If you're talking about this page - http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/explaining-algorithm-updates-and-data-refreshes It's showing PR0 in all datacentres?
Matt, The url HAS to have the / on the end for the PR to show up. I just checked again at livepr.raketforskning.com and digpagerank.com. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/explaining-algorithm-updates-and-data-refreshes/ I just check with both urls and with the / its shows up. Thanks
Okay, that's better, your original link returned a 404 so I added the 's' myself and didn't think to add the /
Something odd - related: searches have updated, too. Checking out my site, I find that two related sites are linked from this post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1963710&postcount=3 which was on the 20th of December... my sig did not change, the homepage is in my profile. One of the other related sites is the Google Webmaster Guidelines, LOL. I hope that is a good thing, and not some kind of backdoor suggestion.
Well I published a brand new site late, late October, its the only site of mine that got a pr increase from pr0 to pr4. We will never find out whats gone on
It looks like they used more than one snapshot date. Afaik they have never done that before, but it's possible. I mean, usually we find one date and everyone agrees, yeah, that looks like it. Not this time though. Looks like some snapshots were as recent as 3-4 weeks ago, others (like Matt Cutts) back in October. -Michael
But then other pages on his blog didn't get PR. I'm wondering if something is up with internal PR. It's not like they haven't messed it up before.
They definitely messed up internal PR: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=2100446&postcount=1529 And it sure looks like 2 updates, 2 snapshots at any rate: I watched that push change amazon.com from 0 to 9, but it did not affect my site mentioned in the post linked above. I posted on Matt's blog, and hoped to hear something late yesterday, but nothing.
Wait, do you mean the other pages after the ones that did get PR...? Cause, if so, that's the way you would expect it to be... if the snapshot used on his blog was Oct 15, then only those before Oct 15 would get PR... Oh, and I have a page that was indexed and ranking back in August within days of making it (got a bunch of links in a short time period) that should have gotten PR and did not. It's not ranking now, but when I made it the competition was much less, cause it was one of the first ones: http://www.bad-neighborhood.com/suggest.php So, looks like they might have taken snapshot dates before August 20th or so (the tool was ranking back then iirc), which would mean taking snapshots that predated the last PR update. I mean, G shows links pointing to it, one of which is the homepage (which is PR4), so... link:http://www.bad-neighborhood.com/suggest.php -Michael
Just a note but there is a filter for acquiring links too quickly. And what Google shows as linking to your site(s), is in no way verification that they have assigned a score for that link ,nor does it indicate they may have reduced the scoring of the value of the link. Simply means thats what they "see' not what they score.
Ok, you have zero factual basis for saying that. You're taking a theoretical ranking algo penalty (the theory that too many links too fast will hurt your rankings), one which has never been proven (and has been dis-proven on a number of occasions), and trying to now say that it applies to PR calculations. Wanna post that as a theory of yours, fine, but please at least label it as such. Historically speaking, again, for PageRank that is not the case. Yes, they do not show all of the links that they know about, and yes, they might not pass full ranking value for a link, and yes, they have stated (well, Matt Cutts has anyways) that if they think a site might be selling links that they might block that site from passing PR... but that's not what we're talking about here. -Michael
Uhh you could googles may 2003 patent release and read it thoroughly before making claims where you have no proof. His would be refering to Rand Fishkin....you may know who he is and in my view he is much more of an authority than myself and certainly yourself. http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002331.html Here is another reference from searchenginejournal again citation need not be further explained http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=1535 So perhaps you like to speculate that Google doesn't filter links ....I will err on the side of caution and past history of never having a site banned.
Right... proving yet again you don't bother to read wtf you are talking about. I didn't say that what you said definitely wasn't true, what I said was: a) what you said is a theory, and b) what you said is about rankings, NOT PageRank, and NOT what is being discussed here! Now, since you quoted Rand, and pretend to understand what is being discussed and how it relates to this thread, mind explaining where it says that speed of gaining links will affect the PageRank? -Michael
BY THE WAY... just to clarify.. when I said this: I wasn't calling yo a liar, or saying you were making shit up. I was pointing out that you were stating something as fact that wasn't. There are many people who don't understand all the twists and turns of how this stuff work, and who get confused about what they read, and misquote things, repeating what they misunderstood as facts. They're called "newbs". And I don't mean to be picking on you, it's just that after your first 2k posts you should at least know more than the average newb. So... sorry if I was too harsh in my tone before. I still stand by the facts of what I said though. -Michael
Yes, I saw that. I was hoping he'd slide in for a few Friday, or at least check out the blog and rest my mind. Seriously bad timing.
A dampening of the links, would mean a reduction in their value, there by lowering (affecting) PageRank. common sense is what it is called.
Ok, you're clueless. Never mind. You've already stated that a) you don't care about PageRank, and b) you don't care about rankings... and now c) you are demonstrating that you don't even understand the difference between the two. Why the hell are you posting in threads that have topics that you have publicly stated you don't care about? Is it deliberate belligerence? -Michael