Re: Google Page Rank is for entertainment purposes only - apparently
Stacey
"Wendy Jervis" <we...@tne.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kt8FHeOr...@tne-adsl.demon.co.uk...
> http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20041202GooglePageRan
> kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html
>
> Anybody got any comments after following the above link?
The toolbar of course is out of date. Google updates the PR for the toolbar
not that often, and you just can not take it for full face value. It isn't
saying that PR is for entertainment...just the toolbar.
Stacey
Wendy Jervis
kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html
Anybody got any comments after following the above link?
--
Wendy mailto:we...@tne.co.uk
The Net Effect http://www.tne.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0)114 251 3377 Fax: +44 (0)114 251 3388
Guy Macon
Wendy Jervis wrote:
>Anybody got any comments after following the above link?
Yes. My comment is that I like the lik to the original source
of the information better than a second-hand account.
Here is the correct URL:
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3054
Also see the comments posted about it on the same page.
C.W.
Well ... it can be for entertainment purposes if we held a "Guess when
the next PR update will be" type pool. ;)
[I pick the 3rd Wednesday in January.]
But there are some folks who didn't clue in and were/are trying to
brag about their low to no PR pages ranking well - just based on
outdated info shared via the toolbar. ;) If it makes them happy ...
Carol
Stacey
"C.W." <from...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:41b0d699...@news.prodigy.net...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:50:56 -0500, "Stacey"
> <sta...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Wendy Jervis" <we...@tne.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:Kt8FHeOr...@tne-adsl.demon.co.uk...
>>> http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20041202GooglePageRan
>>> kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html
>>>
>>> Anybody got any comments after following the above link?
>>
>>The toolbar of course is out of date. Google updates the PR for the
>>toolbar
>>not that often, and you just can not take it for full face value. It isn't
>>saying that PR is for entertainment...just the toolbar.
>
> Well ... it can be for entertainment purposes if we held a "Guess when
> the next PR update will be" type pool. ;)
> [I pick the 3rd Wednesday in January.]
Since Google loves everyone I will say 14th of February.:-)
> But there are some folks who didn't clue in and were/are trying to
> brag about their low to no PR pages ranking well - just based on
> outdated info shared via the toolbar. ;) If it makes them happy ...
Sure, and I am happy I got a PR of 9. :-)
Stacey
Tim Arnold
value.
Sites ranking with little or no PR may actually have PR but possibly
google hasnt bothered to show it via the toolbar.
Let your sites drop in PR over a couple months like I did and watch
your traffic drop with it.
Tim
C.W.
>Just because the toolbar doesnt work doesnt mean that PR is of no
>value.
>
>Sites ranking with little or no PR may actually have PR but possibly
>google hasnt bothered to show it via the toolbar.
>
>Let your sites drop in PR over a couple months like I did and watch
>your traffic drop with it.
I sort of disagree.
Before Google went longer inbetween updating PR - it was not uncommon
to see a site, even right after a PR update, stating on the toolbar
that it was a PR3 or PR4 and beating out a PR5 or PR6 even page.
PR is still a criteria with Google - that is something I will agree
with. Most likely Google will use PR somehow or another in their algo
for some time to come. However PR does appear to been lowered in where
that thought is placed in among with other criteria they also use for
ranking thoughts.
Evidence of this alone in the number of people "selling ad space", per
se, on their sites at this time versus at this time last year - and
those who are selling may be asking a lower price than they did around
this time last year. Around this time last year there were people even
posting about their eBay 'auctions' of getting a link on a PR6 or PR7
site. I havent' seen any of those being posted about in several months
now - about when it became somewhat noticed that PR was gradually
being shifted about in where it stood in terms of the algo on Google.
The PR fad has been put into its place as being a fad due to Google
tweaking their algo enough to have it lowered from the "pedestal" that
a number of site owners put that thought on.
Carol
SEO Dave
I got nothing from the original link. The above one was helpful.
Did anyone else notice the person posting it has just a handful of
posts on the forum?
If this was from a member with hundreds/thousands of posts you could
check previous posts for credibility. Without better evidence I'd take
this info with a pinch of salt, PR is still very important and I can't
believe a Google representative would say otherwise (at least not in
the way reported).
This is apparently what Google sent in response to why a PR6 page
dropped to PR0-
"The PageRank that is displayed in the Google Toolbar is for
entertainment purposes only. Due to repeated attempts by hackers to
access this data, Google updates the PageRank data very infrequently
because is it not secure. On average, the PR that is displayed in the
Google Toolbar is several months old. If the toolbar is showing a PR
of
zero, this is because the user is visiting a new URL that hasn't been
updated in the last update. The PR that is displayed by the Google
Toolbar is not the same PR that is used to rank the webpage results so
there is no need to be concerned if your PR is displayed as zero. If a
site is showing up in the search results, it doesn't not have a real
PR
of zero, the Toolbar is just out of date"
This sounds like a canned response (like most of Google's responses),
but note the mistake at the bottom "it DOESN'T NOT have a real PR
of zero" suggesting a custom response. Google help response doesn't
give this sort of detail, they don't have the time to, it's all canned
responses.
There are other inconsistencies in the writing as well, would someone
familiar with the subject say-
"The PR that is displayed by the Google Toolbar is not the same PR
that is used to rank the WEBPAGE RESULTS so there is no need to be
concerned if your PR is displayed as zero."
What the hell are WEBPAGE RESULTS!
I think someone made this post up for a laugh (or I'm over estimating
Google Help's level of expertise :-)).
Anyway.
The above does not answer why a PR6 page would drop to PR0, but could
be how someone who doesn't understand PR too well might understand it.
There are three reasons main reasons why a PR6 could drop to PR0.
1. The page lost all links (highly unlikely) so really is a PR0.
2. The toolbar PR is faulty.
3. The page was penalised for doing something wrong.
Now the persons original question was about-
"This is not helpful to me in trying to determine WHY one of our
clients sites went from a Page Rank of 6 to 0. I could take it for
what it's worth, and say "Oh, they launched a new site in October,
therefore the pagerank just got set to zero (even though it was a 6,
at the same domain name) because it's new, and I can just ignore it. "
So they uploaded a new site and PR dropped to 0. It's reasonable to
assume the PR6 is the home page.
Now unless this site is highly unusual and the home page has no direct
external links to it, creating a new site on an existing PR6 (home
page) domain can not remove all PR from the home page. So this
suggests two things to me.
1. The site was penalised (hence PR0)
2. The new site has a new home page (different filename) that is PR0.
Based on other information supplied ("Admittedly the site has huge
issues with indexability due to long dynamic url params.") I'm going
to go with number 2.
I bet they have gone from a domain.tld/index.html setup to a setup
that redirects automatically to something like
domain.tld/cgi-bin/loadacrapgfjkfjgkfjgk?blah home page that is PR0
and not spiderable by Google (probably has session IDs or something).
David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/
Guy Macon
SEO Dave wrote:
>>http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3054
>Did anyone else notice the person posting it has just a handful of
>posts on the forum?
>
>If this was from a member with hundreds/thousands of posts you could
>check previous posts for credibility. Without better evidence I'd take
>this info with a pinch of salt,
>There are other inconsistencies in the writing as well,
>I think someone made this post up for a laugh (or I'm over estimating
>Google Help's level of expertise :-)).
I found it to be interesting how many people ran with it as if they
had verified it, and how many people only referenced someone talking
about the original without referencing the original. Do these people
all work for 60 minutes? :)
SEO Dave
It is very interesting and far from an isolated occurrence, the number
of times something has been hypothesised on a forum etc... only to be
stated as fact a month or two later is amazing! It would be really
easy for Google to plant really stupid ideas into the heads of SEOs
etc... just by making forum posts like the one we've been discussing.
I suppose it's human nature, if someone says something you either
already believe or you want to believe it's difficult not to agree
with them for just that reason. I've been guilty of this myself and
it's why I try to verify as much stuff as I can rather than relying on
others research/opinion.
Most forum posters now state as a fact PR is not as valued by Google
as before (most would say significantly less, PR almost worthless),
yet it is far from a fact. Clearly Google's algo has changed from a
year ago (it's always changing), but that doesn't mean as some are
stating that PR has little value now (less value, probably. very
little value, no way).
Then in the same sentence they'll say stuff like you need links to do
well in Google now!! Hang on a second PR is a measure of the value of
the links to a page, so when someone says you need links they are
saying you need PR.
The value of PR compared to other factors has probably changed,
(Google has probably been tweaking it every big update) or most likely
they are getting better at determining the true value of the link
(where it is, how related the page is and of course the anchor text)
but no one can honestly believe a link from a PR6 page is worth the
same or less than a link from a PR5 page. All other things being equal
(and this is the crux of the matter, they never are equal) the PR6
link is worth much more (about 6 to 8 times more) than the PR5 link.
David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/
C.W.
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Most forum posters now state as a fact PR is not as valued by Google
>as before (most would say significantly less, PR almost worthless),
>yet it is far from a fact. Clearly Google's algo has changed from a
>year ago (it's always changing), but that doesn't mean as some are
>stating that PR has little value now (less value, probably. very
>little value, no way).
>
>Then in the same sentence they'll say stuff like you need links to do
>well in Google now!! Hang on a second PR is a measure of the value of
>the links to a page, so when someone says you need links they are
>saying you need PR.
Link Popularity is not the same as PageRank. PageRank _is_ accrued
through links - I agree; but that is not the same as when I tell
someone "you need more links" that they necessarily need more PR.
If a site is already a PR5 then we could say that they have already
worked on bettering their PR thoughts. Working on Link Popularity may
in turn help the site's PR go from PR5 to PR6 but Link Popularity is
also a separate thought, on my side, and used in more search engines
whereas PR is used by Google and only by Google.
>The value of PR compared to other factors has probably changed,
That is my belief. Therefore, in my opinion, PR has been lowered in
value from where it was considered around this time last year. If it
has been lowered in value - in contrast to other thoughts on the algo
or other factors - then it has been lowered.
Is PR worthless? Depends on if you are asking that in terms of
all-around or just within Google. If "within Google" then it is likely
that PR will have some value to it; whether a high or low value in the
algo will be Google's decision though.
>(Google has probably been tweaking it every big update) or most likely
>they are getting better at determining the true value of the link
>(where it is, how related the page is and of course the anchor text)
>but no one can honestly believe a link from a PR6 page is worth the
>same or less than a link from a PR5 page. All other things being equal
>(and this is the crux of the matter, they never are equal) the PR6
>link is worth much more (about 6 to 8 times more) than the PR5 link.
But when some people talk about PR, in terms of value, they are not
talking about "a link" or the "PR of the page where that link comes
from" but PR itself - and usually in relation to ranking thoughts. Two
different thoughts - one more specific and the other being broad or
'generalized'.
For example - framed pages. The broad thought, in terms of SEO [and
yes, Neal, I know they are frowned upon for other reasons too ;)],
would be "don't use framed pages" followed with "Framed sites will not
rank well ...", right? However this is not to say that someone canNOT
try to get in the Top 10 or Top 5 even using a framed site layout.
Just more work involved on their side perhaps. *shrug* There are
generalized thoughts shared about avoiding cloaking or doorway pages -
yet we can both agree, as can the search engines, that there are times
when those methods _are_ acceptable. The broad generalization doesn't
often share that "but ... " thought.
[Gawd, I need a cup of coffee I think. Ramble ... ramble ... ramble
..]
Carol
SEO Dave
<snip>
>>(Google has probably been tweaking it every big update) or most likely
>>they are getting better at determining the true value of the link
>>(where it is, how related the page is and of course the anchor text)
>>but no one can honestly believe a link from a PR6 page is worth the
>>same or less than a link from a PR5 page. All other things being equal
>>(and this is the crux of the matter, they never are equal) the PR6
>>link is worth much more (about 6 to 8 times more) than the PR5 link.
>
>But when some people talk about PR, in terms of value, they are not
>talking about "a link" or the "PR of the page where that link comes
>from" but PR itself - and usually in relation to ranking thoughts. Two
>different thoughts - one more specific and the other being broad or
>'generalized'.
Hi,
You hit the nail on the head with the above, as I was reading the
first part of your post (snipped) I was thinking of my response and it
would of included similar thoughts to the above.
Looking at the PR of a page and from that determining what it's SERPs
should be makes no sense, since the figure shown on the toolbar does
not give any indication of the other factors involved in a link. If
the PR isn't associated with good anchor text it won't do much.
An extreme of this would be to have a PR8 page where all the links had
the anchor text SEO and then expecting the page to rank well for the
phrase Search Engine Optimization just because it's a PR8 page with
content optimised for the Search Engine Optimization SERP.
With the above example there would be a very good chance of a very
good ranking for the word SEO (even with poor optimisation for the
word SEO) and related phrases (ie SEO Optimization if the page was
optimised for the word Optimization), but highly unlikely to be in the
top 50 for the Search Engine Optimization SERP since none of the links
have anchor text to support this phrase Search Engine Optimization.
So the value of PR is in direct association to the anchor text of the
links that supplied the PR. If the anchor text supports the SERPs of
the page you'll tend to have good SERPs, if the anchor text is
irrelevant then you'll struggle. This is why you can find PR4 pages
beating PR6 pages, the PR4 page will most likely have better anchor
text.
That said even with poor anchor text you have added PR to a page which
can then be used to link to your other pages, since you have control
over the anchor text, you can then give the PR relevance through the
anchor text of internal links.
BTW when you've been talking about PageRank I've always got the
impression you were talking about the end PR, not what I've been
rambling on about above. In that sense we agree, the PR shown on the
toolbar means little without knowing where it came from and what it's
associated with.
A year plus ago having a PR8 page meant your on page content no matter
what the anchor text would result in good SERPs (not great SERPs,
since anchor text was important then as well). I believe this is
what's been reduced significantly by Google, basically a highly
optimised page that just so happens to be high PR will not result in
SERPs as good as a year plus ago.
>For example - framed pages. The broad thought, in terms of SEO [and
>yes, Neal, I know they are frowned upon for other reasons too ;)],
>would be "don't use framed pages" followed with "Framed sites will not
>rank well ...", right?
As someone who started their SEO career on a framed site and did very,
very well (averaged 5000 visitors a day, up to 8000 some days) I
couldn't disagree more. OK with a framed site you have to think about
the linking more, but you are freed from the constraints of a menu on
every page. We talk about putting the real content at the top of the
code, well with framed content all you have is real content.
By having no menu you have a page that has highly targeted content and
not watered down by the anchor text of menu links etc... You can then
add only relevant links from these pages further emphasising the
content.
Basically framed content is MUCH easier to SEO than other sites. Make
sure every page has a link to it, preferably from related pages.
Even now with a penalty (no Google traffic) the framed site I'm
referring to gets ~1500 unique visitors a day, most to framed content.
>However this is not to say that someone canNOT
>try to get in the Top 10 or Top 5 even using a framed site layout.
>Just more work involved on their side perhaps. *shrug*
Try it, it's easier as you don't have to worry about the menu getting
in the way.
It's a shame there are usability issues though as otherwise everything
I do would be framed :-((
>There are
>generalized thoughts shared about avoiding cloaking or doorway pages -
>yet we can both agree, as can the search engines, that there are times
>when those methods _are_ acceptable. The broad generalization doesn't
>often share that "but ... " thought.
I do get your point, even if the first example isn't how I see it.
>[Gawd, I need a cup of coffee I think. Ramble ... ramble ... ramble
>..]
>
>Carol
LOL, I'll make you one as I get myself a cuppa tea :-)
David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/
Tim Arnold
Its still important.
It is just that no one is sure How important.
And everything could change as far as PR goes. Next month it could be
back on top again. I have been on this roller coaster ride too long to
know that you need to work on all areas to be successful in the
internet biznezz.
Do you think networking and linking is going to somehow fade into the
sunset?
It will always be important in some way to what we do. So forget about
it and go back to work on reciprocal linking cuz it will come in handy
when google changes its algo for the 8 billionth time.
BTW, all of this instability with google has got to have an effect on
its popularity to surfers. With Yahoo and MSN closing in the two
college boys may want decide on an algo that everyone over at Google
can live with.
I remember when several here gave Sam the biznezz for signing
guestbooks because google was no longer recognizing guestbooks as
backlinks.
Well guess what they are showing up again as backlinks.
Disregard the small trends. If your are consistent with what you do it
will pay off.
Their are only a small number of variables in a web site and its
linking. Work them all. Because at some point each one will rise in
importance.
There I have finished preaching. Time for the offering.
Tim
C.W.
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:15:14 GMT (C.W.) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>(Google has probably been tweaking it every big update) or most likely
>>>they are getting better at determining the true value of the link
>>>(where it is, how related the page is and of course the anchor text)
>>>but no one can honestly believe a link from a PR6 page is worth the
>>>same or less than a link from a PR5 page. All other things being equal
>>>(and this is the crux of the matter, they never are equal) the PR6
>>>link is worth much more (about 6 to 8 times more) than the PR5 link.
>>
>>But when some people talk about PR, in terms of value, they are not
>>talking about "a link" or the "PR of the page where that link comes
>>from" but PR itself - and usually in relation to ranking thoughts. Two
>>different thoughts - one more specific and the other being broad or
>>'generalized'.
>
>Hi,
>
>You hit the nail on the head with the above, as I was reading the
>first part of your post (snipped) I was thinking of my response and it
>would of included similar thoughts to the above.
>
>Looking at the PR of a page and from that determining what it's SERPs
>should be makes no sense, since the figure shown on the toolbar does
>not give any indication of the other factors involved in a link. If
>the PR isn't associated with good anchor text it won't do much.
Heehehehe, I never viewed it as "wow, lookie - I got a PR6 so this
means I will be in the Top 10 *goes to look*"
I really didn't get why folks stared at it and obsessed over the
toolbar to begin with. I always viewed it as a guide - one week after
the display was updated on it, it is already out of date. Especially
now with the PR display not being updated "often" so sharing out of
date or stagnant information for the displa most of the time. .
Heck - for all we know, ever since people first started getting
fixated on the toolbar's display, Google for the past year could been
sharing info 3 or more months old through it - not the current
up-to-date data - and getting a chuckle out of folks scratching their
heads saying "My site is a PR3 yet I am #4 for my SERP? Ahead of the
other PR4 and PR5 pages??" or "My page is a PR5 yet someone with a PR3
is 15 places ahead of me??" Who's to say?
>An extreme of this would be to have a PR8 page where all the links had
>the anchor text SEO and then expecting the page to rank well for the
>phrase Search Engine Optimization just because it's a PR8 page with
>content optimised for the Search Engine Optimization SERP.
>
>With the above example there would be a very good chance of a very
>good ranking for the word SEO (even with poor optimisation for the
>word SEO) and related phrases (ie SEO Optimization if the page was
>optimised for the word Optimization), but highly unlikely to be in the
>top 50 for the Search Engine Optimization SERP since none of the links
>have anchor text to support this phrase Search Engine Optimization.
Huh?
If the page is, as you stated, optimized _in the content_ for "Search
Engine Optimization" and they decide, elsewhere, to use the anchor
text "SEO" then I don't see why the page could not rank well for
"Search Engine Optimization". Granted, they knocked themselves out of
using anchor text but - come on - there is other things in that little
ol' bag of tricks Google smiles upon also.
I suspect the above example may not been one worded quite right or, if
my suspicion is wrong, having me wonder if you may be putting a
tad-little too much value on the anchor text thought.
Yes, anchor text would help give the above page an edge- on that you
and I will agree - but so would the on-page optimization touches, for
the other phrase, that Google is known to favor also. But I don't
think the above example is a good one in how it was worded - but I am
now starting to suspect perhaps this was done in a way to make others,
who have read past posts on here, to sit back and think?
[However outside of Googleland - that same page may indeed rank very
well for 'search engine optimization' at Yahoo or elsewhere. My
friendly reminder that I don't look at one search engine out of the
gamut.]
>So the value of PR is in direct association to the anchor text of the
>links that supplied the PR. If the anchor text supports the SERPs of
>the page you'll tend to have good SERPs, if the anchor text is
>irrelevant then you'll struggle. This is why you can find PR4 pages
>beating PR6 pages, the PR4 page will most likely have better anchor
>text.
I kinda sorta disagree. But you know me by now to realize I think a
bit differently about some things in SEO than you do.
I don't feel the PR is in direct association to the anchor text.
Again, I agree that it has been a refrain - when Google comes up -
"Use good anchor text for IBLs". One would been wise to done so
*before* the refrain even started when you think about it in past
tense thoughts - at lesast I feel that anchor text has been valued to
a degree for quite a while now [beyond the past year or even year and
a half time frame]. Yes, I agree PR flows that IBL.
Yes, Google has clearly demonstrated for a while now that it does take
into account the anchor text used for linking that then allows PR flow
to commence ... but, even though the above is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle
of sorts, I think there is _more_ to it than that.
If the page uses SEO for anchor text and fails to share the
abbreviation "SEO" in the contents then it is placing sole reliance on
being "found' [on Google] for that term on its IBL anchor text. Is it
worth the gamble? Right now perhaps it could be said by some as "yes,
it is". Me? I would question putting all my eggs into the anchor text
basket.
Sorry, but the "anchor text" emphasis is starting to sound like the
"PR" mantra of last year. And we all know what happened since then ...
>That said even with poor anchor text you have added PR to a page which
>can then be used to link to your other pages, since you have control
>over the anchor text, you can then give the PR relevance through the
>anchor text of internal links.
I agree, to a point - then we come to that fork where I go one way on
thoughts and you go another. [You love me, don't ya?]
I am not in the camp that some people have erected saying "Internal
links anchor text doesn't help" or "Site wide links are pointless".
But - as with IBL anchor text thoughts - not something I would do
thinking "this will really zip my pages right up there, really it will
...". You and I already have, in the past, shared we are sort of on
the same path of thought on how anchor text is veiwed/considered by
Google though. This is why I don't agree with the above "SEO" example
due to our past posted thoughts on anchor text itself.
>BTW when you've been talking about PageRank I've always got the
>impression you were talking about the end PR,
I do tend to look more at the end PR. This doesn't mean that is the
only thing I mull over in my mind when using that guide Google
provides. ;)
not what I've been
>rambling on about above. In that sense we agree, the PR shown on the
>toolbar means little without knowing where it came from and what it's
>associated with.
Which a little imagination isn't always a bad thing. ;)
>A year plus ago having a PR8 page meant your on page content no matter
>what the anchor text would result in good SERPs (not great SERPs,
>since anchor text was important then as well). I believe this is
>what's been reduced significantly by Google, basically a highly
>optimised page that just so happens to be high PR will not result in
>SERPs as good as a year plus ago.
We both agree on that.
>>For example - framed pages. The broad thought, in terms of SEO [and
>>yes, Neal, I know they are frowned upon for other reasons too ;)],
>>would be "don't use framed pages" followed with "Framed sites will not
>>rank well ...", right?
>
>As someone who started their SEO career on a framed site and did very,
>very well (averaged 5000 visitors a day, up to 8000 some days) I
>couldn't disagree more.
[snip]
I did say "broad thought". ;)
If someone posted to a forum saying they wanted to SEO their site and
mentioned they were using a frame layout - I have a dollar laid down
here next to my mouse that at least 2 or 3 people would advise
redesigning the site so it didn't use frames as a layout. And 1 or 2
of those sharing a sentiment that "frames are just bad news" in flavor
when it comes to SEO & SE thoughts.
I feel secure that I would not lose that dollar either. Otherwise I
wouldn't have laid it down next to my mouse to begin with if I had any
doubts. ;)
>It's a shame there are usability issues though as otherwise everything
>I do would be framed :-((
I doubt the usability issues will go away anytime soon either. But
that's a discussion better suited for talking about site design and/or
HTML versus SEO thoughts.
[snip]
>I do get your point, even if the first example isn't how I see it.
>
>>[Gawd, I need a cup of coffee I think. Ramble ... ramble ... ramble
>>..]
>>
>>Carol
>
>LOL, I'll make you one as I get myself a cuppa tea :-)
I appreciate, Dave. Been a long day ... :/ Now after all the above
forks in the road I shared from my side ... care for a slice of pie to
go along with the tea? ;)
Carol
stoma
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>So the value of PR is in direct association to the anchor text of the
>links that supplied the PR. If the anchor text supports the SERPs of
>the page you'll tend to have good SERPs, if the anchor text is
>irrelevant then you'll struggle. This is why you can find PR4 pages
>beating PR6 pages, the PR4 page will most likely have better anchor
>text.
Crap, and easily disproved. Try and get a serp by linking to a page
with 100% correct anchor text from good PR pages. If your theory is
correct then the page will beat all pages with lower PR (as they can't
possibly have gained the PR with better anchor text). To put it
politely, that turns out not to be the case.
>Basically framed content is MUCH easier to SEO than other sites. Make
>sure every page has a link to it, preferably from related pages.
>Try it, it's easier as you don't have to worry about the menu getting
>in the way.
More crap - a menu with related keywords is the best content you can
have on a page, apart from the title. There's a very simple reason why
framed pages do well - once you have a certain number of good links
pointing to a page, Google tends to use your on-page content as an
excuse to mark you down for over-optimization rather than boost you
for the keywords on it. What it really likes is a page with next-to-no
relevant content, linked to by content-rich, relevant pages.
-stoma
C.W.
<st...@bee-tee-internet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>More crap - a menu with related keywords is the best content you can
>have on a page, apart from the title. There's a very simple reason why
>framed pages do well - once you have a certain number of good links
>pointing to a page, Google tends to use your on-page content as an
>excuse to mark you down for over-optimization rather than boost you
>for the keywords on it. What it really likes is a page with next-to-no
>relevant content, linked to by content-rich, relevant pages.
>
For once I wasn't drinking any coffee when getting to the punch line.
:) I love the humor shared in this group from time to time. :))
Carol
David George
>
> It is very interesting and far from an isolated occurrence, the number
> of times something has been hypothesised on a forum etc... only to be
> stated as fact a month or two later is amazing!
I think all the old day traders are now reading and posting SEO forums
myself.
> Most forum posters now state as a fact PR is not as valued by Google
> as before (most would say significantly less, PR almost worthless),
Maybe they are also confused between toolbar PR and real PageRank as
calculated and kept secret by Google?
SEO Dave
LOL, I'm so glad he's in my kill file I only get half of his posts
(the bits others respond to like this one) and they tend to be out of
context, that way they make much more sense than reading the whole
post :-)
David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/
stoma
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>LOL, I'm so glad he's in my kill file I only get half of his posts
>(the bits others respond to like this one) and they tend to be out of
>context, that way they make much more sense than reading the whole
>post :-)
These days you seem to be talking more and more about Yahoo - the last
refuge for the SEO incompetent.
It's funny how you've learned nothing from your washout performance
with Google. Instead of looking for new optimisation methods that will
actually work, you just keep inventing more and more indefensible
theories to explain your failures.
-stoma