No seo expert would worry about pr. So determining factors are useless in this picture. Don't you guys get it? PR is useless. I can sell links fine without PR because some companies are more worried about traffic. That is interesting.... never thought i'd see that day.
I dont follow PR for link selling really. It helps heaps when tryng to sell a site. PR is not useless by the way, i'm sure you know. I guess you meant the PR value on the toolbar at any one time is useless. Backlinks/link popularity is very usefull, even critical to some sites.
Actually, him and many others don't know. They're repeating what they've heard a thousand other times. You learn not to argue the point though. Lessens the overall competition anyways. -Michael
I guess you are right. Its just a little statictic that is published every few months by google to sweeten up webmasters. Just the underlying factors are important.
I like this example. Google - failure and click im feeling lucky You get the presidents page on whitehouse.gov Not once does the word "failure" appear, yet it ranks number 1. If you do normal search, and click the sponsored ad, it goes to googles blog page. Google says this happens because many people have described the link to be associative with "failure". So google may also be contextual search, but thats a bold statement. Google also doesnt recurse there entire listing of pages 50 odd times to find an "accurate" pagerank for the fun of it. So it uses it somewhere. I have heard people say that if your in the 7+ pr, and competing against other sites with pr 7+ sites, the person with a higher page rank can win. But this is only to be noted in extremly competitive keywords. If any of my logic or statements above are incorrect, let me know. Pierce
there's no indication of having high PR mean having more search engine traffic. It depends on your site, depending on keywords people search for your site. In fact, i have several sites that have PR5 but only get like less than 50 daily from Search engines. My understanding is that these sites of mine are not in the popular keywords arear searched by visitors.
ahh but that is a way My only point is it's not the 'only' determining factor. I for the most part do not care about PR one bit, I do not sell links I care about actual traffic. I however have many sites that prove otherwise on the whole it's back links and that's it. ..
Not as far as this conversation goes you don't. You may have rankings without backlinks, but I can guarantee you there is no way that you have actual PR without them. Although, if G ever does the same screw-up on PR export that they did last March, you might get a visible blip, but it still wouldn't carry weight. -Michael
I even stated backlinks could very well be 99% of pr, simply stating it is not '100%' everything. As you stated a manual ban, how about a manual penalty, or a manual bump on a site on g's end?.. I didn't say backlinks are not important, just that it is not exactly the same thing as the other individual appears to have thought. When it comes to google not everything is as it appears at all times, I'm sure you're well aware of that.
But we're not talking importance. Unless I missed something, you were making the statement that PageRank, which is a term that is only used to refer to what that little green bar is referring to, is calculated by something other than backlinks. It isn't. Rankings are, PageRank isn't. This isn't opinion. It's the way it works. Rankings have PageRank used in calculating them, and more, so rankings are more than just backlinks, but you're not saying that. There is no "PageRank penalty" that will lower your PageRank "some". There is no age boost that will increase it. It just is what it is, and it is comes from recursively calculating the total link weight pointing at a page. I mean, I know you don't know me that well GRIM, but maybe you can ask some of the oldtimers around here you do know, they should tell you the same thing. Ask OWG, he's studied this before. -Michael
mvandemar I dont' care who studied it, I honestly don't I am stating that backlinks do not 100% determine pagerank as I from experience see it does not. Yes it may be 99% or even 100% in most cases but not all cases. Penalties do exist for even page rank. How do I know this? Simple I run many, many sites. The most obvious of this being is affiliate template sites. I always have several servers running, I'll throw a template up for an affiliate site. On server A I will redo the design to reduce duplicate content penalties, server B I'll leave it pretty much stock. I will get both sites pretty much identical links, directories, links of my own, purchased etc. When they have almost identical links why would the design with less of a chance of duplicate content have a pr of 5 while the duplicate content site has a pr of 1? There is something else going on, a penalty is what it appears. It doesn't effect the search results always but I have seen it time and again where backlinks do not determine the PR 100%. I have also created 1 or 2 pages hand coded pages with barely any backlinks that score pr3's and pr4's. Yet duplicate content sites with 10x the backlinks score pr 2's and pr 1's. Now if backlinks are the only thing, nothing else, no multiplier, no penalty, no nothing, how do you explain that?.. BTW I am done with this, if you wish to believe this go for it. I go from experience not what some other site may or may not say. I even did a quick search and even read in googles own way it calculates PR it has an adjuster so to speak that can be adjusted, it has a usual setting but it 'can' be adjusted, now why would it be adjusted or when?... Google also does not ever hand over 100% of the way it does something, they give hints and tips but not 100%..
Increment of PR in the toolbar doesn't give you any boom in traffic, the PR value is actually live and increases/decreases all the time. Google just updates the static value of the PR toolbar sometimes IT
Pretty much identical and identical are 2 entirely different beasts. Even if they look identical to you, they're not, because how far down in the order of the total links on a page affects how much pr is passed through that link. So, if site A is linking to sites B and C, but B is above C, then B will get ever so much slightly more PR than C from A. Little things like that can add up to a difference. Ok, if this whole time by the phrase "more than just backlinks" you also meant "it matters if the pages are cached, what the PR of those backlinks are, when you get the links vs when the snapshot for the pr update was taken (only affects visible pr)", well, then yeah, you were right in one respect. It's still just about the links, but it concerns aspects about those links that newbies wouldn't normally take into consideration or think to check, like the fact that "Not All PageRanks Are Created Equal", that sort of thing. If that was the case tho, then you shoulda said "there's more to the links than what meets the eye." As for being done with it, that's kewl. -Michael