I hope you are right on that. It would remind us that it's the quality of our website itself that will make us winners or losers in the "free market" society that is the Internet.
I think PR is way over hyped if there was no PR then sites could sell links souley on uni ques and page views everyone think that PR means so much so they try to get hundreds of back links just to sell there own. It's just a huge circle.
Its overhyped by alot of people but its overlooked by a lot of people. I believe alot of people are too quick to say it counts for nothing just because other people say that (because they probably heard it from somebody too).
Definitely. It's also causing link prices to drop significantly and almost devaluing selling of lower pagerank links. A lot of people are no longer paying attention to traffic and serp position these days.
I've always looked at PR as an indicator of how important a page is which I think is the point really. I've never seen it as something to be chased after but a useful indicator of how well a page is doing overall in terms of quality link building and traditional on-page SEO. I do think though its useful in terms of looking at sites that you want links from as it gives you a good idea of how important they are to G and the weight the link might carry. I think dicussions on it are useful but I do have a good chuckle at the mad posting activity about if/when a PR update is about to happen tee-hee
Guys, I love this thread, so I wrote about it at my blog over http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/007357.html In any event, I think, if you have the time, you should read my article from yesterday named Why Do Some SEOs Want Toolbar PageRank To Go Away? I am trying to get more people to come over here and vote. I would love to see a few hundred votes on this...
It surely helps to measure the ranking of sites. It would be great to get a higher PR along with some quality traffic
Wow we agree on two things!! PR is and always has been over-rated. First of all it has never given any good data. PR cannot be used to identify whether a site is better or has more rankings. Google doesn't use it to rank sites. All it does is attempt to identify the percentage of the whole internet that links to you IMO. That is why the higher you go(7+) it is the hardest to get. But it still is basically useless. The only reason Google will not admit it is because so many of you crazed webmasters are chasing it and if they say heck it don't work and is useless you guys may all stop using the Google toolbar. You see they got you hooked
The problem with the question is that it can be overhyped. Just like with meta tags, there are people who think it can do things it cannot do. The problem is that just because something can be overhyped, doesn't mean it in truth is unimportant. Important things can still be hyped beyond their importance. A similar question would be, is the anti-pagerank trend overhyped as well? That is definitely a yes. So many people are just joiners who jump on the bandwagon because they see others doing it. They have almost no experience, no true perspective, but you'll see them parroting about how PR is useless. PageRank is just another term for link weight. Anyone who thinks link weight isn't important is ignorant. Likewise anything who thinks that link weight is all you need to rank well is ignorant. PageRank is the main factor in getting your site out of the supplemental index. It is the main factor in determining crawl depth and frequency. If you run multiple sites obviously it matters in that you can send weight to the sites that need it. Link weight is a major factor in every major search engine. It isn't the only factor, it isn't an unimportant factor, it is a major factor. The trifecta you need is Link Weight (PageRank), Link Context, and On-Page Optimization. To say any one of those is useless, or any one of those is all you need, is ignorant. http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/007336.html
Google doesn't use it to rank sites? Google doesn't use link popularity in their algorithm, never has? http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://www.google.com/technology/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/infrastructure-status-january-2007/ http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20061003MattCuttsTalksPageRank.html Seriously, you have it from the horses mouth. You actually run a SEO forum? What a bastion of information that must be.
PageRank is a proper noun named after Lawrence Page, the cofounder of Google. It is a specific mathematical formula used to calculate the total link weight of a page. It is merely a factor in determining actual SERP ranking. Your page's rank, your actual position in the SERPS, is something entirely different. Do not get the two confused.
yes, agree. people confuse about PR and SERP....so having so many links will not boost u at first SERP , right ?
You need link weight, link context, and on-page optimizations to rank well. So there is no yes or no answer to your question. Links with good context pointing to an optimized page will help it. Links with no context pointing to an unoptimized page will not help it.
Very true! I have chosen not to vote on this poll, because it can be answered both yes and no, depending on the circumstances. There are some people who put too much emphasis on PR and regard it as some sort of "holy grail" which of course it isn't. In those cases PR is definitely overhyped. However, if I was to judge from the replies in this and many other similar threads I have seen here on digitalpoint lately, I would absolutely vote no. Quite the contrary in fact. I strongly disagree with the notion that PR is "worthless" and does not affect SERPs. It does, but of course it's only one part of a large equation - that, however, doesn't make it worthless.
You watched too much Mister Ed because horses don't talk and when they start talking you should not listen PageRank is not a factor in ranking a site. Feel free to prove it if you can... If PageRank is a factoring how come I can rank a PR2 site over PR7s? If PR is a factor how come the google results don't seem to reflect it? PR and link popularity are two different things. And I believe with google it is 'link value' more than popularity. Googel pr is based heavily on HOW MANY links are pointing to your site while Google results are based heavily on WHO is linking to your site. Seethe contrast? You can't in your right mind say they go together. And yes I run a small seo forum. I rank #3 for 'seo experts forum' as well as other keywords related to seo forums... It is small because I have not spent much time with it. I plan to do that more at the end of Feb. I also run a Seo blog. Is that okay with you?