1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Google pagerank is Updating

Discussion in 'Google' started by checkrankings, Jun 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. matt-

    matt- Peon

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #761
    Sorry - What's not working about site:url? inaccurate results?
     
    matt-, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  2. mvandemar

    mvandemar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    307
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #762
    Actually it was mini-Matt who said all that. Matt was safely tucked away on vacation and hasn't given an official response yet. I'm still waiting to hear what he says on the subject.

    Technically, he timed his vacation to make the most out of the July 4th holiday, so he could still be said to be on vacation, even though he has posted a couple times on his blog since Friday.

    -Michael
     
    mvandemar, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  3. The Webmaster

    The Webmaster IdeasOfOne

    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    718
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #763
    Yepp, thanking everyone, except ministrel, and telling people, what flowers he bought for his wife...
    too informative...
     
    The Webmaster, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  4. mad4

    mad4 Peon

    Messages:
    6,986
    Likes Received:
    493
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #764
    Yeah, its broken. :)
     
    mad4, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  5. LaCabra

    LaCabra Goats R Us

    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    241
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #765
    hmmm... I've posted your post here to see if others can make something out of it because I am still confused. So far from what I gather here are some interesting tidbits from POST 5:

    1) PR has nothing to do with topic.

    So I guess Matt C is wrong when he says to build links from related sites!

    2)To rank high, you have to rank high for something.

    Does body odor count?

    3)You need 40,000 PR4 links to get a PR8 Viagra site

    Do they all have to be PR4 or can I have a few PR 7 and 8 in the mix?

    4) Both the PR and the rankings would be due to the same thing, ie. links, so yes, they are related.

    So much for on page optimization, just build a crap-load of links from everywhere.

    5) Most people who spout that "high PR does not equal high rankings" appear to be under the impression that there is no relation whatsoever, which just isn't true.

    So why do PR4 sites rank higher in serps than PR6/7s

    I'm a newbie Michael ... and I now more confused than before.
     
    LaCabra, Jul 4, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  6. CrankyDave

    CrankyDave Peon

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #766
    Michael,

    Here's your mistake...

    The URL only passes PR, the text passes ranking. The text near a URL passes ranking as well whether or not it's linked, just not as much as if it was linked. So no, PR and rankings are not due to the same thing.

    Additionally...

    This is one of those "all other things being equal" arguments that simply doesn't hold water. You can take any single one of the hundred or so things that Google uses to determine ranking and say the very same thing.

    The only supposition that can be made about PR and its' relationship to ranking is that it is used. To what level or what extent is what gets confused. Personally, I place it very low on the list of ranking factors.

    Dave
     
    CrankyDave, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  7. DomainMagnate

    DomainMagnate Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    10,932
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #767
    ohh you guys never stop
     
    DomainMagnate, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  8. xeno

    xeno Peon

    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #768
    Ceteris Paribas is the latin phrase. With a well-known 100 plus factors (not that the factors are well-know, but it's well known that a 100 factors are used) to determine a PR, this is true. But it is obvious that those couple of things weigh more heavily.
     
    xeno, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  9. mvandemar

    mvandemar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    307
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #769
    Ok, CrankDave, even though your post was more intelligent, and probably deserves and answer moreso because of it, I gotta reply to the other (would be too large to reply to both atm)

    PR does have nothing to do with topic. How does that make Matt wrong?
    wtf?

    I never said that, is your tactic to misquote to try and make something you think is funny fit into the thread, or did you really believe that's what I said?

    Actually, yeah, that works. Look up "google bombing".

    That would be the same reason that Google, a PR10 site, doesn't rank for "Digital Point Forum Newbie Questions"... thinking that there is any reason that it would indicates a lack of understanding. If you really read my post and didn't think I answered that question, then, well... actually, I don't know what, then.

    CrankyDave, while yes, there are over 100 different things that go into ranking a page, it is still true that links from higher PR pages do pass more weight than lower PR pages, and links are still heaviest factor in ranking. It's not an "all other things considered equal" thing. I'm saying that an unoptimized page (even without the text on the page at all) with 1000 PR2-PR3 links will outrank an optimized page with 1000 PR0 links.

    -Michael

    PS I assume, with over 1500 posts, that this was meant to be a joke:
    Just so you know, it woulda been a hell of a lot funnier if you actually did know what you were talking about.

    BTW - If you're gonna de-rep me for trying to help people understand, at least have the balls to not do it anonymously. I never said nor implied that everyone here was a newbie. Whoever automatically felt I was talking specifically to them, well, that's your fault not mine.

    PS to the BTW - If it was a woman who de-repped me, sorry about the balls comment, it was a figure of speech.
     
    mvandemar, Jul 4, 2006 IP
    Homer likes this.
  10. Old Welsh Guy

    Old Welsh Guy Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    291
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #770
    Ok, In my post I made fun of it, mainly because of the condescending manner in which you suggested I and others knew nothing about the Google algo. I of course got a little pissed off with this, but tried to keep calm. ;)

    Here is how it works, you have two elements importance and relevance. Importance is Page rank (a purely numerical value that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with relevance, and you also have relevance, which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with importance as that is a numeric value based on backlinks and the value of backlinks.

    Sadly though Mvandermar, you have made the classic error of confusing cause and effect, although to be fair you are 'almost right'.

    On the one hand you have a high pr value of say PR8, sadly though you make the leap in the wrong direction, as you talk about the link content and the anchor text, proximity text and other elements within the algo. But these have NOTHING to do with PR, these are relevant only to the relevance side of it, the alpha element not the numeric element of PR.

    I will say though that as Google use a base 5 sliding log scale algo, it IS possible that a higher PR will impact on the thresholds etc for some of those elements,

    But, and it is a JLo size but, PR and link elements (or link benefit,) are totally different things, the PR is a by product of the links and this as I have already said, is the importance element that Page and Brinn speak of in their original white paper.

    Or as I said earlier we have the golf course by the sea (linxs) relly Vance, (relevance) Impotence (Importance) Backrub (being the original Google algorithm).

    Sorry for the original sarcasm, I was just responding to your original condescending tone.

    So do you want a leg up to that high old horse or are you gonna hang around with us mortals down here? ;) :D
     
    Old Welsh Guy, Jul 4, 2006 IP
    minstrel and CrankyDave like this.
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #771
    Very well said, OWG.

    And I loved the part about "But, and it is a JLo size but" :D
     
    minstrel, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  12. mvandemar

    mvandemar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    307
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #772
    Sorry, I think you are confusing some of the posts. I never said that anything that had to do with relevance affected PR at all. I happen to think that what you're saying mostly agrees with what I'm saying, namely that instead of PR affecting rankings, Both PR and Rankings are affected by Links. That's all my big assed long winded post said. That's it.

    No need to apologize for the sarcasm, my post was condescending. The problem usually comes in when people who already know what I'm talking about think I was talking to them. I wasn't.

    I was talking to all the people who have made a habit of misquoting information that they misunderstood in the first place as gospel fact, on message board such as these, where newbies come to learn, who in turn then repeat what they were told by people who they trusted to know what they were talking about. If you don't do that, then no, I wasn't aiming my comments in any way whatsoever at you. :)

    -Michael
     
    mvandemar, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  13. MattUK

    MattUK Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    377
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #773
    You guys are actually saying pretty much the same thing but being picky over the details such as 'all things being equal' which doesn't seem to give a practical scenario.

    Michael, do you agree with my 'theory'

    links + anchor text = rankings + PR

    rather than,

    PR = rankings

    What I believe you're arguing is,

    links (from PR ranked pages) + anchor text = rankings + PR

    rather than,

    PR = rankings

    I think most people take the term in the bracket as read.

    You're obviously knowledgeable Michael but you seem to be rubbing most people up the wrong way with a condescending manner. That's your perogative, but I suggest to come to an agreement and to get your views across it would be better to drop the big shot attitide. That's not a dig, it's actually how you're coming across deliberately or not.
     
    MattUK, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #774
    And that makes your monumental condescension and arrogant assumptions about newbies all right? I don't think so, mvandermar.

    Take a deep breath. Start again, this time with a little respect for members of this forum, whom you know nothing about. I might point out that as far as DigitalPoint is concerned, YOU are a newbie. And not a very well-behaved one so far.

    If you want to be taken seriously, be a little more respectful and a little less arrogant.
     
    minstrel, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  15. BILZ

    BILZ Peon

    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    62
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #775
    I am seeing a PR0
     
    BILZ, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  16. Homer

    Homer Spirit Walker

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #776
    WOW that was a read. My only comment is why do so many people seem to challenge mvandemar. Having read through this and references to other threads explaining that their is a relationship between SERPS and PR. I buy it...it makes sense that their is some kind of relationship that eventually connects the two. One that most can't see.

    To me Micheal's comments are educated and valid. He is sharing opinions that matter. It's up to you to take it or leave it. In my case I'll take it and slap the man with some green...thanks Michael ;).

    No, we are not related :D.


    Cheers,


    H
     
    Homer, Jul 4, 2006 IP
    mvandemar likes this.
  17. mvandemar

    mvandemar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    307
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #777
    Ya know, coming from someone who is as inherantly rude as you minstrel, that actually sounds like a compliment. You can't read what you just wrote and see the arrogance just dripping from it?

    So tell me again, which "monumental condescension" comment was it that was aimed at all of the members here at DP? My comments were only ever directed at a few select. Do you think that you will get more support if you make me out to be some enemy of the state or something?

    This all stemmed from me saying that the way certain comments were phrased might give people who didn't know better the wrong idea about the PR/Ranking relationship, and this turns into some sort of personal character defect slam fest. How the hell did that happen?

    I make a helpful comment and get a bunch of snide, you-don't-know-crap replies, then yeah, my answers will take on a certain tone. Deal with it.

    -Michael
     
    mvandemar, Jul 4, 2006 IP
    maldives likes this.
  18. MattUK

    MattUK Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    377
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #778
    Well, you compared me to Jessica Simpson, that's pretty condescending, don't you think? I left it at the time but you seem to be continuing in the same vein with everyone else.

    I 'think' you're the same guy who got banned from Doug Heils forum, he's a tit at the best of times but you seem to do it with eveyone.
     
    MattUK, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  19. MattUK

    MattUK Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    377
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #779
    He's not really suggesting anything new, just being argumentative over the wording of it and dressing it up as a different theory. Most people can see through the Emporers new clothes.
     
    MattUK, Jul 4, 2006 IP
  20. mvandemar

    mvandemar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    307
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #780
    Oh c'mon now! That was a joke! Your phrases sounded similar, you did not honestly believe that I was comparing you to her, there's no way.

    You happen to be right. I'm not taking claim for inventing it, or discovering it, or for putting into some new light. This isn't new information in any way shape or form.

    With that in mind, why doesn't it bother you that self proclaimed experts still screw it up?

    -Michael
     
    mvandemar, Jul 4, 2006 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.