5,170 backlinks and STILL a PR5? could PR bleed be more real than we want to believe?

Will.Spencer,

I followed your link and checked out your experiment. It is very interesting.

I did a link:www... search for the page and the results indeed said that there were no links to the page.

However, I went to your main site and did a site:www... search on Google and discovered that your experiment page, although reported, has NOT been cached by Google.

Could this be an explanation as to why no backlinks are reported to that page?

Since PR has not been updated since June 22nd, we would not expect to find PR reported for a page created since then.

Although there is plenty of evidence that PR from links is passed to the page the link is pointing to, there has been no hard evidence presented that the relevance of a link OR the relevance of the page that the link is on is being considered.

Logic would dictate that ALL links being used by Google should be reported.

BUT, it has long been accepted that they report only a fraction of the links. Why, Google chooses to do it this way, who knows. But to imply that the reason to obscure most of the actual links must be logical, may defy logic itself.

Google has been reporting links this way long before "relevance" came on the scene.

There are many examples in Google results that indicate that "relevance" is NOT being utilized.

Why else would a forum page be catapulted to the #2 position for a search on weber bbqs? A few links in the body of a few posts in this forum was all it took. In what way could Google be considering content in an SEO forum as relevent to that topic?

Also, in our experiment in the "nice tool" thread in this forum. The experimental page is selling sporting goods. All but a handful of links to the page, have nothing to do with sporting goods. Yet, the links are counted and have helped bring that page high up in the serps.

Granted, the page has flip-flopped around, but it has beaten out another page I have that was targeting the same keywords. The experiment page with 72 irrelevant links to it is at position #49 while the other page with 144 relevant (but anchor text not as concentrated) is in position #212. (as reported on the 216.239.53.99 datacenter)

Right now, Google is going through so many changes it has become almost impossible to discern Googles tweeks from our own.

Caryl

 

it's hard to identify precisely all these links since Google only gives the first 1,000 ones.
A large part are internal, and another large part come from 1 site with thousands of pages, including forum threads (but not only forums).

This site only exists since mid-June.

According to its placement in the recently updated Google Directory, I assume that the main page has a PR6.

I don't know if I can publish its URL?

 

How did you get listed in the Google Directory so quickly? People tell me it takes anything up to a year.

 

Some meta editors of DMOZ participate to this site (it is an online collaborative dictionary). The site has been in DMOZ in a few hours
Then we have been lucky because Google updated its directory in July. So the site were listed in Google Directory (with PR0, it was at the bottom of the page).

Since this last update (august, 10th), Google updated its directory including the PR (PR-like ?) displayed left to each site. And the site is now between two sites with a (toolbar) PR6.

If you're curious, the site is http://www.dicodunet.com/ and the Google Directory category is http://directory.google.com/Top/World/Français/Informatique/Terminologie/

Best,
PR Weaver

 

I am a bit surprised that the test page was even discovered, as there are (in some ways of thinking) no links to it. Or, in another way of thinking, there are eight links to it.

Are you referring to the test description page, or the (sort of) hidden test page?

I don't think that caching and backlinks display are related. But, who really knows?

Ah yes, PR is a <deleted>. That's why I am mainly focusing right now on keyword relevance. The forum links do not appear to be passing keyword relevance.

i.e. when you search for the magic unique string, only the forum posts appear. The link destination page does not appear.

That's what I mean by "keyword relevance", not anything as complex as all of that "local rank" confusion.

 

Will, do you have the Google toolbar installed with the PR option ? Maybe the toolbar has passed the location of that page for Googlebot to spider it.

 

Will,

I PM'd you the url of the page I was referring to. I believe it was your hidden test page.

I did a search on that page and found it to have no PR or Backlinks reported to it.

Since it had no cache in Google, I assumed it was not really indexed by Google. That would explain why it would not come up when searched for the keywords.

Caryl

 

I have seen two sites drop yesterday from PR 4 & 5 to PR0. If everybody is so convinced there hasn't been a PR update, but these have, can the only explanation be a penalty? It is still in the index and was crawled last yesterday.

Any idea what could be the case?

There is no reason I can find it could be penalized for...

 

TOPS30,

Have you checked the PR of these sites from an independent tool or website or is it info as reported by your Google Toolbar?

The reason I ask is that many have reported that their G Toolbar had began, all of a sudden, malfunctioning.

Caryl

 

Toolbar + API/Tracker, haven't tried any manual tools out there like Bling's etc.

 

If Keyword Tracker reported the same, then it was not just a malfunctioning toolbar.

 

You reckon a penalty then?

I can not see why though unless they don't count same IP range links no more.

 

More likely a Google screw up than a penalty but PM my your url and I take a better look.

 

Thanks mcdar for sharing your thoughts.

Lets indeed just blame it on Google who aren't focussing on what they used to do quite well... All that money must be very distracting.

It's all Googledigob nowadays it seems.

 

PR "bleed" certainly exists. PR is a mathematical construct, but the essence of bleed is that a page that links to an external site is to that extent lessening the PR it has to give to other pages of its own site. The linking page doesn't "bleed" anything, but the site as a whole does.

The sites that have a link on every page of your site: are all those links each to to different page of the other site, or all to the front (or some other one) page?

If G has taken it into its pointy little head to penalize massive links to one page from some other site, that might make a difference (I am assuming that the other sites do the same for you). You (and they) might want to reconsider the whole idea.

Whether all of these conjectures about what G is doing are true is unknowable, but presumably some of them have some basis. It is to make a cat laugh to see the comical contortions G goes through to try to keep a hopelessly silly basic methodology lurching along year after year, kinda like Zombie, or a 1937 Chevy that keeps stalling and overheating, but whose owner will be double-damned if he'll trade it in for something with a working engine.

 

Mmm what are backlinks, how can I tell whoz linked to me etc?

 

Without instructions; it works on Wordpress; and mdpro; which is a phpnuke spinoff.

 

Get the Google Toolbar, click the I and select backlinks.

If eye-2i is your site: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=link:www.eye-2i.com&meta= it's looking bad...

Sign up for the Keyword Tracker (see Digital Point menu) and track progress!

 

yep i know eye-2i.com ain't doing too hot coz it's just been made lately. Thanks for info. Before I bought it and just put personal stuff for friends but now I use the site for info. Very new change. So I have not worked on marketing it much.

 

I actually have lotsa webs linking to my site including instantposition.com on the seo doc page, ciap.net, and many big companies, yet the info at google does not show any. that is weird!!!