homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.159.11
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 177 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 177 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6]     
Google Page Rank Update November 2007
Much awaited update!
Thaparian




msg:3488636
 7:17 pm on Oct 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

< part two of this discussion is here: [webmasterworld.com...] >

I see PR changes for my 5-6 sites. Some went down some went up.

Check on these datacentres.

72.14.217.104

72.14.221.99

209.85.135.102

My blog went from 3 to 5 PR. :)

[edited by: tedster at 7:35 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2007]

 

ecmedia




msg:3491449
 2:48 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

slay100, I know it is sad but I do not think G entertains any such requests. My theory for your downgrade is that in this update a lot of websites have lost rank and if the websites linking to you also lost rank you will also be affected.

slay100




msg:3491514
 3:29 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

the things is that I had a lot of links, really many. My web site is 8 years old and could not loose many valuable links at once. I have only one idea. Google algo thinks that my site sells links ( I have some external links at the footer to the sites that agreed to put their links on their home page as well and it may look like links space for sale).

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:3491523
 3:41 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have some external links at the footer to the sites that agreed to put their links on their home page...

Reciprocal footer links are about the worst kind of links to have.

Alex70




msg:3491543
 4:00 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Reciprocal footer links are about the worst kind of links to have.
Who said that?
46 million result, first website has recip. footer links..

slay100




msg:3491546
 4:01 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

that's true, I don't agree with that. In my business theme there are hundreds of site with footer links and at least 3 from top 10 results has outgoing links on the home page

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:3491583
 4:41 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

slay100: Apparently they are not working for you now, are they? ok, you figure it out for yourself. :)

Good luck

[edited by: kamikaze_Optimizer at 4:45 pm (utc) on Oct. 30, 2007]

omg1




msg:3491638
 5:23 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Its funny how many people chant when PR is up or down over this next weeks.

An update is not a one off event these days. It probably rolls out a few times and then gets re-rolled.

PR has to be pushed through the system and then verified.

I do think manual penalties is smart by Google.

That is what may have happened to networked big directories and now it's happening to money making big blogs.

The ease of SEO related sites and any site who fits into an Internet theme to get high PR may be lessening. It was easy for them so far.

How could my - shoes sales site - ever get as much links and link baiting

as these - rub each other on the back - networks or the 'make money online' and 'seo tips' sites?

I hope to see some good analysis after the next month.

I predict manual approval on PR 8,9 10 sites.

Sale of links and network or same IP links devalued on PR 6 and 7 sites.

A good PR 4 is the PR 6 of last month.

The Serps will unchange for a few weeks and then the new PR will factor in.

What you think?

[edited by: tedster at 6:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 30, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Oliver Henniges




msg:3491892
 9:09 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thx for the compliment, oddsod

> The question I've never heard answered, or even discussed, is whether this new approach is mathematically equivalent to the original PR formula or not.

Given that the formula is approximative as a whole, I suppose it wouldn't matter very much if former (already rolled-out) values would be taken as the input for the next iterative step every few hours or days. Provided no major changes are made to large parts of the web. But I am no mathematician.

But I have a Counter-Question: Is the new "formula" or approach published anywhere? What about legal implications from the laws of trademarks? Could/Would anyone in America start a case if coca cola changed the ingredients of its famous drink? I mean: It'd taste different, disappointed customers....

> Google certainly has the computing power today to double check and correct PR with a fully iterative cycle once in a while

Well, they have the money to buy a blue gene, but did they? I doubt this can be done on a cluster of ordinary linux-machines anymore.

potentialgeek




msg:3491971
 10:40 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Reciprocal footer links are about the worst kind of links to have.

Unless your site is very liked by Google. Some big networks use lots of footer links to their own sites, e.g., some magazines under a major company. No penalty. I have three little sites with footer links and get sent to the back of the line (-950 penalty).

Supposedly Matt Cutts once said/implied linking to a few similar sites you own wouldn't be a problem, but to many of them would. That may not be the case (any more). I suspect the "link farm" detector dial was recently turned.

(PR on one of these alleged link-farm footer-linked sites was also wacked to 0.)

p/g

P.S. I just saw the three interlinked sites at the end of the search results one after the other.

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:3492147
 2:14 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe "worst" was a bad pick of words.

Very effective and very dangerous might be better.

And with all other things being equal: if you have dropped out of the SERP’s, and the only difference between you and the other guy who is still there doing well is those links…, don’t you think you might want to reconsider those links?

So the ball is in your court. But I won't play with external reciprocal footer links, not now anyhow.

Bewenched




msg:3492187
 3:37 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

A good PR 4 is the PR 6 of last month.

I think you are right on this one. One 12 year old site I used to work on dropped 2 full points .. it's not a money making site or a blog, just good information. Very well established site needless to say.

Ours dropped 1 but our rankings I dont think have been affected. We dont buy links, we dont post on link farms, no spam, purchase adwords, have a few adsense spots on very select pages (to cover bandwidth overages mainly), no keyword spamming, no cloaking etc.... completely white hat however we are ecommerce.

No major flux in traffic other than banning a few shopping bots recently.

The next couple of weeks should be interesting to watch.

TammyJo




msg:3492211
 4:56 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I went to the Google directory and found it had not been updated to match the browser green bar. It was interesting to go down the list and see what has happened page rank wise to some of the sites in our category...very interesting.

I would suggest others do this in their niche...MAYBE GOOGLE SHOULD DO THIS AS WELL. It will give them a good indication of what sites went down and the (not necessarily better) sites that went up in page rank to see if there algo is working as planned.

Sounds simple, but definitely a doable process for one person :)

followgreg




msg:3492255
 6:25 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Reciprocal footer links are about the worst kind of links to have.

My observing results says the exact opposite. I find a bunch of sites gaining and stabilizing in top spots that have homepage backlinks from multiple sites totally unrelated. It used not to help so much anymore, now it does again.
Web designers, SEO's, site counters, template services, all have their moment of glory for a few weeks, all from homepage links on other sites.

Concerning the pagerank, there are so many pages that went grey bar, sometimes I really wonder how or why, that the total PR value to distribute just got much lower.

Time will tell if this has a purpose or if it's a glitch. But when I see GWT still not showing some of our pages ever since proxy hijacks months ago and those same pages got a grey bar. Well it's possible that Google went really far into damaging sites that did nothing wrong.

I am more concerned about this geolocation thing that keeps being totally wrong than with the actual PR though.

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:3492338
 9:05 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Web designers, SEO's, site counters, template services, all have their moment of glory for a few weeks

All have their glory... for a few weeks.

Period.

Johan007




msg:3492349
 9:28 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Look guys and girls, Google simply raises the PR bar every update becuase the simple fact is that sites and the web continue to grow.

WebGuy123




msg:3492376
 10:45 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi,
I started a blog 3 months back and for content i only do copy & paste from other sites.

Interestingly I got PR 4, and google not showing any back links to my blog.

Is this called google dance?

Alex70




msg:3492387
 11:17 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is this called google dance?
I would call this "unbelievable"...

WebGuy123




msg:3492407
 11:54 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Alex! true...its unbelievable

tedster




msg:3492480
 12:58 pm on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

google not showing any back links to my blog

Welcome to the forums, WebGuy123.

The question isn't whether Google "shows" backlinks. The question is whether there ARE any backlinks. Google's reporting on backlinks is almost always partial and even missing (see Google link: operator [webmasterworld.com]). But if then site has backlinks, Google almost always knows about them; they just don't report all of them in public.

cangoou




msg:3492417
 12:16 pm on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi. After the update, I discover that some pages on my sites have a grey PR. The pages are indexed by google, sometimes they are pages with external links, but sometimes they are just normal blog-pages.

Any idea whats causing this?

[edited by: tedster at 1:13 pm (utc) on Oct. 31, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Oliver Henniges




msg:3492690
 3:55 pm on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Another issue that came to my mind today, is the role of dmoz in all this PR-dance. As for my category, some major restructurizations took place a few months ago, and my former PR5-backlink from there (the most valuable backlink I had, I think) went down to PR1 three months ago. It has now recovered to PR3, and for the next update I'd expect it to rise one or two more points again, due to the pagerank of the next upward categories.

Did those of you, who went down in PR, cross-check your dmoz-entries?

If you ask me, the fact that dmoz "normalizes" so slowly, is another argument for the theory that nowadays google does no longer (or very, very seldom at best) loop through all 50 or 100 iterations, but instead takes current values for the input each time PR is newly calculated using only a few loops. But it may also be the case that google has completely skipped dmoz as a "starting point", because it definitely does no longer play the role it used to in the late nineties.

tedster




msg:3492716
 4:12 pm on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

grey PR

There are a number of these reports flying around. I'm guessing that if the page used to show some white or green, and if it still gets search traffic, then it's just a reporting bug and not a "real" problem.

cangoou




msg:3492991
 7:53 pm on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thanks for your reply.


grey PR

There are a number of these reports flying around. I'm guessing that if the page used to show some white or green, and if it still gets search traffic, then it's just a reporting bug and not a "real" problem.

Well its more a problem that only some pages of a site appear in grey. And since they do, some link-exchanger thinks the page is rubbish and don't want to set any links on the whole site anymore. I want to know if there is a pattern which pages are marked grey to avoid this in future, because besides pages with external links some content-pages are affected as well.

Sean_Sloan




msg:3493191
 12:47 am on Nov 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, it means something to SOME people. I hadn't been paying close attention to mine but it just dropped from a 7 to a 5. How on earth can that be good?

steveb




msg:3493284
 3:26 am on Nov 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Dmoz's change certainly impacted PR. A lot of key pages were not indexed around the time of the PR snapshot.

I assume it makes little difference in reality since everything seems more or less right now, which will get reflected on the green bar in seix months or whenever Google updates it again.

Whitey




msg:3493305
 3:45 am on Nov 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this has been previously mentioned , but apparantly Matt Cutts on or about 28th October has sent an email [ source below ] with regards to this update :

The partial update to visible PageRank that went out a few days ago was primarily regarding PageRank selling and the forward links of sites. So paid links that pass PageRank would affect our opinion of a site.

Going forward, I expect that Google will be looking at additional sites that appear to be buying or selling PageRank.

Source : [searchenginejournal.com...]

Interestingly, some consideration seems to been given to where forward links are going, which may be a reason why some Mom and Pop sites have risen.

potentialgeek




msg:3493313
 4:00 am on Nov 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

So Matt Cutts and his link sale war continues.

I have some external links at the footer to the sites that agreed to put their links on their home page...

Just to add briefly to earlier comment. I think Google may be cracking down hard on weak footer links now. I had some old thin sites that I hadn't found time to develop and just lately they've been 950d. The primary common denominator is footer linkage. The 950 smack down started a long time ago and only just in the last week all the footer-linked sites got smacked.

I've removed the footer links and moved up a few links worth keeping higher on the pages.

p/g

< continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >

[edited by: tedster at 7:33 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2007]

This 177 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 177 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved