homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.205.47
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
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 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >     
Does Google Pagerank 4 really change crawling rate?
moshebar




msg:3865306
 9:46 pm on Mar 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

hey,
i've read in several places that when a page has PR4 it gets crawled more often (once a day or something like that).
I have PR3 (according to ALL pr checker websites i've been to), and up until last month when i wrote in google site:mysite.net it did not say anything special, but now, every time i write site:mysite.net it says "x hours ago" when x is ALWAYS less than 24 hours .

so first, i have to say i am very happy - the last two months hard SEO work was paid off, at least crawl-rate-wise, but my PR is still 3.

so my question is this:
is it possible that my PR is actually 4 but it still didn't update itself (i know it takes time), or is it still 3, but it's just that my improvements (one of the improvements is a dynamically changing updates on the main page, etc.) made google "understand" that my website does change very often and hence it should be crawler more often ?

i have to say - i haven't done any backlinking improvements - i only made the inbound links better in a lot of ways, along with ALOT more seo improvements .

any way - i'm happier with google at the moment :)
(i also got to the first page in a very competitive keyword :))

 

rainborick




msg:3865363
 11:27 pm on Mar 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

PageRank certainly helps with the depth at which Google crawls a site, and it's important to crawl frequency, too. It's the site's history of changes that seems to be most important in how they set a crawl rate. That is, the more often Google notices that your pages are updated, the sooner they will revisit the site. In turn, the more pages you have indexed (which is largely based on PageRank), the more opportunities Google has of spotting pages that have changed.

anallawalla




msg:3865965
 12:23 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Be sure to observe your site with Webmaster Tools (all three engines have their versions) and see if crawl behaviour changed when the PR of the home page changed.

deadsetchamp




msg:3865967
 12:31 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think that the PageRank that Google displays publicly is generally fairly out of date and if you have been doing a lot of work over the past 2 months than you might actually have moved up to a 4.

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

martinibuster




msg:3866024
 4:28 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

No, no, and nope. :) PageRank 4 is not a significant threshold. There is nothing meaningful about PageRank 4 and it's time the industry stopped ascribing meaning or special worth to it. There is no basis for this. Let's put this myth to rest.

I can't be more emphatic about the falseness of this emphasis on PageRank 4. It has to die. If you are going to get ahead you must walk away from this myth. It's a number that was arrived at in relation to backlink searches many years ago. The situation that gave rise to the myth went away, it ended, but the myth endured. I'll explain.

History lesson
Many years ago Google used to show the backlinks of sites with a PR of 4 or more. This caused webmasters to make the erroneous assumption that PR 4 is the threshold between a good ranking and a bad ranking, that Google did not count links from -PR4 sites. Otherwise, why didn't they show them in the backlink searches? It could be said to have been a reasonable assumption but at the time the Googlers were saying this wasn't the case.

To the webmasters, because Google didn't show links from sites with less than PR 4, they assumed that -PR4 meant you were crawled less, had less authority, etc. Over PR 4 meant your site had finally arrived.

Then during a London Pubcon DaveN suggested to Matt Cutts that this scheme was innacurate and Matt Cutts agreed. Not long after he arrived back at the Googleplex their search engine began showing a sample of backlinks across a range of PR.

Stop and examine the facts
Anyone who has ever ranked a site with an under PR 4 site knows that the assumption that -PR 4 is less worthy is an assumption without foundation. Anyone who has watched their rankings jump with -PR4 backlinks understands that the PR 4 threshold is absolutely false.

The superstition continues
So even though Google began showing PR 4 backlinks, to this very day many webmasters still cling to the mistaken notion that PR 4 is a significant threshold. It is not. This belief in the superiority or meaningfulness of PageRank 4 meets the definition of superstition: "A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence." It's a myth. The healing powers of PR 4 is a superstition.

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.

Shaddows




msg:3866145
 10:48 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Interesting and robust post MB.

By implication then, raw quantity is more important than the 'juice' behind it (excluding the normal caveats regarding relevancy).

So... in your opinion, in two parallel universes where ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL (I'll get stick about that but this is a thought expertiment), would the same site rank better with several PR11 IBLS giving PR3.000000 or with thousands or PR1 IBLS giving precisely the same PR (the G algo PR, not TBPR)? Just interested to know if you think PR is a non-factor overall, or just in terms of crawl budget/frequency

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.

martinibuster




msg:3866152
 11:00 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

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.

realmaverick




msg:3866171
 11:27 am on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

By implication then, raw quantity is more important than the 'juice' behind it...

I definitely didn't interpret that from Martinibusters post.

He was just stating that crawl rate is effected by the volume of entrances to the site.

Remember being crawled and ranked are two different things.

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

Shaddows




msg:3866196
 12:02 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Not from the whole post, just the last sentence:
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.
[Emphasis mine]

So... more links is better than fewer 'juicy' link, in terms of crawlability (even when the objective measure, PR, says otherwise). Or, to restate, "raw quantity is more important than the 'juice' behind it". Apologies if I've misinterpretted this.

I understand your statement is in reference to crawlability, and I was interested if you extended it to ranking issues, but I suspect not.

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

realmaverick




msg:3866210
 12:28 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

A PR4 website, may have all the links pointing to the homepage and yet have thousands of pages. It's unlikely all of these pages will be indexed.

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

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.

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

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

Shaddows




msg:3866238
 1:21 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

A PR4 website, may have all the links pointing to the homepage and yet have thousands of pages. It's unlikely all of these pages will be indexed.

While probably true, that statement indicates a basic misunderstanding of PR. PR is allocated to pages, not sites. There is no such thing as a PR4 site.

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.

realmaverick




msg:3866245
 1:36 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

While probably true, that statement indicates a basic misunderstanding of PR. PR is allocated to pages, not sites. There is no such thing as a PR4 site.

While true, there was a such thing of a PR4 website in the OP's understanding and so I was sticking to that framework. He was asking about his website as a whole, not a page.

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.

Shaddows




msg:3866282
 2:20 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

In reverse order...
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.

I thought we had established this. Thus, I've (mis)interpretted the comment in light of our discusion in terms of link volume versus PR. You said PR doesn't matter, leaving link volume as the key ingredient.

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

Shaddows




msg:3866297
 2:35 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

martinibuster finished a post above with this statement:
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.

Achieving PR 4 with fewer links REQUIRES those links to be of high PR. (PR being determined by the sum of the inflowing PR)

Given this, what factor in particular would you say MOST influences your 'crawlability'?

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")

explorador




msg:3866312
 2:56 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Wow, long thread here. It was mentioned before that crawling is one thing but showing the updated links on Google is another thing. Most of my sites show the G crawler appearing every day. There are diff bots. Lets talk about Google showing your pages (how long it takes to show on the index).

I happen to have a site with PR4 whose new pages appeared on Google Results after 7 days or 4 days. Then I began updating more and more frequently to see what happened (around this update thing).

After a month of doing so, my new pages appear on Google after 12 hours, solid results, not supplemental or "blog" results...

* blog results... I made some tests with a blog and the links appeared like 4 hours later, the same day, but where not as effective, it appeared when you searched directly the literal strings. It didn't show on regular results.

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

martinibuster




msg:3866337
 3:33 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

shaddows, the important word in there is, can. "One can have thousands and thousands of links..." That is a hypothetical example, with a presumption that the links were relevant. A crap link is still a crap link. I wasn't addressing the crapness of a link or either the efficacy of quantity over quality, that's the topic for another discussion. I was discussing the the irrelevance of PR 4 to a discussion about links and crawling.

nealrodriguez




msg:3866354
 3:50 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

i'm running a baby blog that gets indexed a few hours after i publish a post - page rank 0

nealrodriguez




msg:3866358
 3:54 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

i'm running a baby blog that gets indexed a few hours after i publish a post - page rank 0

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

nealrodriguez




msg:3866367
 4:06 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

just found it on google @ 12:05 pm querying the title of the post.

incrediBILL




msg:3866446
 5:31 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are a lot of factors that make crawling happen, the least of which is PR, IMO.

I have a few sites that are fairly static, google crawls them every few days, no big deal.

Then I have sites that update frequently which are crawled like crazy.

One site gets crawled an average of 24K pages per day (from Webmaster Tools stats) which has a crazy amount of daily updates.

So if your site isn't updating a whole heck of a lot I certainly wouldn't worry if Google crawls you less frequently, or doesn't go a deep crawl update, because you set the update tone of your site as static and that's how Google perceives it.

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.

Malatya




msg:3866492
 6:16 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

"i'm running a baby blog that gets indexed a few hours after i publish a post - page rank 0 "

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.

night707




msg:3866735
 10:25 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google PR has no meaning at all since ages. Only for some of the links selling and buying industry.

incrediBILL




msg:3866758
 10:56 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Your blogs, baby or mature, are indexed quickly because your posts are exposed to FeedBurner or something similar that Google monitors for fresh content, nothing more, nothing less.

tedster




msg:3866773
 11:07 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

... no meaning at all since ages

Let's not overstate things - that leads to SEO myths that hurt new webmasters. PR (especially what we see on the Toolbar) may not mean what some people naively think it means, but it is alive in today's algo and a good bit of Google's resources are devoted to it.

With regard to crawling, the crawl-frequency is set algortihmically by many many factors - and it includes some that are rarely thought about. For example:

  • How much crawling can the domain's server handle without problems?
  • Does the domain rank well for queries that are flagged as QDF (query deserves freshness)?

    There are certainly other factors - such as presence of an xml sitemap and whether that sitemap is dependable, uses the optional tags and so on. And the shared crawl cache means that different Google spiders can share information, so that is another factor in the mix.

    PR alone is not a strong signal. Some high PR urls rarely change, and the crawling algo can learn that. Some low PR home pages may change frequently and the CMS pings Google when it happens. And i'm certain that Google's crawl team has thought up more than these factors.

    So we have a very complex situation that generates a complex crawl-budget algorithm. It tries to balance the website's needs and Google's needs.

  • nealrodriguez




    msg:3867297
     5:18 pm on Mar 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

    After some time 8

    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.

    nealrodriguez




    msg:3867301
     5:21 pm on Mar 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

    Your blogs, baby or mature, are indexed quickly because your posts are exposed to FeedBurner

    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.

    explorador




    msg:3868080
     3:29 pm on Mar 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

    Update regularly, I re-checked. One of my sites is pr4 and my new pages appear on google 4 hours later after I publish them. It took more in the past, but I updated every 15 days, now daily or each 3 days.

    mattinertia




    msg:3868184
     5:31 pm on Mar 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

    >> Google PR has no meaning at all since ages.

    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.

    SEOPTI




    msg:3868219
     6:14 pm on Mar 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

    >> Google PR has no meaning at all since ages

    Nonsense!

    martinibuster




    msg:3868222
     6:25 pm on Mar 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

    >>>Yet another mistake... PR is still a ranking factor...

    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.

    This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >
    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.
    Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
    © Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved