Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
1) About the whole internal link nofollow thing. Nofollow might have been invented to combat blog spam, but it's clear that the tag has evolved into something much different. Paid links, blog comments, edited links, etc. The fact that people think that slapping a nofollow on a privacy policy or shipping policy link would send the 'untrusted' signal to google is pretty silly.
Do we really think that Google is concerned with what you do with pagerank that you already have in your site? You're not manufacturing pagerank. Pagerank used here, can't be used somewhere else on your site. I'm surprised that people are so against this especially since Matt Cutts praised the use of nofollow on meaningless pages at the Boston Pubcon. I use it all over my sites to cut off pagerank to meaningless pages and I can typically cream my competitors even though I have less incoming links. 1) Why would you want to pass poor link reputation to internal links 2) Why would you want to pass hard earned pagerank (possibly hundreds, even thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of times) to meaningless pages you'd never want in the SERPS.
2) Matt Cutts Laptop=Google Algorithm---After one of the conferences, I saw a bunch of comments about how Google can now see all the sites you own. Umm. More like Matt Cutts (or anyone for that matter) can see your sites using something like #*$!. The fact that an employee at google can pull up common ownership of domains doesn't mean that the algorithm is doing the same thing. Everything at google is about scale, and just because 1 person can do some cool things on a laptop, does not mean that can be implemented into an algorithm.
3) Someone please explain this trust factor because I keep reading about it but I can't figure out what it means. Are we to believe that there are certain sites that can do no wrong, thus they are trusted. I thought Pagerank=Trust. Are we mistaking trust for pagerank? Just because wikipedia has a page on something, it doesn't mean to me that they are 'trusted'. It means they have a crapload of Pagerank, thus they rank.
4) Why do people say that pagerank doesn't matter? And why do people want the toolbar removed? I maintain really the only thing that I would be concerned about is pagerank, link text, and internal linking. What else matters besides those things? If pagerank doesn't matter, I'll give you a PR1 link for a PR5 and I'll make that trade all day. Any takers?
Just my random comments for the day. I have been lurking for A LONG TIME and keep reading these 4 things and I've never really understood them. Those are my views, what are the opposing views.
disappointed not to read any spoonerisms, though...
Are we mistaking trust for pagerank?
One differentiating factor is that when a domain loses trust with Google it can lose the ability to transfer PR through its links, even though its pages still show PR.
Trust is a relatively unprecise word that Google reps use to describe the robustness or health of a domain's backlink profile. At least that's my simplistic way of thinking about it -- the more of a backlink profile could be under the direct control of the webmaster, the less trust there is. What makes for trust, among other things, are obviously independent backlinks for other domains that are also well trusted on their own.
Another factor that may play into Google's trust measure would be a history of breaking their webmaster guidelines - especially when previously penalized for it. I think many of the factors detailed in the History and Age Data Patent [webmasterworld.com] come into play in what we loosely name "trust".
Interesting point Tedster. Do you think Google has a way to find chronic text link sellers in their algorithm or is that something that is done manually by humans? I have heard that though that google can keep a sites PR in place and just take away its ability to pass PR or reputation. I still wonder about that though, there are so many sites selling text links or advertising, there would/could be a lot of sites on the hitlist.
2. While I'm sure Google can find site owners as well as the next man, I really doubt they bother, unless closing down a persistent nuisance - but, as you say, that would not be algo driven. What Google do, and do very well, ids trace patterns of linking - and that's what matters, much more than who 'owns' a site. Only a Googler would know for sure.
3. certain site do have trusted status - you'll see certain 'number one in the serps' sites get displayed in extra detail, etc., I think it's an internal point that overlaps pagerank, but may be more. Only a Googler would know for sure.
4. Most people would say page rank doesn't matter because it doesn't. :) Even most of those who want it to stay in the toolbar admit that it has very limited value - it has done for two years. I suspect you need to read a little more on that. Only a Googler would know for sure.
