In your new world - how would you suggest Google value pages and organise SERPS if not using PR (or their own, undisclosed, internal "algo PR")?
I wouldn't think that most webmasters even know what Pagerank is.
Most of my local web design competition either has little knowledge of SEO or doesn't practice it.
Marco - I'm not suggesting the end of Google's internal PR or whatever they may use in their algo I'm just asking what might happen if it (or any approximation) ceased to be public knowledge.
It's more of a question than a statement.
Also I'm wondering if people think G is not updating the PR on the toolbar on purpose. To me it makes sense why they might not want to - ie to encourage content based linking as opposed to PR based linking. But on the other hand if this was the case why not remove it altogether.
These are not my authoritative opinions just questions I'm interested in discussing.
If they don't kill it before the purple pixels from the other company turn on, or M$ comes out with the 4 colored boxes, it may be harder to kill later on.
|In your new world - how would you suggest Google value pages and organise SERPS if not using PR (or their own, undisclosed, internal "algo PR")? |
Macro, TBPR and algo PR are very different beasts. Why do we need to see that "green" it means nothing these days and creates problem with repsect to PR #*$!ing
"I'm just asking what might happen if it (or any approximation) ceased to be public knowledge"
Honestly? I think we've already seen that, or at least the beginnings of it.
I'll ignore the condescending remarks bringing to my attention that algo PR and TPR are not the same thing (despite that knowledge being evident from my previous post). Why is it that this old chestnut keeps getting dragged out the moment anyone, anywhere mentions "PR"? Anyway....
surfgatinho, if you are suggesting that Google cease displaying any external PR/toolbar PR but still provides SERPS based on link pop how will that help organic, content-based linking?
I'm all for content based linking but unless the SERPS themselves were not link pop based the rush for PR - whether visible on toolbar or visible via SERPS - will continue.
If they ended public knowledg of PR, the only people who would complain are SEO's.
Not a single average user even knows what PR is.
In fact, I think they have already taken that step since what is being displayed is not a accurate representation of what is being calculated.
It's actually quite funny watching people get all excited about PR and backlinks when what they can see means nothing. What matters is where you fall in SERPs, not what that green bar says you have.
|In your new world - how would you suggest Google value pages and organise SERPS if not using PR (or their own, undisclosed, internal "algo PR")? |
The condecending remarks started here if you ask me, however
If you took offence Macro, I apoligise it was not my intention :)
Personally I ignore the green bars. If a site I wish to exchange links with has good content, is of value to my visitors and does not seem to spam the engines, I'll go for it.
Isn't that the point?
In fact, I have links on some of my home pages to sites that I think would be of value to my visitors, regardless of whether they link to me or not, even some that would consider them my competition. I think it makes for a better site.
ukgimp, don't worry about it.
Also, my original comments of "new world" was to refer to a post-PR era, it was not sarcasm. As I've said before I am in favour of pure organic linking. I'm just not sure how we get there and if we can get there at all.
I have disabled the PR display & quit displaying the G toolbar(next will be uninstalled, if it does not improve).
Microsoft put in the popup blocker into XP with the most recent service pack, I no longer have a real need for the G toolbar.
Google toolbar PR displayed is no longer an accurate tool for judging the quality of a webpage for consideration of linking to, or requesting a link from, and those that are still using it to make any sort of decisions, are both limiting themselves, and possibly risking a "bad" neighborhood connection, based on outdated data, basing the decision strictly on the "PR" display in the toolbar.
So to all those who are not linking with the new white bar sites, SEND THEM MY WAY! If they have a quality site, with real content of possible interest to my visitors, and the want to trade some traffic, I'm Game!
I do NOT believe that link exchanges are dead, links between sites are the root of all the traffic on the web, and will forever be a valuable source of traffic. I like one-way links, everyone does, but I take traffic where I can get it. The majority of my links are based upon exchanges, and we seem to do quite well in the SERPs for most of the words we target.
Without PR, the web's linking structure would be more natural. A link from page A to page B could be regarded as A's vote for B. Using this voting concept, new ranking algorithms could be developed. In fact, I already know a catching name for such an algorithm: PageRank. What do you think, should we harvest some venture capital and start up our own company?
You get it ...
PR should have been something that Google kept to itself from the beginning. Revealing it for so long has skewed judgments about the importance of pages that should have been made thoughtfully by people. Google should make it secret now to allow the healing to begin.
Yep, letting people know (or think they know) the PRs of pages has had mostly detrimental effects on the Web. Encourages people to puruse links from sites that are irrelevant.
Actually, the better thing Google could do would be to increase their semantic capabilities when it comes to evaluating links. Not all links should be considered equal, and links related to a website's topic should be considered more important.
Apart from hand checking each page on the web there is no alternative to PR/webrank type automated, link pop based page valuation techniques for deciding SERPS.
That's a big statement. Someone pull out Teoma/wiki or something and prove me wrong.
If there isn't an alternative then the question is - should SEs show their hand? If they don't show PR/backlinks (even assuming they all collude to block "link:") then the canny SEO will use other tools to get a good guesstimate of PR as long as link pop is what counts. The only way around it is to use some non link pop based system.
|Small Website Guy|
|Anyway I'm not sure how intentional Google's lack of updates to PR and inconsistencies in backlink reporting are. |
I think it's related to the "Sandbox Effect".
Google is ignoring, or severely discoutning, new links. So new links no longer increase PR and no longer affect the SERPs. The link doesn't start to count until a few months have passed.
This means that, in the future, the Google Toolbar will always display PR that is several months out of date in the sense that new links are not being counted, but actually it IS current if one considers that the new links are ignored for SERPs as well as for PageRank.
If google were smart, they would replace the PR display with a simple "X" to indicate a penalized site (ie. bad neighborhood).
This would lead to much more natural linking patterns:
- Sale of text links would be done more for the traffic than just for a PR boost. Ie. the links would be much more likely to be relevant if they had actual advertising value.
- Link exchanges would be done more on the basis of quality and relevance of content, rather than "is their PR of sufficient value to me?".
- it would allow new PR0 pages with good content to get links (which is tough now, because a PR0 is such a deterent).
I doubt they'll do it though. They seem to be pretty invested in the "marketing" value of trumpeting pagerank.
"What matters is where you fall in SERPs"
I'm always amazed at statements like this. "It doesn't matter what you did, only where you are". It's a ludicrous way to look at the world, and serps in particular. What matters is *why* you are where you are, not the fact that you are there... unless of course your idea of a good time is wandering around pointlessly in the dark.
Google won't end PR, that's a nonsensical idea. Whatever you call it, it will exist.
If they get rid of toolbar PR it just means an awful lot more money for seos who know what they are doing. Removing the PR display would accomplish nothing except make leave less experienced webmasters and pseudo-seos even more out in the dark.
Google knows that removing the PR display would rocket through the roof the buying of PR. Perhaps that explains the three month update time. Compared to monthly display updates, and to removing it completely, the three month cycle probably leads to the least PR buying... we'll see what happens when the less clueful see the update in a couple weeks (if they do it on a quarterly schedule).
|Google knows that removing the PR display would rocket through the roof the buying of PR. Perhaps that explains the three month update time. Compared to monthly display updates, and to removing it completely, the three month cycle probably leads to the least PR buying... |
Care to share your logic on this? If I can no longer see a "PR8" on a particular widgets.com site, how does that motivate me more to buy a link from them?
I'd argue that instituting a delay of several months will probably generate the most link sales demand, since the thinking becomes "I'd better buy that link TODAY, to increase my own PR by Christmas".
I'd agree they'll always have internal PR in their algorithms, but I can't see how having any display of that PR to SEOs helps them in the long run.
"If I can no longer see a 'PR8' on a particular widgets.com site, how does that motivate me more to buy a link from them?"
By using your brain you decide that something hidden is generally more valuable than something easily seen.
Likewise, if it is not readily apparent to your less knowledgable competitors what you are doing, you will be more likely to do something that works that they won't as readily copy.
This is prettu basic stuff.
PR or not PR is not a big deal,the web will always use the A to B link ,is very well known that you dont have to submit your pages to Yahoo MSN or Google as long you have a good Link strategy with other pages, all of the SE's have a common Algo in follwing links so sooner or later there bots will discover your page .The problem is when you dont have any incoming links.
If you do not like PR, you may turn its display off and do not look at it.
You have freedom of choice.
If Google has not shown PR we would have no freedom of choice.
I have always been believing that freedom is better and the more information to choose the better.
Besides PR is still useful if not misinterpreted. It is like an authority. It is like a people choice.
Sometimes it is important to know whether a site has authority. Sometimes we cannot risk. For example if I search a site to know about a medicine that is vital for my health I cannot take the risk to get advice from PR0 site.
On the other hand if I am expert myself I can of course link to a new good site with PR0.
I would like to note that in science there is a similar index (initially it was in the form of large books). It is called Science Citation Index and proved to be very useful to search for most reliable and popular articles on the subject.
So do not blame paper knife because it cannot cut bread. It is to cut papers, you know.
Vadim - I think PR has a lot to answer for.
I'm not sure if it was ever used by the general public in the "intended" way, i.e. to guage the importance of a site (or page).
As far as I can tell (IMHO) it has been (or maybe was) used to drive a PR crazed SEO industry to exchange links in a completely artificial way. In fact I challenge anybody to say this wasn't the case and that all in all PR has had a detremental effect on the web.
Of course there is freedom whether or not you look at PR but then again most of us live in the real world and when Google are telling us "this site is really important, a link from here would be really good" what are 99% of people going to do?
|PR is still useful if not misinterpreted |
What exactly do you mean by misinterpreted? - Half the sites out there with high PR only have high PR because they have built it up for the express purpose of having high PR!
Vadim-how many users(not webmasters)do you thing they have if they have the GTB are waching the green line?or they have any idea whats a PR,by the way i run PR 6 pages butwhats the steak is how good you ranking not the PR as surfgatinho sayed PR in most cases is a result of link farming and not authority certificate.
the following are my own opinion.
1.PR is just one of the things measure a site. from the begin i know PR. i think it just a reference, it can't tell you a good site or a bad site accurately.
2.PR still the very important thing in ranking, but we don't know the real PR
|Half the sites out there with high PR only have high PR because they have built it up for the express purpose of having high PR |
It does not sound fair for a site to have PR just because they set out to achieve high PR -but, I'm having difficulty agreeing with you on this.
Money speaks. If I have enough for a lobby group and to wine and dine politicians I can maybe make it illegal for anyone to sell hot dogs in Manchester. If money spent on acquiring PR was used for PPC it will possibly achieve the same result i.e. getting traffic to the said site. So, given that PR can be bought, and can result in more traffic, should not the sites with money spend some of it to acquire PR? So where does "misinterpretation" come in? If a site has high PR it is "important". Are you unhappy with Google for allowing sites to "buy" importance... or with the sites for using this route to "importance" rather than PPC?
if you want that "new world" of pure and honest interlinking, just abolish search engines. i remember it was that way once. wouldn't want to toll back, though.
Marco > You are right that maybe a degree of the traffic does end up where it naturally should.
However, I think some of your points are a little academic:
Yes, a site may be important in one sense because it has bought that importance but do you really think this is a) what Google intended PR to be about and b) what a user would want. Shouldn't PR be more about authority.
In G's own words:
|PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web |
|Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank |
I think paying might not be considered democratic or representative of quality.
Also, as I am sure you are web savvy you must know of a multitude of sites with high PR (I mean 7 and over) that have attained this by farming links for the sake of PR - If not look up ... hotels or any other competitive industry.
At the end of the day it depends what you think is important in terms of a web site - how much money it has or the quality of content.
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |