Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

That said you can be a low PR site and still get crawled regularly if your content is updated often and consistently enough to keep the search engines wanting to come back

So what determines crawling?
What determines crawling is the amount of links you have. Each link is a new door, so to speak, for a bot to find you. One can have thousands and thousands of links and still rank under 4, yet be better and deeper crawled than a PR 4 with less inbound links.

In regards to the OP, if you have a site with that is frequently updated and ranks well, it is in Google's best interests to keep up with it. After all, it wants to send referals to a page that answers the searchers' query.

Sorry if my post gave you that impression, but no. That's not the implication at all.

I'd never go for raw quantity when link building.

[edited by: Shaddows at 12:03 pm (utc) on Mar. 9, 2009]

Martinibuster isn't saying masses of links are better than quality links.

If a lower ranked site, had a higher quantity and deeper links, it's likely to be crawled more often AND crawled deeper.

At no point in the thread so far has anyone suggested a lower ranked site is an indicator for anything. I asked about ranking as an outcome, but thats beside the point. The point currentlyt under discussion is whether I've misread the thrust of the argumement whereby link quantity is more importants than total link power (PR being a measure of link power, and baring in mind the quote in my last post)

Also remember that toolbar PR isn't real time. So in theory the lower toolbar PR website, could have far more link juice going to it, than the PR4 website.

This is completely irrelevant. Of course TBPR is not a current measure. I'm asking about the realworld PR (I thought possibly this would be clear from the multiple decimal points in my original post, but maybe not). So, where more links but less PR equates to higher crawlability.

The main point is, PR, doesn't relate to crawl rate or depth

Right, now we're getting somewhere. So you believe crawl rate is PURELY about link quantity with no reference to the PR of those links (and thus the PR of the page). Interesting, but kind of contradictory to MB's refutation of my original post:

By implication then, raw quantity is more important than the 'juice' behind it... Sorry if my post gave you that impression, but no. That's not the implication at all.

Martinibuster isn't saying masses of links are better than quality links.

Right, so what was meant by

One can have thousands and thousands of links and still rank under 4, yet be better and deeper crawled than a PR 4 with less inbound links

Baring in mind that PR4 is measure of how much juice those IBLs had.

At no point in the thread so far has anyone suggested a lower ranked site is an indicator for anything

You're right. I should ensure I'm using correct terms. I should have said.. "Lower page rank.."

The point currentlyt under discussion is whether I've misread the thrust of the argumement whereby link quantity is more importants than total link power

It's subjective. It would depend entirely on the links in question. 30 links from websites that were crawled several times daily are better than 3,000 links from sites that are indexed once every 6 months.

Right, now we're getting somewhere. So you believe crawl rate is PURELY about link quantity with no reference to the PR of those links (and thus the PR of the page). Interesting, but kind of contradictory to MB's refutation of my original post

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that a high PR website, doesn't guarantee it will be crawled regularly or deeply.

Right, so what was meant by One can have thousands and thousands of links and still rank under 4, yet be better and deeper crawled than a PR 4 with less inbound links Baring in mind that PR4 is measure of how much juice those IBLs had.

As you said PR is a measure of PAGE RANK not SITE RANK. The page doesn't need any IBL to have a PR4.

What was meant, was exactly what he said. A website CAN not DOES. He didn't anywhere in his post, state that this was the rule. He said it CAN. And he's spot on. A website with thousands of links and rank under 4, can be better and deeper crawled than a PR 4 that has less inbound links.

But it could also be reverse. It would depend on the links and quality has a BIG role to play.

Freshness, quality and quantity of content is also going to come in to play. If a website hasn't changed in 6 years but has 30,000 links, it's unlikely to be crawled as often as a 3 year old website with 3,000 links and daily fresh content.

The overall message is that high PR does not in any way guarantee higher or deeper crawling.

My fault there, but given we were talking about link volume versus PR, and you saying PR doesnt matter, and also that your not saying its all about link volume, I was left a bit confused. Except you made a properly good point (hence reverse order)...

It's subjective. It would depend entirely on the links in question. 30 links from websites that were crawled several times daily are better than 3,000 links from sites that are indexed once every 6 months.

Outstanding idea. So every time a link comes to G's attention (gets crawled), you get a bit of crawl budget. Having an IBL on a frequently crawled page (regardless of that page's PR) would be the most beneficial crawl-wise.(BTW, I know you haven't said this, I'm just running with the idea).

My only problem would be the chicken-or-egg paradox (infinite regression). SOMEONE would have to have a differentiated crawl rate in order to pass it on.

Please do elaborate on how you envisage this would work.

I should have said.. "Lower page rank.."

Ok, but then its just an established point (more inbounds increases crawl rate). Let me try to frame my POV as a question.

Actually, I'll make it a new post as people are likely to just skip this quote/unquote exchange

Candidates discarded so far:
Link Volume ("thats not the implication at all")
Link Juice ("yet be better and deeper crawled")
Crawl speed on refering pages ("SOMEONE would have to have a differentiated crawl rate in order to pass it on")

So I think links from other sites have an impact
But how often you update is a key, I think

i just posted @ 11:54; i'll let you know when i find it indexed.

For instance, if you're running a blog, how deep does Google really need to crawl when you submit a new post? That's right, 2 pages, the main page and the stand alone blog post page. Sure they'll update the other pages eventually but it's not that important, only the latest updates are important the moment to get your fresh content and the deeper crawl can happen gradually over time.

The new sites are often indexed by google.After some time 8maybe google fully index the site) you will see, the bots came rarely.You have to use this chance.

if you mean after 8 posts; i already have over 20; i have found google to index all blogs - old and new - i have run fairly quickly after posting.

well, i do run my feeds through feedburner; i didn't know that got me indexed quicker. i just did it because i like to show how many subscribers i have when the user base grows; and it also consolidates all types of feeds - rss 2.0, the other rss, atom.

Yet another mistake... PR is still a ranking factor and I dont think that any knowledgeable SEO would ever dismiss it. If youve ever tried to get a low PR site to rank for a competitive phrase then I'm sure you'll understand that PR is STILL important.

Nonsense!

I think you may have misunderstood night707. What they're referencing is the Toolbar as a reliable measure of quality and how it's a yardstick commonly used for the commerce of links.