The importance of Page Rank in SEO

Some "experts" have stated that Google page rank is not relevant to SEO.

In fact, they claim that concentrating on page rank when performing a link campaign is counter-productive to essential task accomplishment.

What does everyone here think?

 

It is at times a neccessary evil.....however it is a small part of the puzzle and as such worrying over it is futile.

Nobody but Google will know the true score of PageRank no matter what a toolbar or predictor tells you.

Links should be built naturally... as artifical link building is often seen easily and devalued just as easily by gboys

My thoughts only

Peace

 

Well, to be honest, I'd have to agree with the some "experts" on this. What does Page Rank really do? I've seen some PR7-8 sites with little to no traffic... so, what does it REALLY achieve? Concentrating on Traffic should be the first goal of any site

 

From an SEO standpoint, it is a necessary evil. People won't link with you without actual, visual PR being shown, regardless of site traffic or not. So its a Catch 22 at some points.

As much as I hate it, PR is still what the average webmaster/SEO looks for, as well as the casual website owner who's heard of Google (not a lot of them that haven't heard of G ).

Personally though, I look for a cache of the page via Google. As long as the page that my link will be on is cached, that that's all I care about. I know that Google will count the link and PR will be given to that page eventually.

 

Yeah, this is definately true. So I guess there is something good about it... but still shouldn't be stressed too much as some people seem to do.

 

We all here hate the PR, but let's face it, it's a system of measurement indented by Google.
You'll be aware of the quality of the site by simply looking at the PR. Of course this depends from new sites to old and consecrated ones.

what do you mean with artificial link building?
one article submitted to 100 articles directories per week is arficial link building?
what about 20?
well... with 20 articles submitted I guess you can achieve a PR4. Will that be a measure of the site's quality too?

 

Dan

Yes submitting 100 articles a week is likely to be seen as artifical link building.

Research shows most of the older (1996,97,98) websites built 10 links per month...Those are major sites.

Now we are of course a larger internet overall but I think more than 50 links a month might hurt....but thats guessimation at best as I dont work at Google...but I do watch what happens to my clients competitors and my clients and without artifical links my clients rank in top 10 month to month and some are over 3 years and not felt any of the issues others have in updates from the past.

As far as PR it is built from the PR of the sites that link to yours...you need no traffic to get links nor is G-PR based on anything other than the sites that link to yours and your internal link structure. No traffic needed to receive Google PR

Now as for whether some statcounting site is a PR 10...I would think that to be unlikely as Yahoo is not a PR10 any longer

What you might be seeing is the use of a fake PR generating script at work.

Peace

 

thanks for your post Sem-Advance,

I made a mistake, it was statcounter.com not statcounte...
anyway..

you are talkin only for google?? because I must add that for Y! and MSN you are wrong...
I, personally made a campaign that boosted a site to 1st place in MSN in one month, and in Yahoo! too, of course as soon as it was indexed... that was in about 3 or 4 moths..



What happen with Yahoo's PR? why does it dropped?

I'm using only G toolbar.. give it a shot on http://statcounter.com/ tell me what you think.

Thanks

 

view this thread http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=133166

 

Hi Vreeenom

Yes I am speaking only in regard to Google with links and how overdoing them can hurt more than help.

Msn & Yahoo are easy to manipulate and rank well for following basic seo methods, good internal linking, and links to the site....doesnt take many for the rankings to improve on those two engines....

I looked at statcounter.com and used checkpagerank.com which also shows them at 10. ( I dont abide PR predictors but this it the one of the oldest and more established)

Statcounter can get there I imagine due to all of the high & low PR sites that use such services.

At one time..... I think about a year ago Google was itself a PR 9... and Yahoo was the PR10....

It was pointed out and I assume Google did not like the embarrassment and so switched the scores...

 

You are right regarding Yahoo! and MSN,

and yes, statcounter is very old, but the point was that he gained that PR from delivering a hidden link within its couter's code, so there is no traffic from those links, are made just for PR. i guess

interesting theory you have about google's and yahoo's Page Rank

thank you very much for your replies, it was a nice time chating together.

Dan

 

Its somewhat important....
it helps you selling text links costly
it helps you in gaining more weight in link networks.

....

 

Maybe Google counts your inbound links with the factor of "Domain Life Time" and the importance of Domain like ".gov", ".edu"

I have found a site with PR7 but just have 4000 inbound links in google.

 

Hey Dan

I would say that statcounter made a faux pas in not making the link visible for traffic but yes I would agree it's only purpose hidden is to build Gboys PR

Whether this was intentional on their part when they first started business is hard to say.

Actually my Google Yahoo PR is not theory but reality.

Here is more on when Yahoo losts its 10 and at the same time G-boys went from 9 to 10....mysteriously (cough hack wheeez)

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2052

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1853&goto=nextnewest

Now here is a perfect example of why PR means nada

do an in allinurl search on Google using http

[SIZE=-1]Results 1 - 100 of about 63,400,000 for allinurl: http

Most of the sites are PR7 & 6 except for digg.com which at position 9 is a PR 3[/SIZE]

Now do the same search for www

[SIZE=-1]Results 1 - 100 of about 19,220,000,000 for allinurl: www

All of the sites listed ar 9s & 10s with no creepers.
[/SIZE]
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.....

I know this helps nothing but it does make you go hhhmmmmm

Peace

 

We've done many tests that PR really isn't important (but still relevant to) for SEO unless you want to sell text links.

 

Hi SEM-Advance

Would you have a link for this research pls?

The only paradox here is that for there to be any value in selling links there must be some value in buying them. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why would someone buy a useless link?

 

The #1 mistake in link building is that people don't know how to value a link. They tend to get links that are harder to get, not necessarily good value.

We actually have math formula to value links. For a particular keywords, if a page is in top 200, or top 1,000 in a search engine while searching for related keywords, links from those pages are valuable. You won't see any so-called high quality links from directories that seem to have high PR yet relevant.

 

Hi RgH

I did the research myself when I first started to learn SEO so I do not have a link to that as it was personal information at best and me being a newbie at the time did not feel other more established SEOs would want to listen.....

I did write about it at the time for SEOChat and you can read it below...don't mind the title....I am all about incenting riots and grabbing attention

http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Google-O...Helping-To-Achieve-Front-Page-Google-Results/

You will also notice I made friends by slapping the link sellers around..

Now while selling links appears to work well for webmasters now....for traffic building purposes....

the time I wanted to write the article the text link sellers were stating that buying links would improve rankings in the search engines mainly being Google....and I felt at the time...that the search engines would see people buying these links and devalue them effecting rankings on the organic side.

Seems I was right though few ever told me so lol....most wanted to burn me at the stake I think....

Have a read and thanks for the response.

Peace

 

That is totally right... plus a big WOOW

 

That's a nice option, too. So you are looking for pages that are only in top 1,000, or more, top 200. All other links are rejected??? What do you do with a new website.. that will gain top 1,000 or even top 200??