Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
It's probably long past due that sites should be judged on content, actual traffic volumes and rankings rather than impressive backlink profiles anyway.
Content is already a major part. Pagerank is already a small part.
The little green bar is a great 'red herring' for google. Take it away & the link buying community as a whole might be forced to become smarter. There are already plenty of tools out there that show how G really rates site.
I'm not sure G really wants a smarter link buying community...
Really good point.
what about all the
"millions of ordinary people in Middletown, USA and Middleton, UK and Zhongcheng, Asia who used
the TBPR to <insert whatever Goog said they did with it here>"
What about them?!
Someone think of the children!
Won't you please think of the children!?
Sorry, just entertaining myself, and maybe Goog Employees #1-#3 from discussions 2-3 years ago
At least they won't have to defend it anymore.
It was always just a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.
The king is dead.
Long live the King! ;)
There are already plenty of tools out there that show how G really rates site.
Call me naive if you like but where are they? ;)
The key factors for me are relevancy and quality.
Would be a better idea to mess around with the green bar values to confuse people looking to manipulate it - hang on, they've been doing that for years............ enough said
.........................
Is the king dead or is the king lying?
All politicians lie.
Every king is replaced by it's successor.
That successor is a politician as well. ;)
So who would refuse a PR7 link from any site?
Ack, thought that was the whole point of this discussion?
That EVERY WEBMASTER now understood the difference between
ALGO PAGE RANK
and
TOOL BAR Page rank.
TBPR served its original purposes.
One of them was to impress WEBMASTERS with bright colors
so that we had the ability to talk about REAL ALGO PR to "clueless" neighbors and friends about
"How cool and sophisticated Google algo is"
That's sooooo 2003-2004-ish.
It was ultimately nothing more than a VISUAL representation
of Google's algo dominance of 6-7 years ago
in comparison to what the other SEs were doing.
That's why they were so reluctant to get rid of it even after it's served it's purpose.
That's why they yelled so loudly about "millions of average surfers using it".
That was never true.
It was a great marketing tool that is NOW DEAD and useless.
(Once Goog gained 60% marketshare it was unneeded)
Again we are talking about TOOLBAR PR - green pixels, etc.
NOT
Algo PR
"Trustrank PR"
"Authority PR"
or the many other derivatives of the original PageRank IDEA or concepts..,
that have always been the Behind The Scenes structure of the algo.
It was a great marketing tool that is NOW DEAD and useless.
Is there any hard evidence of this?
Is there any hard evidence of this?
lol you want "hard" evidence of hyperbole? ;)
ok, i'll dumb it down.
If the TBPR is neither a true reflection of ACTUAL PR
nor
an accurate tool for any half-way informed webmaster or "average internet surfer"
what purpose does it serve?
A.) FUD
B.) A once successful marketing tool that is no longer needed
C.) A known litigating slanderous and libel nightmare if the TBPR is not completely up to date or accurate as the "millions of average surfers that use it" are getting false information by using it
D.) A cause of concern, as illustrated in 2007 when much of Google's algo had become "demystified" and link buying had become so prevalent that even "newbie" site owners were buying and selling links defiantly on every SEO forum and national media were doing regular news about it.
E.) All of the above and more.
If Google wants to engage total mayhem amongst all but a small number of highly switched on webmasters, this would be a master stroke.
If Google wants to engage total mayhem amongst all but a small number of highly switched on webmasters, this would be a master stroke.
No, it would be a wake up call. In the current environment, widespread webmaster stupidity means quite a substantial proportion of the link trade is useless. This leads to
a) People thinking all link trading is useless
b) Google able to identify wanabee blackhats, who go on purchasing splurges when TBPR drops and only buy from pages with high TBPR, even when indendant analysis suggest they should be worthless.
TBPR was a visible marketing tool showing what Google was doing differently, published to cement the concept that there was some secret sauce that only Google had. No longer was there just tweaks to content analysis, no, here was a proper mathematical way of analysing the web- theoretically impervious to manipulation because it relies on off-page factors.
Now, everyone has a version of it, and its open to massive manipulation. Thus, accuracy in TBPR is detrimental- it allows manipulation rather than suggests its impossible. But taking it away leads wont remove the manipulative impulse, just force people to do something more effective. I for one am happy for the wanabees to remain clueless, frankly.
OTOH, the concept of PR is important. I want a link from a popular page more than a obscure one. I just don't rely on the toolbar for that info. Indeed, I do not currently have it installed.
OTOH, the concept of PR is important.
I don't think they would be writing stuff like this if they were going to kill it off?
[google.com...]
They may kill off the green bar but PR is clearly still important.I don't think they would be writing stuff like this if they were going to kill it off?
wow.
how many times did shaddows and I clearly delineate the difference between TBPR (toolbar pixels) and ALGO PR.
I bolded mine and everything... a few times.
and some wonder why i tend to repeat myself ;)
The ALGO aka (the factors that cause one page to rank higher than another) STILL uses real PR in all its many derivatives.
Whether it's
- the original form of PR
- Relevancy PR
- TrustRank PR
- Authority PR
- Local Search PR
- "Ghost Dataset" PR
- etc.
The BASIC CONCEPT Of "real PR" is that outbound links "vote" for other pages which makes those certain pages have more authority/trust/relevance than others.
THAT idea is how EVERY Search Engine works now.
In 2002, it was a mind-blowing revolutionary idea.
Now it's just old hat.
That has not been, nor will it EVER BE, what TOOLBAR PR was about.
So in retrospect, it seems good we are still having this topic come up.
--------
Heres the original quote that perhaps some missed.
It was a great marketing tool that is NOW DEAD and useless.
(Once Goog gained 60% marketshare it was unneeded)
Again we are talking about TOOLBAR PR - green pixels, etc.
[edited by: whitenight at 9:18 am (utc) on Nov. 4, 2009]
The ALGO aka (the factors that cause one page to rank higher than another) STILL uses real PR in all its many derivatives.
Surely, those things make it less useful, but not completely useless. Partial information, or information that's up to six months old, is better than no information at all.
In that case, what's wrong with toolbar PR?
I mean, of course, other than the obvious:
1) it only updates a couple of times a year;
2) PR plays a smaller role these days as other things such as trustrank have come into play.Surely, those things make it less useful, but not completely useless.
lol, ok, since we're ignoring the obvious (see my 5 points above), and this is strictly hypothetical...
As shaddows and whitey debated, in one sense, it's a great FUD agent for the uninformed and lazy.
that's fine.
But i would argue, the uninformed and lazy webmasters will continue to be uninformed and lazy with or without TBPR mucking things up more.
Or they'll just give up on SEO and go back to their 9 to 5 jobs. More markets for me (and those who do the work) to dominate.
------
After much grumbling and legalese debates ;),
the TBPR DOES update more than 4 times a year.
Lately it's been about once a month.
How does this HELP anyone?
It doesn't.
It just makes the uninformed and lazy concentrate on FUD with already faulty logic surrounding the TBPR as some measure of a tool.
I'm not terribly interested in making Goog MORE FUD-dy.
I've done my best to make Goog LESS FUD-dy and engaged in countless battles to debunk Goog's FUD.
(within the limits of not giving away valuable SEO advice that others charge 5 figures for)
At the end of the day, Goog is getting MORE confusing for those who don't put in the work to figure it out.
Less and less people are finding it possible to easily manipulate Goog.
That's ok by me.
But it should be because Goog is making a better more useful search engine.
Not because they are intentionally or non-intentionally trying to mislead companies who are honestly looking to gain some SE traffic.
Partial information, or information that's up to six months old, is better than no information at all.
Ack, THAT is the very definition of FUD.
DIS-information, aka, part-truth, part-lie is ALWAYS harder to work with then complete non information.
With complete non-information one can easily start with a new premise and work from there.
With DIS-information, it's like trying to cut gum out one's hair. You can't separate the 2 without simply starting from scratch and cutting everything out.
You lose the gum and the hair.
----------
Plus, the idea that TBPR is "information" that can be worked with is faulty logic to begin with.
This has been my point since I joined this forum.
[edited by: whitenight at 9:47 am (utc) on Nov. 4, 2009]
