Forum Moderators: open
Yahoo's backlinks are down from 857,000 to 806,000
Hope you're going to get a PR10 :-)
I just wish they would sort it out.
But yes, one new site I have now has a PR and other sites' PRs seem to be changing :-)
They're not showing the latest versions of a couple of pages from changes made a couple of weeks ago but that's OK, I'll more than settle for the backlinks counting.
Maybe in the near future, Google will be able to compute new PR every day?
23 days since the start of the last backlinks/PR update, and so far I see 4 newer sites (3-4 months old) going from PR3 to PR4, and some internal pages going from PR0 to PR3. I haven't seen any PR changes in the bigger (older) sites.
Now, with all the algo changes recently, if we just knew what value Google places on PageRank these days....
And what they're including and not including, at this point in time.
jd
216.239.33.100 toolbarqueries.google.com
Depending on your M$ system, the hosts file will be in:
c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts OR
c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
The return of scary-bad incompetent crawling.
teeceo.
They ahve been on inkotmi and altavista, but not google.
It is not a PR issue, I have added links from other sites I manage with PR6.
Just seems to me to be a mssive delay in counting backlinks for pr4 sites
But despite Google's recent algo changes and flaky behavior, the best ranking still involves good on-page optimization, quality backlinks and plenty of PageRank.
And every month (except March 2003) Google still gives us an early indicator - despite a few hiccups on some sites - of the updated backlinks and adjusted PageRank.
Its like having the old Google Dance every month... But without the ulcers.
;)
Different situations with a few different sites, but they're telling almost the same thing.
I am not one who subscribes to the "rolling update" theory. I have never agreed with this from the first day I saw it posted here and everyone jumped on the bandwagon about it. Except for those 2 months early this year, I continue to see distinct updates and dances each and every month, however I do see major trend changes with the crawls.
When I check google backlinks for my site, none of these new links have been counted, but they are still recorded as back links to my competitior's site, so of course their SER is much higher.
Waiting for them to count.
keyplyr, I have 2 categories of sites:
1) Older sites (1 to 8 years) that are stable as a rock in the positions I'm quite happy with. In the conventional 'dance' days, these sites would bounce all over the place during the 3-5 day dance period. For the past several months, they have remained stable throughout every month (except a few that got caught in the PDF, DOC .Gov debacle).
2) Newer sites (typically 1 to 6 months online), these sites bounce in and out, and up and down in the SERPS like a yo-yo. After a couple months, they tend to become more stable, but there is still considerable movement every few days throughout the month, and I have not seen anything dramatically changing (out of the norm) during the Google update period.
So, whether it is a "rolling update," more frequent update, or a 'busier' update - It is quite different than the usual, drastic changes I typically saw (with the dance) in prior months and years on the several dozens sites that I manage.
keyplyr, what I would agree with you on, is your contention that Google is updating every month (I thought I was the only one still tracking it). While I personally haven't seen any out-of-the-ordinary SERPS changes, the backlinks and PageRank certainly are, and these are certainly essential incredients to SEO success.
No, it's not a dance like we used to have. But backlinks are definitely now updated on -ex and -sj even with some that have been added in the past month or so.
I thought that it felt a little "dance-like" this week. Does anybody know for sure whether this is part of a regular backlink update,an aberration or a test?
Where has GoogleGuy been lately?
I'm afraid you seem to be paying attention to the wrong things. First of all, anchor text via volume of links, pagerank irrelevant, is all that matters for competitive terms.
Second, the "ulcers" come from Google's failures to process data properly. On page optimization, etc etc etc, all that stuff is easy to do and takes care of itself when Google functions properly. Unfortunately their crawl of the Internet is once again shockingly poor. They can't figure out the differnce between newhoo and dmoz; they can't update their directory without embarrassing themselves; they can't break away from a near total reliance on anchor text.
They keep trying new things, and they fail utterly. First their old deepcrawl failed. Then they lose pages. Then they add and highly rank a bazillion Amazon pages. While they seemed to right themselves last month (though not to the point they could update the directory), now we have regressed again to a situation that is silly in its failure.
=========================
"Where has GoogleGuy been lately?"
Hopefully out hunting for the old deepbot circa January.
Age of site.... regardless of incoming links etc, is age a factor in website ranking? Will and older site with similar setup as a newer site thus always rank better?
Age of site.... regardless of incoming links etc, is age a factor in website ranking? Will and older site with similar setup as a newer site thus always rank better?
Not at all AFAIK. The age only SEEMS to have an effect, because older sites are more likely to have more backlinks.
Is your "not at all" answer based on anything. I WAN'T to believe you but also need to know whether you are stating abolutte fact,firmly held opinion based on some tests, or just logical reason without actual testing of results.
teeceo.
Is your "not at all" answer based on anything. I WAN'T to believe you but also need to know whether you are stating abolutte fact,firmly held opinion based on some tests, or just logical reason without actual testing of results.
Personal experience.. After launching a site 12 months ago, it took 3 months to get a PR6 and another three or so to get that to a PR7. Competing against other sites that have been around a lot longer hasn't proved to be very difficult and as far as I can see, there is no reason to say that simply existing longer helps. I've launched pages and had them gain no.1 spots for reasonably competitive phrases within weeks.
I've also seen many other posts on this matter and the conclusion has always been that the 'age' of the site is irrelevant. There are very few 'absolute facts' in this game, but let me put it this way: having a young site hasn't stopped me ranking well and I 'firmly believe' that age is completely ignored in the algo.
teeceo.
keyplyr, what I would agree with you on, is your contention that Google is updating every month (I thought I was the only one still tracking it). While I personally haven't seen any out-of-the-ordinary SERPS changes, the backlinks and PageRank certainly are, and these are certainly essential incredients to SEO success - netguy
Yes, and I agree that things have drastically toned down from past updates. My "old site" has gained stable SERPs, and rarely changes. I guess the point I disagree with is all the rhetoric here about no more monthly updates, that it has taken on a continual, rolling update schedule. It has not. The monthly updates continue, just not as radical.
As always, Googlebot deep crawled my site a couple days ago, then vanished. It has been my experience that this is always the case prior to an update.
Right now I see the order of my backlinks "dancing" around on several of the Google servers, my PR changed (up) on 80 of my 200 pages and new pages were added today. Gee, this sounds like a monthly update.
