Forum Moderators: open
Is this spamming by exclusion?
Frankly, this is getting rediculous. I wish Google would remove the page ranking from the toolbar because it's really being used for the wrong purposes. People should link to other sites based on content and the opportunity for relevant exchange of traffic, not for manipulation of and commercialization of Google page rank.
Now let me show you the 10,000 PR 6's that are making money...
Point is that if you know what you are doing you can gain much more than PR from exposure on the web
Hey, any oldtimers remember the good old days when you linked to other sites because you felt your visitors would appreciate the relevent content?
Quite a few Website owners still do that. I know I do, and so do the sites I've never heard of that turn up in my backlinks.
I can understand why e-commerce sites might not link to other sites (especially sites that are in competition with them), but I'm always a little surprised and more than a little disgusted when editorial sites won't link to the outside world. Example: I was quoted in the WASHINGTON POST a while back, but the name of my site (which was mentioned in the article) didn't have a hot link--an omission that made the article less useful to the WASHINGTON POST's readers.
If they did that, then they couldn't justify having the "advanced features" option on the toolbar that phones home for every site you land on.
If the toolbar didn't phone home in that manner, their Master Plan to become the world's biggest ad broker would have to be put on hold. There are millions of browsers phoning home now with every site that they surf. They have unique cookie IDs. Google is in a position to feed them some very targeted advertising, for those accounts interested in contextual advertising that sign up with Google.
This new advertising kick is a gold mine. Google almost owns the mine. Sure, hiding the PageRank on the toolbar is an obvious solution to the fact that Google is undermining the web. But more importantly, Google is also in a position to take over the web and make a huge pile of money, and that's all they care about. Anyone who didn't figure this out the first time they saw that cookie that expires in 2038, hasn't figured out much at all.
And as for the "uniquely democratic" nature of PageRank, that's an insult. Democracies were designed to give one vote per person, as a counterweight to the powerful. PageRank is designed to give extra votes to sites that are already powerful.
Hehe. That is pretty much "the Emperors clothes" in the matter. Google could just quit handing out PR0's. Nobody forced them to start doing that. They could quit at any time. Those are handed out by choice.
I'd be extremely pleased to see where Google talk about "the "uniquely democratic" nature of PageRank".
[google.com...]
"PageRank Explained
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value."
It's been my policy for a long time to only spend effort exchanging links with sites where an exchange of relevant traffic should occur. That way I'm assured of some value for effort, even if the search engines don't assign value to the links or even ever find them. I've learned that visitors from relevant/complementary link exchanges have a high sales conversion rate, making them valuable visitors. So that's the first priority.
The second priority is manipulation of the search engines, ahhhhh, I mean improving my site's popularity.
That's the end of it. I don't try to commercialize links or link popularity.
I'd be extremely pleased to see where Google talk about "the 'uniquely democratic' nature of PageRank".
[google.com...]
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
The insulting part is the sentence that starts with "But, Google looks..." They should have just said it in plain English: "Google records the uniquely democratic nature of the web so that we can subvert it. We turn democracy on its head by giving more points to the already-powerful."
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
added: Kackle, you beat me to it. ;) However, consider in a democracy the politician who gets the most votes is the guy who gets to make the make the rules. IOW, democracy determines who is powerful. A high PR page can be thought of as the guy who wins the election.
It is democratic in the sense that via voting importance is determined. Definitely a vote from a PR8 page counts more than a PR1 page. However, the reason that page got to PR8 was because other pages voted for it an thus determined it was more "important" and "authoratative". Obviously, this system breaks down in cases of PR for sale, and in cases of PR artificially created.
I think in its pure form Google is streamlining the web in an effort to properly index it. When used properly the Google Guidelines are simply an effort to make it easier for Google to index the web and get the relevant information to the user. The purest form, however, is distorted by many many variables which does lead to some improper indexing and therefore bad results. The link structure of the web no doubt has been changed as a result of link popularity. I think in most cases for the better, however.
"Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search."
It is not true that "no one can buy a higher PageRank". What they should have said is "No one can buy a higher PageRank directly from Google". However, if somebody has got lots of money they can easily buy links from webmasters that have high PR sites, which will get them a high PR. PR most definitely CAN be bought. And, quite cheaply too. Any webmaster who can't figure out how to get what will likely be a permanent PR6 for a one time payment of $100 or so is just too stupid not to figure out one of the angles that I have. This also would not run the risk of a Google PR0. And, before anyone reading thinks of asking me how this can be done, NO I WON'T TELL. Don't even bother to try asking.
Now that people have been able to find him he has gotten more links and is now a PR5. He has links to reviews on my site from all his pages. I would not be surprised if he made it up to PR6 in a few months and PR7 by the end of the year.
I link to those people that I want to link to, it's as simple as that.
The link structure of the web no doubt has been changed as a result of link popularity. I think in most cases for the better, however.
Google is pouring gasoline on this linking fire with their PageRank scoring. Shame on them.
First, maybe the reason Google makes PR available via the
toolbar and directory listings is so all the SEO folks
chasing higher rankings will focus and obsess on PR rather
than other factors it would be easier to "game" google with.
Maybe Google figured they needed to throw the pack of dogs
a bone to save themselves?
Second, what would REALLY make folks obsess over PR would be
if Google revealed the exact numerical page rank! Imagine
how folks would go nuts over irrelevant differences like
"I don't want to trade links with no stinkin' site 50 points
below mine". Do it Google! And enjoy the comic relief.
;-),
Louis
However, consider in a democracy the politician who gets the most votes is the guy who gets to make the rules.
I understand that is true in most countries of the world, but that in United States Presidential elections, then the guy who comes second gets to make the rules!
Funny thing democracy on the web too!
europeforvisitors,
I was disappointed your post didn't have a link to the Washington Post :).
I might have linked to the article, but I think that would have violated Webmaster World's TOS. :-)
I agree that Google's use of PageRank has influenced many Webmasters' linking habits, but I suspect the influence is felt mostly in the e-commerce world (and primarily for SEO-driven sites such as affiliate sites).
Adding mis-information is worse, therefore Google isn't distorting the shape of the web, people not willing to learn properly are.
But even if links and PR weren't such a big deal, I would still be busy exchanging links with relevant sites in the hope of getting some traffic from them and putting our name and web site all over the web in the hope that it might stick in someone's head.
I try to link ONLY with relevant sites and don't think too much about the PR. I happily link with new sites that are still PR 0/1/2 and try to get a good relationship going with them. If a site is good I may even give it several links from different pages of my site.
Thanks to WW we now rank top 10 in pretty much every search term that I can think of for our field. But the work never ends! I'll be looking for more links today, you can bet on it :)
Sigh. I miss Everyman. I wish he'd come back.
Now just what are you suggesting GG? :)
I think Everyman got banned..
With ANYTHING of power - some people will misuse it. Where would we be if it wasn't for PR. I'd still be entering 8 word queries with quotes into AV in the hopes of finding relevant pages.
I think most of the regular posters on WW would agree that you shouldn't get too hung up about it, and know that it is just one part of the Google ranking system. However if you don't really understand, it can seem like the be all and end all of Google, so I can understand some peoples paranoia. If you don't understand then reading the following from the Google web site could be misleading.
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
I'm going to stop now before I tie myself up in knots.
I'm off to get more links for lunch :)
People decide too, based on commercial and financial factors, like who has the biggest budget to buy high PR links or who is willing to sell links. If it weren't for the green bar people would have a much harder time putting a commercial value on the links, IMO, and those people would be more inclined to link based heavily on relevancy.
PageRank is not an encoding of who Google thinks should be powerful on the web--it's an encoding of what the web says about a page in aggregate.
In an ideal world, with no Google (those two thoughts are not necessarily inclusive), that statement would be true.
However, today, webmasters are running round like scalded whatnots trading links in order to improve their results on Google - they are not trading links in order to make the web an easier/better place for browsers to navigate.
A larger portion of my day is now spent in trading links. This is not a natural process, we are not linking because of a "real" need, but because of a Google necessity. Google has said links are necessary, and like Pavlov's dogs we are all going out and getting links.
So I have to agree with the first post on this thread - Google is distorting the web.
For many the decision to trade links is strictly business related. I may really like a site, and still not want to trade links with them.
I've read that the process is democratic. Perhaps to some extent it is. The problem is that is is also capitalistic, and in many cases votes are for sale.
