| 1:57 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|PageRank (the PageRank people see publicly anyways) is completely useless and irrelevant, this is it. |
And yet for some reason folks keep buying into it. What a lovely myth continually perpetuated by the people who bank on PageRank. Boggles my mind.
Pagerank is NOT useless nor irrelevant; it's the ONLY simple measure of an instant page importance for Google eyes. No more, no less.
Folks (me among others) will keep buying into it as long as there is NO OTHER such simple measure. If you have invented another measure to buy please let us know; everyone would love to have another alternative. :)
PS. My opinion does not mean that Pagerank is the ideal best way to measure the importance of a page for Google; but it is still the simplest and most of the times indicates something true, more or less.
| 2:59 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|..the ONLY simple measure of an instant page importance for Google eyes. |
So that's why Fark is PR8. :-)
| 3:03 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If you have invented another measure to buy please let us know; everyone would love to have another alternative. |
Let's be honest here -- PageRank matters to webmasters not because its right idea, but because its used by Google.
| 5:31 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There are other alternatives to page rank but there is always a price.
People just need to stop promoting google and promote a new up and coming search engine instead.
I found a search engine the other day that is a pay per click engine but they give you one billion dollars to bid on keywords with.
It's free to sign up but there is a catch. You need to promote their site from yours. Of course they don't force you to promote them but in exchange for promoting them they give you one billion dollars to bid on keywords first in good faith that you will promote them.
Now to me this sounds like a very good idea that should spread like wild fire if it ever catches on.
I have tried them out and I am recieving no traffic from them so I am assuming they are new. But it still looks to me like it will do very well in the long run.
So there are other alternatives to page rank that are very inexpensive and new.
| 9:23 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
eyezshine, from what you described you seem to agree 100% with me. :)
I said that there is NO other alternative to measure the importance of a page for Google's algorithm.
I didn't mean that Google should be treated as a permanent God; undoubtly it's the one for now but noone guarantees that a new God will not emerge soon!
We have to agree that Pagerank was and still is the search engine's best marketing tool ever invented specifically for webmasters.
| 9:44 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Pagerank can be manufactured easily and effortlessly, making the entire system nothing more than a poor verification that a site might hold some legitimate value.
For a long time now it's only worked effectively (produced an accurate estimate of worth) on the very large scale, like Alexa and most of the other website ranking systems out there.
And as I noted in the beginning of this thread, Yahoo and MSN are now both 9/10's? Gimme a break. As far as I'm concerned it's lost any credibility it had left.
If you want a "quick fix" for checking a website's value, you're out of luck. Every "quick fix" so far produced has proven easy to fake. I use several, including actually looking at the website to see if it's got anything people would be interested in and/or come back for. God forbid webmasters actually do their homework. *gasp*
| 9:47 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Coincidentally, they also happen to be Google's top SE competitors"
Coincidentally, mentioning that helps explain why you don't understand what pagerank is.
| 6:29 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Coincidentally, they also happen to be Google's top SE competitors |
Well, you must admit that this is kind of funny and I can see the point trying to be made. Why would the top ranked sites on the world wide web directly competing with Google only have pagerank 9 instead of 10? Yahoo and MSN certainly have an extraordinary amount of backlinks, so why not a pagerank 10? Perhaps the reason for this is that Yahoo and MSN do not really get targeted links, since they get links from so many websites, of all different types, but then again, so does Google. Hmmmm. On the other hand, take a look at amazon, they show a pagerank of 0 (obviously they are not, but why doesn't the toolbar reflect the ballpark figure?
I feel the comment that was posed was a very legitimate and reasonable one.
| 8:16 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The competitors armwaving and the dismissal of pagerank without an understanding of how it works should be the mind boggling concern.
Better to ask why msnbc, slate, encarta, etc., don't link to www.msn.com but rather other URLs. Why does Yahoo link to its own pages via multiple tracking URLs instead of direct ones? How does Google's practice of linking to its own pages via direct PR-friendly URLs make a difference?
Take the tin hat off and take the time to learn about pagerank.
| 8:40 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo and MSN are not as good as Google thus the PR9 :=)
| 9:30 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i think harley has more than a point.
the only pages of mine that come up in number one spot for a fairly tasty search term have a pr of zero. i have mentioned this in this forum before that loads of you out there seem overly interested in page rank and back links etc and whilst it would seem that this did once make a difference it is clear it no longer does. and I wouldnt dare to suggest that I know more than anyone else on this form (seo is not my bag at all) or even as much i have had quite a few million unique visitors this year so am not a total fool
| 11:03 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is a lame discussion.
Perhaps, the people who link to Google have more pagerank themselves. Also, (yes I'm making a LOGICAL assumption, I havent checked yet) more people probably LINK to Google than MSN. Google is a fairly new, EDU based "cutting edge" project. MSN is also new, but a piece of corporate garbage. More "cool" webmasters who have lots of pagerank themselvse (and EDUs) link to Google than MSN.
As far as Yahoo (also applies to MSN), maybe it has something to do with the 5000 links on each of their portal pages. Many of these outgoing pages dont link back (even the internal ones). Google, how many links do they have on their front page?
Furthermore, go here and notice the "quotes" around the word important. [google.com...]
The only reason some people in this thread say you have a good point is because you started stating "fail to hold an importance of 10 in Google's eyes".
Pagerank is just one piece of how they rank, and a much smaller piece than it used to be.
And harley, you forgot the quotes around importance in your original post. Adding those quotes would make your point.. pointless.
| 3:26 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Right on Icebane! Why would someone be so against Google's pagerank and think such a hoax or whatever? Certainly not MSN or Yahoo that both get a very high ranked 9 out of 10 almost perfect from Gooooogle!
Let's end this subject...
| 5:40 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why MSN and Yahoo have to be PR10? How many of you link to them anyway? Everyone knows the address of Yahoo, so what's the use for our visitors to provide them with a link to it?
And the concentration of PageRank on few big sites is not good for us - it makes harder to achieve any PR for new established site (if I'm not wrong with an assumption that they adjust log base in order to normalise PR in 0-10 scale).
And all these redirected links in Yahoo are another problem. Can't wait till Google start treating redirects as normal links and passing PR through it - now PR is a bit broken because of it, as many sites use redirs for one reason or another.
| 6:48 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google has been figured out. Page rank is history. They are trying to come up with another way to rank pages.
Maybe even more complicated than before which it seems they have done for now until SEO's figure it out again and then everyone will know and the results will be the same as before.
Then they will change it up again trying for that perfect algo that will never come because it's too complicated for even their top employees to figure out.
They need to give it up and just tell people how their algo works so we can all optimise the way we are supposed to so there will be good results.
If I owned google, I would tell people exactly how it worked so it would be no problem for people to optimise their sites.
Then I would put a "Report Spam" link next to each link and hire 200 - 300 people to manage the spam reports.
| 7:03 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
eyezshine please wipe your eyes clearly then get me listed where I belong in DMOZ.
| 11:26 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
SuddenlySara - Please get me 4929312 dmoz listings including 4-5 listings in the same category of the same site! (eMedicine/eMedicineHealth).