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.
the strong become stronger...
Send a reply indicating "A high PageRank today does not means it will be that high tomorrow, and lowly PR4 can become PR8 is two updates.
Then forget them -- they lose.
For every website owner that knows of PageRank there is a million that don't.
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.
I agree with you, but that is the way it is these days. We have been through meta tags, key word density and so on to maximise search engine positioning. Today's flavour of the month (year) is link building.
Sooner or later the pointless (apart from Google positioning) link exchanges that currently are going on will become valueless as algorithms change.
In the meantime.... I maintain decent content and ...exchange (pointless) links.
The other week he emailed me asking for a link exchange, I told him that seeing as he now is the one who has a low PR now that I may consider it :)
Let him sweat it out ;)
Craig
[edited by: creative_craig at 10:51 am (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
Its also an ego thing, there are lists of top 100 sites per pagerank per country and there are the winners putting their respective rank of such a list on their homepage.
So what's the purpose of the toolbar, other than to serve as a marketing tool for third party commercialization of Google page rank?
So why would you transfer some of your PR to someone else when you would not benefit from the exchange at all?
Would you pay for an online partnership deal which you know wouldn't work well and bring you good ROI? No.
I agree that its silly to brag about something as notoriously fickle as PR, but there is no need, when you're trying to make money, to do something for nothing.
I think this is a very good comment. Rather than Google reflecting what happens on the internet, the internet is starting to change to reflect what Google wants. Without wanting to over exaggerate, I think that in the general scheme of things this is harmful to the 'development' of web.
There are many people on this forum who are scared to do things which are harmless or even beneficial in the general scheme of things, but because of Google's vague rules and regulations they won't do it. For instance, a recent post regarding whether putting a link in a signature in forum could be seen as artificially inflating link pop by Google. Webmasters shouldn't have to think about things like this.
In many ways, Google have contributed as much as anyone else to the current webmaster obsession with search engine algorithms, rules and regulations rather than content - although content is apparently what webmasters, visitors and search engines all want.
However, no crawler search engine is able to evaluate the quality of content on the pages in its index, and so we're left with the unmistakeable impression that it's following rules and regulations that get you good rankings rather than making relevant sites.
Normally, you work the numbers. You exchange links with relevant sites that may be better than yours, and you exchange links with relevant sites that may not be. Great sites may fall and poor sites may rise. In this fashion the web is shaped by relevancy.
For instance, a recent post regarding whether putting a link in a signature in forum could be seen as artificially inflating link pop by Google. Webmasters shouldn't have to think about things like this.
But we have to. We have to think about how a link exchange will change PR. We have to about links in Sigs constituting spam.
Google is making all the rules at the moment (and they know it) and if we want to stay on top, we have to play along.
<edit>I know mayor. It doesn't make me a happy bunny either. </edit>
I was trying to get away from specifics and talk more generally about the issue.
I keep up to date with and follow Google's algorithm/rules/regulations as much as anybody, because this is necessary in order to get good rankings. My point was that simply that is not necessarily a good thing, and could even be a harmful thing as far as the development of the internet in general is concerned.
Hide the green bar and Google directory ranking and webmasters will judge you on the amount of backlinks (often a much better indication of "importance", as it can often reveal a single bought PR9 link giving you PR8).
Hide the google backlinks and webmasters will say you have too little Alltheweb backlinks...
Normally, you work the numbers. You exchange links with relevant sites that may be better than yours, and you exchange links with relevant sites that may not be. Great sites may fall and poor sites may rise. In this fashion the web is shaped by relevancy.
Yup -- a PR1 page can get 1 link and be a PR6, that now PR6 page can get one more link and be PR7. We're all in online marketing, and in online marketing things rarely maintain the status quo for more than a month.
Adding... the anchor between to sites that are a perfect content match allows that PageRank to drive relevancy. ...Added
Links farms, award swapping to the newbie is a veritable mine field. Glad to see this forum has probably helps countless newbies make the right moves towards attaining a PR without getting banned..
But, and this is a big but, in my day to day business life I can't afford to care. There's always going to be someone making the rules. I have to go while the going is good and if that means living by the rules which the Google algo imposes than thats what it means. :(
whether you are worth a link be a personal judgement on the QUALITY of the site, rather than based on specific external factors
Ideally yes,
Luckily links still arrive without any Pagerank or linking reference in many lines of business. Actually for me the most often heard criterium for receiving/declining a link, is if my site is commercial or not.
In other areas of very competive real on-line industries, after Alltheweb, people will be savy enough to find other criteria such as number of times your url/site/company name is mentioned in Google results excluding your own site or Alexa rankings etc.
This creates a catch 22 for new sites. No links = no good PR/alexa ranking etc. and so links will be very hard to come by. I guess the point i'm getting at is that there are bad sites with good PR that will easily get links, and excellent sites with bad PR that will struggle to find links. This creates a (logical) bias in Google's results to sites that are already successful, but more importantly, punishes new sites regardless of quality.
As awareness of PR etc increases and becomes more mainstream, this will surely result in a cut off between established sites and those struggling to be established? A kind of 'poverty line' for websites.
Don't think I put what I meant across very well, but hey, I might as well hit 'submit' now I typed it...
If your pagerank is 4-, just improve it, then the problem will disappear. Remember: no-one likes a fat bladder-head.
If your pagerank is 5 or 6, forget about them - they're being unreasonable.
I have PR6, and I don't swap links with people below 4. It's just not worth doing.
Pagerank isn't free. Seek out link-swaps in your own PR-neighbourhood.
When you move off the bottom rung of the food chain, you'll stop criticising the food chain.
To be frank , who in the general public have a use for the PR-bar? Only we webmasters use it and we made it the new web currency for link exchange and advertisement selling!
I believe that every time a link is exchanged or sold based solely on PR ( instead of traffic , relevency or site quality) the entire PR system is slowly loosing its credibility!
So Google Guy.. Dump that Green thingy and save the PR system :) .... I am sure this will be your best spam fighting technic in the long run
PS: Maybe someone think i am lowlife in the PR foodchain so i am crying :) , No i have my fair share of PR 6 & PR 7 Pages :) . Also pls note i am not critising PR ... PR is THE BEST and the first time i heard about it a few years ago i very much loved the idea of ranking a page based on quality external citations and still love it ...
The only thing ,i think is distorting the PR system is the display of it to people ... its doing more harm than benefits (if any)
[edited by: gopi at 12:39 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
I'm not on the bottom rung but i'm still criticising the chain ;)
The 'food chain' you are talking about is Google's method of determining your site's importance. I'm just saying that there are other methods of deciding whether a link has value.
I'm currently looking at an affiliate proposal from a PR3 site. They have SUCH a good idea behind their site that I would be a fool to turn down the offer, regardless of PR, Alexa ranking or any other method you care to propose. In this case, the link has value for what it will become (as I judge it) rather than what it already is.
>I don't swap links with people below 4
Why set yourself rules like this? Yesterday's PR3 could be tomorrows next big thing. Judge a link on its relative value, not solely on its PR.
As awareness of PR etc increases and becomes more mainstream, this will surely result in a cut off between established sites and those struggling to be established? A kind of 'poverty line' for websites.
receptional,
you made yourself very clear.
It is going to be interesting what will happen and what Google is going to do about it, they know the shortcoming:
Link-based methods have the problem that relatively new pages have usually fewer hyperlinks pointing to them than older pages, which tends to give a lower score to newer pages.
from: "Methods and apparatus for employing usage statistics in document retrieval"
the Google patent listed in this thread: [webmasterworld.com...]
**But Mayor - ask yourself this question: When you targeted these folks for a link exchange, was your first priority really being listed and buried somewhere on their site for visitors to see -- or for the robots to see...
Something tells me you were seeking links to help your site all around - for the robots and yes, maybe for the occastional "click". We have about 50 (very related and useful) reciprocal links out there and I might see a click here and there - however these reciprocal links have helped our site get a PR6 which in turn has improved our ranks and brings thousands of "google, aol and yahoo" hits per month.
the toolbar is a marketing thing for Google, the famous PageRank is showed
Famous to whom? I would bet at least 99.44% of Google users have never even heard of PageRank, nor do they care.
IMO, the negative aspects of showing the PR (gaming the system) far outweigh the positives (marketing).
Think about how quickly Google has risen in popularity. I currently use PR as a marketing tool but I also use it as a visitor - if I'm looking to buy something online, I check the PR. If it's high, I am more likely to trust the site enough to make a purchase. If they have been banned, I take this as a sign that the company may not be the most ethical.
It will not be long before the 99.44% (?) you mention will be a much lower figure, and PR becomes important to general users as well as marketers. Users of the Google directory are already choosing sites based on PR. Also bear in mind the widespread media interest in Google and PR issues.
ignore all reciprocal links for calculating PR.
OK its not perfect. It still dosent stop people selling links for example. But if it can be done, its possibly the best solution without dropping the toolbar.
It would get rid of a lot of those useless link pages too.
