This type of thinking is shortsighted. For starters, if they're going to obsess about PR instead of content, they're not doing it very well. PR is assigned by page, not site. What matters is the PR of the page their link would be on.
They also seem to be forgetting that a low-PR link that's well worded to support one's on-page optimization can boost one's rank where it matters most .... in the search results.
As well ... novel thought coming up ... a link doesn't have to have high PR to send well-targeted visitors!
All very good point buckworks, of course there is discrimiation amoungst site owners I wouldn't link to a site I didn't like regardless of PR and Google PR should not be a reason for a link you need to look at it as a factor and only one factor.
But I would say we move in some fairly high circles on behalf of our clients and it is defiantely not easy to get a link but once your in you normally deserve to be.
The web is like really life it is not snobbery but survival that creates discrimination. But I can spot a good site instantly, like most search engines, and regardless of PR I would want a link from it in fact I just got 3 links from PR0/grey bar sites and I am sure they won't be like that for too long because they are great sites! Just no one has found them yet!
Does seem shortsighted. However, I do get concerned when I link to someone who has a drastic drop in PR...say, from a 5 to a 2. I have wondered if the penalty that may have caused this drop would be transferred to my site. So, sometimes, when I see PR 1 or 2 sites wanting me to link to them, I am just a bit leery, not knowing the full history of their site. Anyone else share this concern?
|They also seem to be forgetting that a low-PR link that's well worded to support one's on-page optimization can boost one's rank where it matters most .... in the search results. |
And they're also forgetting that no link, even one from a page with a lower PR than yours, will decrease your PageRank. Those PR3 links do help, even if to a smaller extent. And of course, if it's a link exchange in question, the link back to the PR3 helps to bump it up and so make it eventually a more "valuable" link.
I certainly understand and support having some standards as to what link exchanges one will accept. But PageRank can't be the only measure of what is and isn't a good link.
>This idea reminds me of society's upper class. Want to join our Country Club? What's your PR?
It's a caste system. This site you mentioned has deemed all sites <4 as being in the class of the "untouchables". My 2 sites are high PR5 at the moment, and thus I presume they consider them fit to be on the Internet. Sadly though, those with PR7+ sites consider me scum. :(
|But I would say we move in some fairly high circles on behalf of our clients and it is defiantely not easy to get a link but once your in you normally deserve to be. |
Is this more like a Fraternity than the wealthy?
Just from the few comments on the thread, I'd say there are some entities out there that lean in this direction. I think it's natural human behavior and somewhat acceptable but capable of being abused.
|Google PR should not be a reason for a link |
Yes, stay relavant to your theme.
This problem predates Google, quite frankly. Back when I was doing reciprocal links, I received hundreds of requests for links from webmasters who own extremely low traffic sites, who hide their links pages, who have links pages with zillions of sites listed, who have links pages where you have to drill down several levels, etc. etc. IMO they're trying to get more than they give up, not realizing that the Web is not a zero-sum game. I often deleted requests from sites where I couldn't give a damn whether I was listed or not.
My suggestion: If you want a link from a more powerful site, offer them something worthwhile in return, some reason other than pure charity why they should bother. Offer a link on your home page, or maybe make their site a "recommended" site with a mini-review. That sort of thing.
For many, PR is seen as the single most tangible way of measuring their online presence. It's not necessarily correct, or even accurate, but many people fixate on it. I suspect these elitist high-pr sites have some sort of insecurity thing going on, but am not a psychologist, so I'll leave it at that.
I think there are two approaches to linking: As many relevant links as possible, or as high of PR links as possible. You can't have both.
I have one site that's a PR3 homepage/PR2 inside pages (fifty or so) with about a dozen external links, including a pair of PR5's. I make a strong effort to get links to this site, but it's in a niche market and not easy going. I'm happy with my placement in the SERPs; could be better, but is far, far better than a lot of the competition.
I have another site that's PR2, from just over 100 PR1 and PR2 links, thanks to being in DMOZ and a whole bunch of "mirror" sites, plus a handful of other links. Those 110 or so directory links cost me no additional effort, no reciprocal links, nothing. I'm not bothered by the fact that pretty much every site that links to mine is PR1. It's indexed very regularly by G!, FAST, and most of the other spiders, and does quite well in the SERPs - plus I get a lot of referral traffic from all those MiniDMOZ's.
I'd happily take another 100+ targeted links from PR0/1/2 sites before a single PR5, 4, or even 3 link.
If a site is in Yahoo and DMOZ then it will likely have a Pr 4 or 5 just from those 2 listings.
Fortunately we don't care too much about Google PR or we would be caught in a dilema for sure. Our homepage had a PR of 6 about 2 weeks ago, then we launched a new program at our site that now has about 5,000+ of our users linking to our site. Many are not exactly high quality sites and our PR dropped to a 5 within a week. I can only assume these 2 facts are related. But we are getting an extra 5,000-10,000 targeted clicks a day to our site, and that's worth a helluva lot more than a decrease from PR6 to PR5.
Welcome to Webmasterworld, limitup.
Adding links in should never be able to lower your PR. Read some of the threads about dropping PR after this update-- whether it's a symptom or a cause, the Yahoo! directory dropped in PR and that led to (or exemplified) an across the board drop.
So are the links with a higher PR than you the ONLY links that affect your score?
No, all links count and more is always better.
From limitup's description of what happened, I don't think Google could have had time to recognize any of those links and apply the appropriate PR anyway. It takes a full indexing cycle, maybe two.
I think duckhunter's observation is correct. And as rfgdxm1 paraphrased it, it does feel like a "caste" system of sorts, sometimes. But as jomaxx says, when he suggests that a low PR site needs to offer something worthwhile to get a high PR link, it does comes down to exchange of something of value.
Linking out from your own site, requires a judgement of relative value. If there is a "social class" kind of thing going on, I haven't felt it. But I've certainly felt the rich versus poor inequality, in terms of inequality of PR exchanges affecting linking relationships. ( I've been on both sides of it.)
Have webmasterworld visitors found a better way, a more polite way, to post a message saying that potential link exchanges should be relatively PR neutral?
The one thing of value that the lower PR site should be concentrating on is having content worth linking to.
For that matter, the higher PR site should be concentrating on the same thing.
A large emphasis on PR translates to a kind of -rich-get-richer effect.
If really good newer sites get pushed to the back of the line behind mediocre older sites, G might adjust its algo in the future? who knows...
Well said, BigDave!
I have encountered this PR snobishnes a couple of times, but I think that kind of attitude misses the whole point. I like BigDave's take on it.
When I'm asked if I'd link to a site I take a look, and if the content is good, and I think it's a good match with my site then I'll link, no matter the PR. In fact, if it's a new/newly modified site with low PR but looks to be going places I eye it much like a venture capitalist views a start-up... backing this now could pay off down the line.
Ditto Buckworks and a couple others. It's gotten to the point that the only thing to do is go back to square one and ask yourself, is this link going to serve my visitors?
Funny, I had a run in with something similar during the update. First, we all know that during the update, PR can fluctuate. This particular site was fairly new and last month it was a PR0. At the time the link exchange request was made, my link page was showing a PR5. The person said that they already had my link up on their site. I didn't immediately respond, but I later checked his site out before I put up his link to see if the link was there. I couldn't find it. When I contacted him about it, he replied that it appeared that my site has been banned and he didn't want to link to a banned site.
I had to laugh at his ignorance a little regarding the fluctuating PR during the dance, but it brought up a good point. How do you know link requests are coming from banned sites, or new sites that haven't been assigned PR?
>If a site is in Yahoo and DMOZ then it will likely have a Pr 4 or 5 just from those 2 listings.
I'm the "proud" editor of two cats at DMOZ that are both PR0, and another which is PR1....DMOZ is no guarantee of a PR gift, especially for cats in the regional section. Same applies to Yahoo to almost the same extent.
Back to the topic. It is a tad short sighted, I've seen many sites jump from PR3 (in the old days, would probably be PR2 today) to PR6 or 7.
But, the problem is I also get numerous link requests from gray bars and PR0's. These guys are a little risky, unless they have great content, very valuable and complementary, I take a wide birth.
Until we get an official meaning of PR0 (which I have to assume is a penalty if it has been around for more than 3 months) then linking to a "bad neighborhood" may hurt you.
It seems to me that sites start out at PR2, one link from a PR4 or 5 seems to get a PR2+, exactly how an index page gets below a 2 is an interesting question!
However, blatantly stating that unless you have a PR4 straight out of the bat disqualifies you is plainly naive IMHO!
What Brett said. Danny said this too. If the link helps your users, you should add it.
I had a PR0 a few months ago, but that is because i had a domain with 0 links to it and i hadn't touched in a while.
I approached a bunch of directories in my category a few of them said you have a awesome site we will put you on our main page. The trueth is PR has never been a issue in getting links, i'd say most people are more interested in quality + traffic.
GoogleGuy, are you telling us that linking to a PR0 site that has been properly indexed for sometime will have no detrimental effect on the source site?
Please clarify so that we know whether it is actually safe to link to something that may be under a Google penalty. While there is doubt on this subject many webmasters will remain cautious and Google will be a factor in why the web is taking a less than natural form of development.
I think Class system would be an appropriate word bcoz Caste is where you are born and Class is how much $ you have.You cannot change where you were born but you can change your class by earning more $ ie(in this case) getting a high PR by links from low PR pages.
|While there is doubt on this subject many webmasters will remain cautious |
Exactly the point of this thread. Rather than risk it, we just won't do it. So there goes a perfectly good, informative, well designed, brand new PR2 or even PR0 site.
2 link or not to 2 link, that is the question. Can anyone say whether linking to a PR0 site will affect your PR?
I think you are right mil2k, I see them as social "classes" going to parties with each other. You CAN get there, it's just tough.
As far as I know, the only way to view a rounded PageRank is via the Google Toolbar.
What is the reason behind Google displaying PageRank _at all_? The blub at toolbar.google.com just say's "View Google's ranking of the current page."
Are there any good reasons to reveal Page Rank outside of the Googleplex at all?
|Are there any good reasons to reveal Page Rank outside of the Googleplex at all? |
Maybe it's to keep Webmasters and SEOs focused on obtaining PageRank so they won't try other tricks. :-)
From the start, I have linked to two sites that were banned/penalized. When I looked at their source I could even see what some of their problems were.
One is now out of business and the other is now back in the index.
My links page with these two links on it should have been a PR4 at the time, and it was a PR4 with these links. That is two links out of about 100.
Now if you link out from a page to penalized sites that are marked as a bad neighborhood, and it is a high enough percentage of your outbound links, I suspect that the *page* with the links might get hit, but not the pages that link to the page that gets hit. If that was the case the entire web would be one big bad neighborhood.
The problem is when you are viewed as a *member* of a bad neighborhood. If you join the link farm, or most of the sites you link to are members of a link farm, you might be considered a member. Otherwise, you are just someone with a couple of links to sites that just happen to be in that bad neighborhood.
"...Caste is where you are born and Class is how much $ you have..."
Then how do you explain Bittany Spears?