| 2:55 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I guess the PR is not really 0.
One of my sites has a PR5, but since some days it shows 0.
It has only 1 major site giving them PR.
I guess until this 'mother company' is fully updated, their links don't get counted, as there are no other backlinks => PR0
I know for sure we didn't get penalized.
| 3:01 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG said not to may so much attention to PR.
I've got an internal page that is PRO becasue it is new, yet it shows up as number #1 beating established sites with a high PR. No links to it or nothing, strictly on page optimization.
It was picked up by freshbot over a week ago and has stuck in the index without experiencing the normal everflux. I think this is part of their rolling update where pages get indexed and stay indexed instead of dropping out until the update.
This is a good think!
| 3:07 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sly, i'd say it's still to early to draw conclusions. To me it looks like not all backlinks are counted yet and the influence of pr on rankings isn't factored yet. Some of my inner pages went pr 0. Some went grey (gray). Beside some very speculative guesses, there's no apparent reason that this "phenomenon" could be caused by me. And most importantly: the sites are still ranking ok. But concluding that pr 0 does you no harm is way risky.
However, i'd agree with you, if you'd say: pr has been overweighted by webmasters since ever. ;)
| 3:24 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh, I forgot to mention that my site still has the same position in the SERPs as before.
| 3:34 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Guys, maybe I'm a bit off on this, but, the more I observe the whole thing about Pr, the more I think that perhaps, in a not too distant future, Google will take less and less importance about the whole PR aspect.
I mean, look at it yourself: A well optimized site with a pr of only 1 can beat a site with a pr of 5 or 6... (!)
I have seen it myself dozens of times...
I seriously think that PR is not and won't be as important in the future than it was in the past. The new algo I think is starting to show us that now.
Maybe Google Guy cannot tell us more... I understand his lips are sealed (and they have to be too). There is now way Google will give us or even sell us (!) their magic recipe / formula...
But, I still beleive that PR is not that important anymore and, as times goes by, will probably have less and less importance in the overall serp's.
But, as always, I would certainly like to get your input / feedback on this important subject. I'm I off my rockers?
| 3:51 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I know applied that Applied Semantics' products enable web publishers to understand the key themes on web pages to deliver targeted advertisements but couldnt the technology be just as easily applied to search and thereby reduce the importance of PR. Could G. be testing it out?
| 9:24 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Of course PR0 is not always really 0. It's just something between 0 and 1. I'm sure a penalty is really 0.
It is curious though. The sites that rank well lately have masses of backlinks with relevant anchor text. Of course the only way to get them (unless you are IBM or Microsoft) is to make a zillion link swaps, sign a zillion guest books or make the links yourself from your own sites. None of those seem desirable to me from a search engine perspective, so I'm having trouble figuring how this could be an improvement on the "old" PageRank system.
Paying for pagerank seems such a minor problem now when you realize that anyone can get a decent ranking using one of the techniques above. Any of those techniques is easier than obtaining pagerank illicitly, meaning Google is now easier to manipulate.
| 10:50 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Take a look at Cnet.com and News.com right now. They both have PR0. These are two of the oldest, most popular and informative sites on the Internet. Yet they have somehow fallen foul of Google's new rules.
So what will be Google's response I wonder? A manual fix or undertake a serious review of their over-zealous anti-spam algorithms? If such high quality, unoptimized, high content sites aren't safe, what hope is there for the rest of us?
| 10:52 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Their index page may have 0 PR,|
but their front page still hold at PR(9)
| 10:56 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If there is a steep competition from the keywords, i think PR still does matter.
Have you check your keywords for the recent update? My site was semi-penalize and got PR 0 now (and still working on it) then my SERP from #1 and #2 turned into #3 and #4. It still okay but it sure better to be #1. :)
| 1:08 am on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ignore PR at your peril
PR0, will not be PR0 when backlinks are updated.
Sure there are loads of PR0's at the mo, but they are not "real PR0's"
| 1:18 am on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A true PR0 cannot beat a PR7 for the same keyword phrase, relax all you PR0's unless you have something to hide.;-
| 1:38 am on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Paretos_Dog you are right about cnet.com and news.com
| 1:46 am on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, in my opinion it is a bit hard to believe that
they will "give up" a concept, Pagerank, which is even
secured by a trademark. The process of transition is
obviously still in progress and we should just "wait
and see" stresslessly :-).
| 7:57 am on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can't disguise the eye twitch though.
| 1:10 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites dropped from a #1 position in the SERPs to the middle of page 3. Other sites that didn't even rank on the first page a week ago now have deeplinks ahead of my first listing. My index page shows a PR0 (whereas it was a PR5), while some of my internal pages are from PR1 to PR5, although some of them are now gray. I have had no hits from Google since yesterday afternoon. I show up in the Google director, but don't even have a PR bar.
I'm going to assume that this is a temporary glitch, or that things are still settling, and I'll try not to look at at it again for 24 hours.
| 2:11 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
sorry to interrupt .. but can anyone say if the following link is a penalty or what? PR0 :
[edited by: NFFC at 2:13 pm (utc) on May 26, 2003]
[edit reason] No URL's please [/edit]
| 2:56 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
o sorry .. style codes has the url thing so i used it .. can i post the link without the url tag? how can show the link to u guys here?
| 3:32 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey seofreak, first, read the TOS [webmasterworld.com]! We're serious about those rulez! ;)
WebmasterWorld Etiquette 101 (I never made it to 202!):
Include your URL in your profile [webmasterworld.com], interested users will go look for it. Don't include, "URL is in my profile" in your posts!
Use StickyMail [webmasterworld.com], our internal email system, to exchange specifics with interested members.
| 4:01 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I know that a number of large sites generally have seen this, but I've seen a lot of link popularity check sites be hit by this.
Some examples (I have no vested interest in any of these, they aren't my sites):
The common factor I can see is that they all utilise Google in a manner that would be against Google's T&Cs, most of the above being automated link popularity checks.
[edited by: NFFC at 4:03 pm (utc) on May 26, 2003]
[edit reason] No URL's please [/edit]
| 4:27 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google Answers has PR0 - looks like PR 0 is not so important at the moment.
| 4:39 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You all are trying to analyse something half completed and project it onto what Google intends to do in the future. GG suggested that you ignore the toolbar PR, you might want to take him at his word this time.
Sure, have fun trying to figure it out if you want, but you should always keep in mind that you are going on very slim evidence, and some people will read your speculations as being fact.
| 4:48 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|GG suggested that you ignore the toolbar PR, you might want to take him at his word this time. |
Hehehe, are we being groomed for the demise of the Google Toolbar?
The overall argument seems to be that it should be taken away due to the abuse of the system that it has caused. What would we do without it? For most of us, the same thing we've always done, with a little more caution. ;)
<edit>Per BigDave's suggestion.</edit>
[edited by: pageoneresults at 5:24 pm (utc) on May 26, 2003]
| 4:50 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Some PR0s are not PR0. I have several PR0s that show backlinks, so what you're seeing as a PR0, may, in fact, be a PR4+. Don't trust anything you see right now in the toolbar.
| 5:11 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Hehehe, we are being groomed for the demise of the Google Toolbar. |
I would change the "we are" to "are we" and put a question mark at the end.
I think the toolbar is just broken and it is a low priority to fix. Tell the truth, which would you rather have the backlinks counted and some spam filters working, or the little green bar showing everything right?
| 7:21 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I think the toolbar is just broken and it is a low priority to fix. Tell the truth, which would you rather have the backlinks counted and some spam filters working, or the little green bar showing everything right?
I agree. However, with a broken Toolbar PR reading, and a directory that doesn't display the PR correctly either, it is very difficult to see what might be going on.
I also see sites, claiming to be PR1, ranking high for some very common search terms. They show backlinks which suggests their PR is not really one at all. It is difficult to have PR1 with a couple of PR6, several PR5 and numerous PR4 sites as backlinks?.....if those numbers can be believed either!.....It's a great way for Google to keep SEO's confused for a while!
I guess the best thing to do right now is put all effort into new content development and wait a few weeks to see how this lot comes out of the wash.
| 7:41 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Speaking of laundry, I am gonna ship a box of detergent to the Googleplex. This is a seriously dirty update.
| 8:55 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree - I didn't think things could get worse after April and a few days ago I held my breath because, briefly, very briefly, I saw a glimmer of better but yesterday the bottom fell out, even worse then the April thing - my opinion, anyway, for what its worth.
| 9:05 pm on May 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"It's a great way for Google to keep SEO's confused for a while! "
I ain't confused, look at results and no more.
Now if I was PR 9/10 than would be real confusion
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 (  2 ) > > |