|Page Rank Limited Per Genre of Site?|
Is it possible that genre's of sites dictate page rank pssibility?
| 3:11 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I created a widgets network about a year ago (<snip> ) and while I saw a PR of 4 after the first month, I've only seen shifts in PR twice since (on the index pages). Despite decent back links and arguably strong S.E.O. on each site, we've still not seen a PR higher then 5 on any site on the network.
I then look around me the vast see of widgets sites on the net and it is extremely hard to find site's that have more than a page rank of 6. <snip>
But in a genre where back links are so easy to come by, why do I see sub 6 PR on most of the widgets sites out there? I would think that at least some of the back links would bump up the PRís on some of the widgets networks but it doesnít seem the case. Though I have not yet seen success on my network, I would imagine that other networks that have been around for years would have accumulated higher then a PR of 6 by now.
It is worthy of note that it is uncommon to see aggressive S.E.O. on [i]widgets sites since the majority of the community is unaware or does not value S.E.O.[/i]
Is it possible that my siteís genre is limiting the potential PR or making it harder to obtain a higher PR? Or perhaps the sites in my community do not push the S.E.O. envelope hard enough to gain higher PR. Any ideas?
[edited by: trillianjedi at 4:32 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2005]
[edit reason] TOS - examplifying and removing URLS [/edit]
| 4:26 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Is it possible that my siteís genre is limiting the potential PR or making it harder to obtain a higher PR? Or perhaps the sites in my community do not push the S.E.O. envelope hard enough to gain higher PR. Any ideas? |
It doesn't depend on the type of the web site/network.
The question is that is more hard to move up a toolbar point at the higher end than it is at the lower end, since the general opinion is that the divisions are based on a logarithmic scale, or something very similar, rather than the equal divisions of a linear scale.
In fact,if we assume that it is a logarithmic, base 10 scale, and that it takes 10 properly linked new pages to move a site's important page up 1 toolbar point. It will take 100 new pages to move it up another point, 1000 new pages to move it up one more, 10,000 to the next, and so on. That's why moving up at the lower end is much easier that at the higher end.
| 3:32 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have not researched this subject, but for my genre, widget care, it appears to be the case. The Google Directory was where this became clear. The Google Directory shows all of the sites (Widget Care) at my directory level at PR 5 and less, with only two exceptions. Even Widget Care Physicians and major Widget care product manufacturers don't get a lift, whether international brands or garage workshops.
On the other hand, 4 paragraph articles about Widget care topics on media sites, on University or portal sites get bumped a point or three.
So it seems to be about the business genre, but also about the publisher's industry across genres where the media hangs above all, perhaps universities, large general portals etc. ranking below, regardless of the topic under discussion.
I have not seen this discussed, other than in structural algorithm terms (authority sites, hilltop) which should be blind to at least some of these distinctions (?) The media has very little W C content online compared to Widget Care industry participants, but seems to hold the torch. Is it so? Is it (gasp) fair?! :-)
| 4:25 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lets hypothesize two sites as a thought experiment.
Both are nicely optimized, but not overly so, just
white hat stuff.
Both have the same numbers of one-way incoming links
and mutual links,
good high numbers in both cases.
One site is about college admissions, the other is a porn site.
Would one be more likely to gain high PR than the other? - Larry
| 4:53 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I may be completely off base here but couldn't it mean that the categories aren't quite as popular thus less incoming links? Also I think money plays a part. Looking at the categories, big money industries all have good PR sites. Money = Reason to create web pages, also more money means more advertisment and of course more popularity so more links.
In short I think its the market saturation of a category that holds it back.
Granted I haven't counted the number/PR of backlinks in a side by side comparison of 2 equal sites but I'll go with this theory for now.
| 6:43 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|One site is about college admissions, the other is a porn site. |
Would one be more likely to gain high PR than the other?
There isn't reason because a porn site gains a higher PR than a college admission site.
Leave out from your mind that the genre of a site or the number of "hits" or any kind of money investment condition its ranking:
It depends uniquely by its SEO level and from its inbound links network (leaving out "dirty" promotion tactics).
The better is designed and optimized the site the more high is its ranking.
| 6:59 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Looking at the categories, big money industries all have good PR sites."
Well, the biggest global consumer product company in my widget and widget care industry - next biggest to food and probbly the biggest TV advertiser - is PR6.
A single product Mom and Pop producer same business is PR5. Along with most of the participants (3-5).
Of couse, PR has several criteria, but you would have believed linking was major. Apparently not in this case. Something else at work?
| 8:05 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
PR has several criteria.Well said.
Over the number of the links is very important the PR of the page that links you.
And its number of outbound links,because PR seems to be equally shared between all of them.
Moreover when more links point to the same page/site the spider does an alghorithmic calculation that determines on the base of more than 2000 variables the exact PR of the linked page.
This means that if I have 10 inbound links from 10 pages with PR1, my PR will not be 10 but an alghorithmic sum of the PR of the linking pages,that could realistic be between 2 or 3 for example.
And that worth more a link from a page with PR4 and 1 outbound link than a link from a page with PR 8 and 100 outbound links.
| 11:00 am on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dont forget to add site age into this
You might have a good volume of links but imo you dont see the full credit of them for some time as they drip feed into your PR.
Meanwhile a longer established site has had more time for the links to have taken full effect.
Our own site looks like its moving to a PR6 in a high commercial site area. Meanwhile a number of sites above us (21) have higher PR ie, PR7, PR8. The PR8 site doesnt have anymore pages or links than our own site its just google has indexed them over time and the sites reflect this.
In conclusion i think that time plays a major part in page rank
| 1:02 pm on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I started a topic on this abt a month ago:
Often we are confused by ranking in serps in general, so we can also say, within each genre, there are pages with rankings that don't seem to make sense.
The argument comparing college admissions and p*rn apply just as much for 2 same inspired sites within each genre, and thus doesn't prove or disprove anything.
You see as many PR5 (for example) in one genre as any other genre.
The keyword puts you in a genre community within which there is ranking.
I say this but can't say I have investigated whether there is the same percentile spread of PR per genre, but I assume so by plain observance gut feeling.
But I do wonder if the algo criteria used to determine rank is different by genre, that could explain those serps we don't understand because we are assuming same algo criteria fits all genres.
| 1:37 pm on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In my keyword category, 19 out of the top 20 sites were created in 1999 or earlier. One site was created in the year 2000, and it only ranks 18th.
The rankings seem to have little to do with the number of inbound links. Some top 20 sites have 100 or more links, others have 12 or 15.
In my mind, the bias toward older sites (not older links) is pretty obvious. I'm now thinking of launching at least one new related site each year so that down the road I'll have plenty of older sites to play around with.