I'm wondering the same thing too. PR hasn't been updated since January for new pages on some of my higher-PR sites.
I'm beginning to think that they're not going to be updating PageRank anymore.
Can anyone prove me wrong?
I'm betting a Heineken its this weekend. With PubCon and SES over... Google can start the dance without having to deal with drunken webmasters bugging their conference crews. :)
A heiniken...bold words sir...bold words
3-6 months approx.
I heard that at PubCon, DaveN suggested that Google should only update the visible PR and link: data once a quarter or so... ;)
you only have to book google adwords for $10.000, next: u spend googleGuy one night with your girlfriend. if she's good, you have a good chance to get a PR 5 next time, but your listing isnt better than before....then do it all again ;)
a little joke....i have no idea why G dont get new backlinks since 7 weeks, we all wait for a little more green in the toolbar....u dont need to think it is a problem with your pages. no panic, im only 26 years old and have a lot of time - hope you too `?*g*
The last PR shuffle was a start of Jan I think and they used to occur pretty much monthly.
Your guess is as good as mine but I'm fairly certain it won't be much longer now... make that hoping :)
I've shared similar frustrations recently. Heard today that someone's site was updated recently (this month), and they still only wait 7-14 days as before. Wah! No fair!
Did notice that my meta-tag revisit request was 21 days and changed it to 7 days. Bots still visit daily. Googleguy - does the PR of a page affect it's backlink value to other sites?
|I heard that at PubCon, DaveN suggested that Google should only update the visible PR and link: data once a quarter or so... |
Is that a hint as to a new policy or are you just messing? (somebody had to ask!) :)
>> DaveN & once a quarter or so
He suggested a lot of other stuff too. :)
Everybody RUN for your lives, DaveN is running Google!
Dave, can I send you a couple of sites to get ranked?
Yes I heard that... DaveN
|He suggested a lot of other stuff too. |
With jumps in serps up and then back again as well no PR update for weeks on end, one can only guess that PR doent really mean that much anymore anyways.
(waiting for PR updates internal PR4 back links and external backlinks forever: is just a game of chess ... with a dead uncle :P)
The end-game is to get as high up the SERPS as possible. An (seemingly) objective way to judge whether a site (lets call it site X) linking to you will help in getting you higher up the SERP's was to look at it's PR. So if PR is becoming extinct, how else do you judge the value of a link into your site?
One way is to invest a little more time in checking how many sites link into site X.
Here's a great site for doing just that:
So this gives us the quantity, but says little to nothing about the quality of links from this site. I've read on WebmasterWorld that Google will only show a backlink with PR's of 3 or higher (any confirmations or refutations?)
If this is true, then you want sites showing a high amount of links through G (rather than other SE's), as that indicates site X has quality links.
An easy rule of thumb is to get links from educational and governmental institutions. G's definition of an 'authority' site includes these.
I'd love to hear your experiences and authority readings (no speculation please).
>Google will only show a backlink with PR's of 3 or higher
correct and like most I'm still waiting to see an update!
I briefly saw today a change in PR on a few pages I monitor - in the past, this behaviour has always preceded a PR update.
With Google updating backlinks every month or so instead of every week or so, I believe, it's a good idea to focus on sites that are very related to your domains subject matter with aggressive webmasters that are working hard to improve their own site with quality backlinks. The reason, I've seen websites go from 0 backlinks to 50 or more between PR updates. Don't assume that a website with few backlinks will always stay that way. If you can find 10 or so sites that have aggressive link swap webmasters, you'll find that you can go along for the ride up with them. If you only focus on currently high PR sites, you'll be missing a bunch of future growth. Besides, folks with PR 6 or higher sites are not as likely to want to trade links with you if your sites is new or only has a PR of 3 or 4. I hope this makes sense.
Thx for the heads up Gypsy Child.
Mark - very good point. This again of course requires more diligence than merely looking at a PR.
So what signs do you look for to spot a webmaster with an aggressive links campaign?
Here are some ideas, please add:
1. A thought out directory structure (as opposed to mere alphabetised lists).
2. Relevant links, rather than random.
3. Links pages no more than 2 clicks from their home page.
This is assuming they are building reciprocol links. What you'll miss with the above logic are sites writing quality content and other value for visitors to link to. So perhaps best is to start with a G search for your key search phrase and work your way down the list. Modelling what G rewards...
>>I hope this makes sense.
Perfectly. The problem to the small business here is quite frankly finding the time to do all this imo. Googles recent years is now forcing you to employ "an aggresive" linking policy.
Now when you do ... of course they can then slash your serps because of all the quick new work.
I personally on the 10 sites i work on and manage have put up link pages to 50 or 100 sites in a week of dedicated work only to be penalized for linking up so quickly to sites that do not link back. Whats that all about?
The idea of getting any number of webmasters to link up to you at the same time you link up to them is a dream that quite frankly just doesnt come true. No matter how hard you work .. some bod at google just desides they dont like you and blam your dead.
I know alot say that there is no conspiracy surrounding google and it is all done by software but honestly.
I know of several very high ranking sites in my industry that have single link pages with several 100's on links on the same page and yet .. no penalties ever. If we are suppose to read addvice fomr the source and play fair .. eg you link to me i link back with less than 100 links per page blah blah google blah .. why dont they put there money where thier advise pages are?
I have and do still listen to what they are saying but to no avail. Yet others dont, dont play fair and get away with it.
Conclusion .. conspiracy.
<waits another 2 months paciently for a pr update>
|More Traffic Please|
There used to be a tool available that would allow you to type in your URL and then would give a list of the most common words used in anchor text by the sites that link back to you. Does anyone know if this tool is available anywhere?
4. Links page, or resources directory, is linked from all (or most) pages on site, as opposed to home-page-only-link. Usually I randomly check couple important pages, no link to "Links" = no business.
Good distinction Rytis
So how about this scenario: if the navigation bar included the main links/directory page (1 click from home). Then the page linking to you was found on this links/directory page (2 clicks from home). Are you saying that you'll not link to this site?
Assuming PR still counts for something (which I'm becoming increasingly dubious of). If the home is a 5, the links/directory will probably also be a 5, and the page linking to your page will be a 4. So you will be turning down a page with a PR of 4 and may be relevant to your site and perhaps has very many links into it on what research? I struggle with most posts on WebmasterWorld where the person making them either doesn't explain their foundation research or is just reacting on a whim of something they have read. Please clarify.
Well folks, I had a gut feeling that the back links were going to update this past weekend. Oh well, so much for my gut feelings. :)
#5 and #6 say it all - there's a good reason the PR update has taken so long...
I sure hope they mean every quarter which we are coming up on and not three total month. If it's the later, we'll be waiting another two months.
|I heard that at PubCon, DaveN suggested that Google should only update the visible PR and link: data once a quarter or so... ;) |
Googleguy... are you kidding? Visible or not this will make Google look slower and less timely than the new competition. How can that possibly benefit Google?
Just my opinion, but on the surface that makes it appear to me that Google is technically unable to keep up or that he has problems?
Can you clarify?
I think the key here is "only update the visible PR and link: data". I would assume that they would update PR and link data more often but only update it so we can see it once a Quarter.
It's actually not for all the sites, though. I have noticed that Google has been updating PR for certain sites (domains that are going to expire soon are being given a PR0 shortly before they expire).
|It's actually not for all the sites, though. I have noticed that Google has been updating PR for certain sites (domains that are going to expire soon are being given a PR0 shortly before they expire). |
About to expire? You mean they have not expired and Google is changing the PR even though they are still live and could be renewed at anytime before they expire. Sorry, but I find this hard to believe. Could you point me to some documentation on this subject? Thanks.
<update> I remember a few months ago, The Washington Post website expired and was removed by Netsol. Even when the page wouldn't come up, the PR was still present.
| This 60 message thread spans 2 pages: 60 (  2 ) > > |