DNS is a distributed database with a central database that handles the distribution and "quality control". Were this central database to disappear thousands of DNS's around the world would still be able to operate.
Ever since the Internet has gone public no-one owns the Internet or can take full and complete control over it.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:15 AM
Yahoo! Web Sites 33.74%
My biggest search term is Arizona Foreclosures
MSN page 1
Yahoo page 1
Google not even page 4
I am guessing MSN and Yahoo got some sort of deal going on because I rank similar.
I am guessing more people use MSN than yahoo or more people use MSN than Yahoo for foreclosure searching.
The thing that kills me is that I hear google is so powerful, and I do not even come up there.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 03:49 AM
I have seen elsewhere though, that MSN seem's to provide better conversion rates than the other big players. Perhaps thats quite apparent with Google as its used by so many people simply gathering information.
In a sense it's good to have a bit of a spread like that. Certainly you're better positioned if/when Google goes messing round with it's algos and suddenly you drop down further. If you were fairly reliant on Google, that would obviously be bad for business, but at the moment, you, hopefully, shouldn't be doing too badly if any one of those 3 does soemthing a bit odd.
To improve the ranking in Google though, it's probably worth looking at who's above you on their rankings, and where they appear in the Yahoo/MSN ranks. Then see how they differ from your site.
If they are a good bit higher than you in Google, but a good bit lower than you in the other 2, you should be able to spot some differences, and add on a few things while hopefully not taking away what Yahoo/MSN like about the site.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 09:32 AM
But the PR is really an indicator of the more important factor -- quality incoming links. The problem isn't that your PR is low, the problem is that you don't have enough quality incoming links. a low PR is a symptom of the problem.
you want the links not because they'll make your PR go up, but because they'll point to your site with hopefully some good keywords as link text, or very close to the link text, helping you rank for those phrases. if they're links from good sites, they'll also drive some traffic directly.
but regardless of all that, I think we'd all agree that we'd take a link from a completely unrelated PR10 site, even if it's just for the PR benefit we'd get. if someone offered to me at no cost, I'd definitely take it.
Posted 21 September 2004 - 02:41 PM
Posted 22 September 2004 - 07:19 AM
Basically allinanchor is to show the sites which have the most backlinks with that keyword in the anchor text.
If your backlinks use www.mysite.com as the link then you will be #1 if all the incoming links are “Big Bad Dave” and you have the most incoming links then you will be #1
Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:13 PM
<a href="http://www.KINGofHUD.com" target="_blank">Arizona HUD Homes</a>
"<a href="http://www.KINGofHUD.com" target="_blank">Arizona HUD Homes</a>"
Then my site will incrase to the top of the search engines for this phrase?
Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:16 PM
[/url]<a href="http://www.KINGofHUD.com" target="_parent">Arizona HUD Homes</a>
<a href="http://www.KINGofHUD.com" target="_parent">Arizona HUD Homes</a>
<a href="http://www.KINGofHUD.com" target="_parent">Arizona HUD Homes</a>
Posted 23 September 2004 - 03:45 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 09:20 PM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 12:08 PM
actually I wouldn't make a business out of that, the PR thing is only going to last so long before the next big thing takes over and PR is a thing of the past.
none of my company's clients purchase links like that though, but if they wanted to spend the money to "sponsor" a related PR8 site, I wouldn't stop them
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users