PageRank question

[xeno]

When PR update does happen, and you happen to go from zero to like 4, will you see a substantial increase in traffic? Thanks

[J.P]

in theory NO.

PR does not affect the amount of people on your site, the SERP does.

You can be sandboxed in google with a PR of 4 so you will not get any extra people on the site.

[xeno]

Ah I see. Thanks.

[WhatiFind]

Bob's list is very accurate in predicting the updates: http://www.seocompany.ca/pagerank/page-rank-update-list.html

[vagrant]

The visable toolbar PR is usually weeks (or more) behind the interanl PR that google uses, so the answer to your question is no. May make it easier for you to obtain link exchanges tho.

[mdev05]

As per my experience. Jump of PR from 0 to 4 is good, as long as the backlinks are going to be as is for a long period of time. A good PR give the website a stamp of genuinity and works wonders as time progresses.

[seodelhi]

When PR update does happen, and you happen to go from zero to like 4, will you see a substantial increase in traffic? Thanks

The only traffic increase you wil see after a PR update from 0 to 4 is in the form of people who will come to your site to exchange links with your high PR pages. :D

[GeorgeB.]

This brings up an interesting point...

What PR level DOES your site need to see a boost in traffic when jumping from 0? Would a jump to 6 do it? Is PR really that worthless that it won't matter? :D

[xeno]

Thats what I was wondering George. I thought the with the manifestation of PR you would start to see your site show up on the SERPs. Is it just a game to get other people to trade links with you to get even higher meaningless PR? Surely a PR 7 site is completely exempt from the sandbox. Right?

[puzzlebox]

The only traffic increase you wil see after a PR update from 0 to 4 is in the form of people who will come to your site to exchange links with your high PR pages. :D

heh, this is what I was thinking too.. :D But those link exchanges could also give you more directed traffic, so it's not really bad.. ;)

[Worldwid]

The PR update is completely Cosmetic. All that is updating is how long the bar is on your screen. The SERPs change daily, and you are already seeing the changes before google does a PR update and you jump from whatever to whatever, you would have already been seeing the results of the inbound links in the SERPs.

As far as having a certain PR and being exempt from the sandbox, I have a PR5 still in the sandbox.

[Jester]

in theory NO.

PR does not affect the amount of people on your site, the SERP does.

You can be sandboxed in google with a PR of 4 so you will not get any extra people on the site.

That's what happened to me, went from 0 to 4 and not in the G serps. Site is only 2.5 months old. There was no traffic increase from Google at all. Not that it was expected anyway.

J

[web-spy]

Same with me, I'm not ranking very good in SERPs, although I got a good PR. I just can't imagine how you can get hundreds of visitors each day just by Google...

[bobmutch]

Toolbar PR doesn't effect your rankings in Google directly. Most SEO's hold that PR no longer has any ranking weight. What PR does show you is how many inbound links you have an how many inbound links the pages have that your inbound links are from. Also PR is good for showing if you are under a penalty or ban. If it drops from PR6 to a PR4 or so or even a PR0 and there has not been a Toolbar PR update you may be under a penalty.

[minstrel]

Most SEO's hold that PR no longer has any ranking weight.
Really? And who would those be?

[Old Welsh Guy]

A long time ago (in internet time that is), google moved to what is known as everflux. This means that the benefit of backlinks anchor text etc is applied as soon as the page carrying the information is cached. So the moment the page carrying your backlinks is indexed in google and the cache is current, your getting the benefit.

Google has not one but two page rank systems running constantly.

1) The page rank value they use as part of the determination of ranking (server side)
2) The page rank value they use for displaying on the toolbar, (plays no part whatsoever in ANY google algorithm as it is a mickey mouse value)

Once you get your head around this, you will see why the bulk of SEO's do not get excited about page rank and backlink updates. Simply because they are of cosmetic benefit at best, giving false hope to many at worse :(

[minstrel]

I don't disagree at all with the statement that the Toolbar PR value is inaccurate except possibly for a few minutes / hours / days after a Toolbar PR update. In fact, on this forum and others, I have said exactly that many times.

But that's quite a different statement than saying, as BM did, that "PR no longer has any ranking weight".

PageRank still matters. But most of the time nobody but Google really knows what the PageRank of any page actually is at this moment in time.

[bobmutch]

Minstrel: Really? And who would those be?
Pick any of the top names in SEO and you have them.

[PYJAMA]

How about this a new "GAME"; everyone turn off pagerank indicator, and we play "Guess this Sites Pagerank"
Could be very interesting....:)

-PYJAMA

[minstrel]

Minstrel: Really? And who would those be?
Pick any of the top names in SEO and you have them.
Could you be a little more specific? Links to where these "top names in SEO" have said that Google has abandoned PageRank as a ranking factor? preferably with a bit of evidence attached?

[bobmutch]

Old Welsh Guy: A long time ago (in internet time that is), google moved to what is known as everflux. This means that the benefit of backlinks anchor text etc is applied as soon as the page carrying the information is cached. So the moment the page carrying your backlinks is indexed in google and the cache is current, your getting the benefit.
Everflux, which was coined by WMW in 2002, has to do more with new pages ranking high and then with in a short time dropped down in ranking than getting credit for the inbound links.

While the days of the big SERP changes at Google dance time are gone do you think that BL credits are applied on an ongoing basics as soon as they are parsed out of the new Web site documents or are then done in batches. You seem to be saying on a continuous basics. Has GG posted any info on this or are they any good docs on this. I googled around and didn't find anything.

[bobmutch]

Minstral: Could you be a little more specific? Links to where these "top names in SEO" have said that Google has abandoned PageRank as a ranking factor? preferably with a bit of evidence attached?
Not really but it is a commonly held belief. I should probably correct my statement to say it has little or no ranking weight as Matt Cutts made a comment lately that it does hold some ranking weight but not as much as some people think. If you ask around you will find that most SEO experts hold that it has little or no ranking weight.

[minstrel]

Not really but it is a commonly held belief.
So are a whole lot of other Google myths. Personally, I put no stock in "commonly held beliefs" with no evidence behind them. I file those under "rank speculation/wild guesses, probably incorrect".

[ziandra]

When PR update does happen, and you happen to go from zero to like 4, will you see a substantial increase in traffic? Thanks
Hmm.

Will you see an increase in traffic because your page rank as reported by google changes from 0 to 4?

No.

Will you see an increase in traffic because you get good quality inbound links that google reports by increasing your page rank from 0 to 4?

Yes.

But it is the inbound links that are giving you the traffic, not google putting an arbitrary "rank" on your page.

[minstrel]

Hmm.

Will you see an increase in traffic because your page rank as reported by google changes from 0 to 4?

No.
No. Because by the time the Toolbar PR is updated, those changes are already reflected in your Google rankings.

Will you see an increase in traffic because you get good quality inbound links that google reports by increasing your page rank from 0 to 4?

Yes.

But it is the inbound links that are giving you the traffic, not google putting an arbitrary "rank" on your page.
That's correct. And PageRank ("internal" PageRank rather than what you see on the toolbar) is how Google evaluates the number and quality of those inbound links, just as they always have.

[bobmutch]

Minitrel: "So are a whole lot of other Google myths. Personally, I put no stock in 'commonly held beliefs' with no evidence behind them. I file those under 'rank speculation/wild guesses, probably incorrect'."
If you want to believe that PR still holds some ranking weight then that is fine with me. A little bit of reseach or if you kept up with some of the main SEO forums and blogs you would know the the position of most SEO experts on this issue.
My position is that PR holds little or no ranking weight.

[minstrel]

If you want to believe that PR still holds some ranking weight then that is fine with me. A little bit of reseach or if you kept up with some of the main SEO forums and blogs you would know the the position of most SEO experts on this issue.
My position is that PR holds little or no ranking weight.
I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?

[bobmutch]

Ministral: "I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?"

I suggest you read my post again. You will not see anywhere where I stated that "backlinks are of no important to Google ranking any more".
You will how ever find the following stated "My position is that PR holds little or no ranking weight." That has been what what we have been discussing and that is what this thread largely is about.

I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

While I hold that PR has little or no ranking weight I don't hold that Google has "abandoned... ...PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology". I think there is a big difference between devaluing and abandoning.

[minstrel]

And what do you think PageRank measures or represents, Bob?

[bobmutch]

Ministral: "And what do you think PageRank measures or represents, Bob?"
I noted this on my #14 post.

"What PR does show you is how many inbound links you have an[d] how many inbound links the pages have that your inbound links are from. Also PR is good for showing if you are under a penalty or ban. If it drops from PR6 to a PR4 or so or even a PR0 and there has not been a Toolbar PR update you may be under a penalty."

But really the issue here is not what Pagerank measures but does the PR of a page hold ranking weight. Again there is clearly a difference between PR ranking weight and Link pop ranking weight.

While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?

[minstrel]

Bob, you are so hopelessly confused I'm surprised you can find your own feet in the morning. Half the time I don't know what the hell you are tryin g to say and most of the time I don't think you know.

PageRank is a formula for evaluating/weighting/measuring link popularity as defined by incoming links to a web page. Correct?

Google has long said that there are over 100 factors that go into determining the ranking of a page. Correct?

PageRank is one of those factors.

You seem to be acknowledging that incoming links are still important. Correct?

You also seem to be acknowledging that PageRank is a measure of the number and "value" of those incoming links. Correct?

Yet you still want to tell us that PageRank has nothing to do with page ranking?

[Old Welsh Guy]

HI Bob,

Here is a direct quote from a BBC article with Matt Cutts where he first mentions the rolling update. Everflux in my mind means a constant state of flux, which Google is.

"Within the last year we have improved out way of processing and indexing the web," he says. "You are not going to see Google dances."

"Now we crawl a percentage of the web everyday," he says, "so after a relatively small time frame we hit every page."

I added the bolding. He clearly states there that they have altered the processing AND the indexing. I thought it was common knowledge that Google had gone to a rolling update, and Matt has stated this at many webmaster events.

[minstrel]

I thought it was common knowledge that Google had gone to a rolling update
So did I....

[bobmutch]

Ministrel:
"PageRank is a formula for evaluating/weighting/measuring link popularity as defined by incoming links to a web page. Correct?"
No. Pagerank is a formula for evaludating/weighting/measuring the important of a page.
Google "Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query."

"Google has long said that there are over 100 factors that go into determining the ranking of a page. Correct?"
Correct.

"PageRank is one of those factors."
Correct!

"You seem to be acknowledging that incoming links are still important. Correct?"
Yes I have noted that after you misquoted me and made a claim that I said inbound links were not important.

"You also seem to be acknowledging that PageRank is a measure of the number and "value" of those incoming links. Correct?"
Measurement of the number and value of real Pagerank which is displayed in visible toolbar and Google directory Pagerank, yes.

"Yet you still want to tell us that PageRank has nothing to do with page ranking?"
Another misquote. Did you want to point out where I stated this. My position is that Pagerank hold little on no ranking weight but that inbound links or link popularity hold 80 to 95% of the ranking weight in Google. A little bit of reading and you will find this is a common view held by SEO experts. This is not a view I have come up with but one that I have adopted.

Pagerank and link popularity are two different ranking items. I am still wondering if you are realizing this.

While it is inbound links that vote Pagerank to a page, Pagerank is not the ranking weight of the inbound links. Pagerank has its own ranking weight as does inbound links. The ranking weight of Pagerank can be devalued (and any one in the know knows this has happened over the last 2 years), with out the inbound links ranking weight being effected.

Ministral I made the following statement "...If you want to believe that PR still holds some ranking weight then that is fine with me..." in post #26 and you followed with your deduction in post #27 by stating "I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?"

It is increasingly clear to me that you don't seem to realize that link pop and Pagerank each have a ranking weight that is independent of each other. To you when I say Pagerank is devalued to little or no ranking weight you react with a statement concluding that I am stating that link popularity or inbound links no longer have any ranking weight.

In this your appear to be in error in a very elementry understanding of the difference between Pagerank weight and link popularity weight, and the fact that they are not related directly.

Perhaps if you take time to answer the following two questions you have passed over we can find out where the misundertanding really is. You may even find that it is not me that is "...so hopelessly confused I'm surprised you can find your own feet in the morning..." but in fact the confusion may lie with a misunderstanding you have.

I suggest you answer my following questions that I asked you and up to now have passed over.

"I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

"While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between [the] ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?"

Also let me ask a third question. Do you think that Google could devalue the ranking weight of Pagerank without it effecting the ranking weight of inbound links?

*Note: "Ranking Weight" of an item is the weight that an item has in the over all ranking of a Web page in the search engine results for a specific query. We would say that inbound links hold very high ranking weight while the meta keywords holds little or no ranking weight.

[minstrel]

"You seem to be acknowledging that incoming links are still important. Correct?"
Yes I have noted that after you misquoted me and made a claim that I said inbound links were not important.

"You also seem to be acknowledging that PageRank is a measure of the number and "value" of those incoming links. Correct?"
Measurement of the number and value of real Pagerank which is displayed in visible toolbar and Google directory Pagerank, yes.

"Yet you still want to tell us that PageRank has nothing to do with page ranking?"
Another misquote. Did you want to point out where I stated this. My position is that Pagerank hold little on no ranking weight but that inbound links or link popularity hold 80 to 95% of the ranking weight in Google. A little bit of reading and you will find this is a common view held by SEO experts. This is not a view I have come up with but one that I have adopted.
Bob, you don't even seem to be aware of the contradictions in your own statements. Read again what you just posted, okay?

[bobmutch]

Minstrel: The problem here seems to be to me that you are not aware that the ranking weight that Pagerank has in the search engine results in Google could drop to little or nothing with out effecting the ranking weight that the anchor text contains.

"Bob, you don't even seem to be aware of the contradictions in your own statements. Read again what you just posted, okay?"
There are no contradictoins in the statements you posted. I suggest if you feel there are that you point them out.

While you are at it you may want to take the time to answer the 3 question that I have posted to you. 2 of them have been posted twice and you passed over them both time.

It seems to me that you don't have as good a grasp on Pagerank and inbound links ranking weights as you think you do!

Part of having a meanful discussion is answering each others questions. I have answered all your questions and have made comments on all your points. I suggest you do the same.

Here are the 3 questions one more time. If you are not interested in answering them I don't see that there is much more to discuss here. I bolded them this time so you will be sure to see them : )

"I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

"While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between [the] ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?"

Also let me ask a third question. Do you think that Google could devalue the ranking weight of Pagerank without it effecting the ranking weight of inbound links?

[Old Welsh Guy]

While the days of the big SERP changes at Google dance time are gone do you think that BL credits are applied on an ongoing basics as soon as they are parsed out of the new Web site documents or are then done in batches. You seem to be saying on a continuous basis. Has GG posted any info on this or are they any good docs on this. I googled around and didn't find anything.


There you go Bob, I had a word with my Mate Matt Cutts abd he has blogged this just for you ;) <joke>

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/whats-an-update/

What is an update? Google updates its index data, including backlinks and PageRank, continually and continuously. We only export new backlinks, PageRank, or directory data every three months or so though. (We started doing that last year when too many SEOs were suffering from “B.O.”, short for backlink obsession.) When new backlinks/PageRank appear, we’ve already factored that into our rankings quite a while ago. So new backlinks/PageRank are fun to see, but it’s not an update; it’s just already-factored-in data being exported visibly for the first time in a while.

[imbrod]

in theory NO.

PR does not affect the amount of people on your site, the SERP does.

You can be sandboxed in google with a PR of 4 so you will not get any extra people on the site.

I constantly hear about SERP: What is SERP anyway? Is it Search Engine Position Rank or something similar? How is it monitored?

[Old Welsh Guy]

Search Engine Result Page(s)

[emil2k]

in theory NO.

PR does not affect the amount of people on your site, the SERP does.

You can be sandboxed in google with a PR of 4 so you will not get any extra people on the site.

What do you mean by sandboxed?

[bobmutch]

Old Welsh Guy: "There you go Bob, I had a word with my Mate Matt Cutts abd he has blogged this just for you..."
Yes I read that post and it made a couple of points clearer for me. You were using the everflux the same way Matt defines it. From what I read the index is update daily and rankings change to a minor degree because of the daily updates. I would take it from his statements that RPR and BL are factored in daily.
I had read GG state this some where else but for some reason I was still under the impress that RPR and BL would done in batches and not daily. Thanks for clarifying that.

[donttrustthisposter]

I have a competitor whos site speaks for itself. Check the backlinks vs PR and SERPS;

http://www. accessoriesthatrock.com

Makes for an interesting case study, definately outside the norm but proves a point. If I made a couple links it might hurt the PR.

Great serps, and not from backlinks. Remove the obvious space

[Endy_0202]

Thanks very much!~~