| 9:29 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
When I see youtubes PR back up. I will believe that the PR 9 that Apple and Yahoo are showing is almost a drop across the board and MSN at 8.
Can anyone see and 10s apart from google.com? Looks like a new standard being released.
[edited by: Interent_Yogi at 9:31 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2007]
| 9:49 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> Can anyone see and 10s apart from google.com?
| 10:03 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I guess they are not in competition with google .. YET
| 10:29 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
usa.gov is 10, too.
sounds like politics =))
| 10:54 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"New sites still have to build up a long term link base and I have seem several old sites gain in this update."
All it takes is one link a day before the cutoff date to get PR. When someone posts their new site went from PR0 to PR3, that had to come from somewhere.
With more sites competing for the pie, PR will inevitably go down for most sites. Some that get particularly more links will go up, but ten years from now when there are 1000 times as many pages on the Internet as their are now, the toolbar will obsolete itself as most everything non-spectacular will be PR2 or below.
| 11:10 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
not really.....the visible tbr will most likely be scaled to say represent a percentage of your relative pr..so for example the top 3% may be pr10....top 90-70% pr9..and so on down the line...it would be easier for google then to have a tool that says something to the public while being less of a tool for webmasters looking for relative changes to guage a link getting session...in wotever form that may have been....
| 11:38 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The YouTube issue may be explainable - cananonicals.
www.youtube.com - PR3
youtube.com - PR3
www.youtube.com/index - PR2
youtube.com/index - PR2
No redirects. All the same page.
uk.youtube.com - PR7
uk.youtube.com/index - greyed out
| 11:51 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"so for example the top 3% may be pr10"
In which case it would be something completely different than it is now, so there isn't much point in talking about that. PR is link power now, and a trillion new links is going to lower the link power of the vast majority of pages that were in existence prior to the creation of those trillion links.
| 11:53 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
w3.org is still PR10
| 12:46 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|"so for example the top 3% may be pr10" |
In which case it would be something completely different than it is now, so there isn't much point in talking about that.
and yet i was commenting on your assertion of the pr2 upper limit years from now. But that situation that doesnt refer to the near future had a place but an idea of what may replace it doesnt?
It would be the same as it is now, simply projected in a visually different way. relative merits would be unchanged which is what pr is. Relative link power.
| 12:50 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|With more sites competing for the pie, PR will inevitably go down for most sites. |
I've been under the impression that all pages have, regardless of any other page linking to them, some initial PR 'voting' power, which is dampened with each link forward.
That would make the pie bigger, and not inevitable lead to slide in PR for most sites.
However, if that is not the case anymore, and PR comes from, say trusted seed sites (TrustRank), that would explain the downward adjustment in many cases as internal pages would count for less than they used to.
| 1:58 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hunh, interesting. Most of my home pages stayed the same, but large increases on internal pages, which is good. However on my primary site, the internal page that held the highest pagerank for years seems to have completely dropped out of the index altogether. Weird. Hope it's a glitch. Another page which seems to have been 950'd the past couple weeks jumped from a 1 to a 4. Go figure.
| 2:40 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've now got the same toolbar PR for a whole slew of index.html pages, including my home page. Granted, one might have a "green gauge" ranking of 5 because it's 5.99 and the other might show 6 because it's 6.01, but the fact that pages with vastly different numbers of internal and external backlinks are showing the same toolbar PR is interesting.
Mind you, I haven't seen any evidence that toolbar PR is critical to rankings--at least for the moment. My top-ranked competitor for one major keyphrase has the #1 spot with a PR3 page, while my PR5 (formerly PR6) index page for that topic is in the same #2 position where it's been for quite a while. (It's been #1, #2, or #3 for years.)
| 3:13 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yea, I'm not noticing any ranking changes at all, good bad or indifferent.
| 3:43 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yes this has been the case since big daddy to my eyes....visible pr is pr mixed with some other factors....index pages being one and age another...its hard to pin it down but sometimes it seems theres even the old guess work going on as it did in the old days..when you were assigned an assumed pr..for example each directory would lose 1 pr from the base page in early updates and then be corrected over time for new pages...
| 3:43 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Something re new site n PR that puzzled me: launched a site a few months ago; had maybe handful of inbound links, yet promptly PR 5. Now PR 4.
Not scintillating in the SERPs tho. (Heck, even beaten for one major term by a PR 2 page on a free-to-create site I made some years ago: google results for this term not real impressive, so indeed seems there's more than PR that can be improved on).
| 5:02 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I've been under the impression that all pages have, regardless of any other page linking to them, some initial PR 'voting' power, which is dampened with each link forward. |
That's not exactly the way PR is figured - although you do have some of the elements in there. First, let's discriminate between the process of calculating PR and the actual PR that is finally "awarded" to a url.
For calculation purposes (only), every url in the link graph is awarded some starting value. This value is completely arbitrary, because PR calculation is "iterative" - that is, the calculation goes through repeated cycles, around and around the link graph, changing every url's PageRank until the PR values stop changing at any significant level. For instance, a new full cyle through the link graph is only changing values at the 11th decimal place, or whatever level is important for ranking calculations. The "damping factor" in the PR equation ensures that the calculated PR values actually will close in on a limit.
But to be in on the calculation cycle, the url must be on the link graph in the first place - no backlinks? no PR!
| 5:12 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|launched a site a few months ago; had maybe handful of inbound links, yet promptly PR 5. Now PR 4. |
I've built a few small sites for friends and have seen the same thing. Matt Cutts once mentioned on his blog that there are factors in Google's total algo intended to help "mom and pop" sites - so that they aren't comletely buried by those with big money and large numbers of pages that a small mom-and-pop could never approach. I've always assumed that artifically high PR was at least part of that attmpt.
| 8:15 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
But does the PR matter? No, forget it! If you are number 1 in the SERPS, you have achieved your goal even if PR is 1. If you are number 100 in the SERPS with a PR of 8, you have failed. End of story as far as I can see. PR is a total red herring.
It may of some technical interest why PR does not correspond to SERPS results, but it's all theoretical. I'm concentrating on my places in the SERPS at the total exclusion of PR. After all, all Joe Public understands is the SERPS; PR is a total mystery to the average search engine user. And quite rightly so.
| 8:38 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It may of some technical interest why PR does not correspond to SERPS results, but it's all theoretical. |
Well, it isn't theoretical to the people who sell or buy links based on PageRank. :-)
For those of us who aren't into link selling or buying, the recent PR changes are intriguing or, in some cases, worrisome because of what they might imply about future rankings. (Disclaimer: Note the weasel word "might," which could just as easily be "might not" or "don't.")
| 8:40 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Its a mysterous to me as well, I can't understand how a site that has hijacked thousands and thousands of results is carrying a pr6 and many of there hijacked pages of other peoples content carrying pr4-5
| 8:41 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've seen a few changes, although most pages remain the same PR as before.
However, I'm surprised (kind of) to see that a lot of the pages that are listed as not yet receiving Page Rank are still without page rank. This includes newly published pages, as well as others that were published years ago but were caught up in the -950 Penalty, but have since recovered.
I was hoping that some of these, showing as Not Yet Ranked in Webmaster Tools, would have gotten a ranking this time, as it's been quite a few months now since my site recovered from that insult.
I guess I'll wait to see what happens next round, traffic is up but still not where it was prior to when the site was hit a few years back. Despite fixing a slew of issues that weren't issues when the site was built, it would appear the amount of time to fully recover is based on the amount of time it was penalized to begin with.
So...I just have another 2-3 years to wait...
| 8:43 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
When I investigate top rankings for highly competitive search terms, I can definitely see that PR is one factor involved in ranking - it's not the whole story by any means, but it's in there. If the search is not very competitive and/or not very frequently made, then the relationship may not be quite so obvious.
But I would definitely agree, watch rankings rather than PR. Or more to the point, watch your traffic. That's where success is made.
| 11:03 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"I've been under the impression that all pages have, regardless of any other page linking to them, some initial PR 'voting' power,"
No, unlinked pages are not born with PR. The only way to get PR is to get links from existing pages.
| 12:00 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"No, unlinked pages are not born with PR. The only way to get PR is to get links from existing pages. "
Or to hijack page as this pr update is going out of this way to reward.
| 12:04 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Bloody hell even seeing hijacked content getting higher pr than the original page. I was promised this update was another "florida" should be called "for florida". Its a #*$!ing disaster.
| 12:32 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My site lost 1 PR point site wide. I can't bother. I have never found any correlation between PR and the number of visitors my site attracts or how my users value my site. To me it's a meaningless figure.
| 12:37 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
all my sites gained PR, one went from PR 5 to 8 the toolbar update is delayed image of what has been your PR for the last 6 months in most cases...
| 1:23 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Heh. My blog went from a greybar lasting 9 months to PR4.
| 3:21 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting - we launched a new site around 5 months ago, using the same self proven site architecture to distribute internal PR that we use on other sites.
The site's have just displayed PR on the TBPR - home page has no PR , the internal pages have PR 4 / 3 and 2 right down to the deepest pages. All pages link back to the home page.
Any ideas on this, or are we just waiting for Google to complete it's routine?
| 5:31 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Matt Cutts once mentioned on his blog that there are factors in Google's total algo intended to help "mom and pop" sites |
Could it be the reason why a large numer of low quality sites found their way to the top for the past month or so? Did they tweak their algo this way?
It's not because you have a mom and pop type of website that you are not trying to increase rankings. And it's not because you have such site in SERP's that it enhances searcher's experience whatsoever.
Mom and pop sites I know of are likely to buy cheap SEO offers and therefore cheap manipulation is somewhat misleading to the searcher landing on the site at the en of the day.
Even though this sounds like a nice idea, the only justification I find for this is increasing PPC revenue, I would be glad that someone just pitch in and give another logical explanation.
I don't know how this works in Google's algorithm but let's say that a certain % of the top 20 would be given to so-called "mom and pop" sites.
Shouldn't this be restricted to showing up for obvious local type of searches? As of now I find the lowest end of local businesses compteting along with top level authorities on non-local kewyords and this does not make any sense to me at all.
[edited by: followgreg at 5:37 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2007]
| This 177 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 177 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |