Turn off the toolbar, and go hunt down 100 of the most powerful links from sites that you actually think you can get to link to you. Pick which pages you would like them to link to you from. I don't mean disregard it, I mean turn it off altogether until you have found 100. Try to get links from them. Go forth, young Jedi... do it with the blast visor down. No peeking. -Michael
Well now that really comes down to how you judge a website and what you are looking for. Let me tell you how I would go about it: 1. I would use that nifty search function on Google to find related sites based on a keyword that I deem appropriate. The sites that appear at the top are much more likely to have a higher PageRank (the one that is being calculated continuously) so I would enter the site. 2. I would look around and see how often the content was being updated and how much content is on the site (I would use the site: query in Google to get an idea) 3. I would take a few random sentences from the site and then run it through Google to check if the content is unique. Sure they could have re-worded it...but most looking to make a quick buck could care less. 4. I find a page that would best fit my needs. If I am looking for traffic, then I would look for a link that is above the fold and on a page that gets good visibility. I would also ask the webmaster for some traffic stats so that I could get a better assessment. If I am looking for a link with anchor, my main concern is that the page isn't buried five levels deep. I would also find a page that best suits my subject matter. If I am looking for a reciprocal link, then I visit the links page to see how many outbound links are already there. If I am the 48th link on page 31...it's pretty clear that this webmaster links to everyone. Now if there are only a few pages of related links and all are to quality sites, then I would trade links (assuming the first 3 steps have already been taken). Here's how it usually works. If a site is able to rank high in the SERP's, updates often, is using unique content...chances are that the webmaster is taking the time to build a quality site. I don't need a PR indicator in my Toolbar to tell me what is already obvious. Anymore cute comments Michael? EDIT: It seems that our priorities may be different here. Although I frequently employ a link campaign, I also get a lot of high quality links naturally from great sites. Take for instance a link I got in the Houston Press back in February (I only found it a few days ago after a user emailed me about it): http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-02-22/dining/haute-dogs-and-hotties/. Although my little PR indicator shows a PR4...do I really need it to tell me that I just got a link from a quality site?
"By the time you see newer PageRanks in the toolbar, those values have already been incorporated in how we score/rank our search results." That is a quote from Matt Cutts's blog — http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-pagerank/ If that doesn't convince people that PR does have value in search results, nothing will. Forget about arguing the fact that the toolbar PR is already out of date. Most of us know that. • First of all, realistically, in most cases toolbar PR will be only slightly different from Google's continually-calculated PR. • But far more importantly, Google's man is saying that Google does "...incorporate [PR] in how we score/rank our search results." What could be plainer? PR is far from being useless. PageRank is incorporated in the search results! For the PR naysayers, if you don't care about search results, then you just keep up your drumbeat about PR being "useless".
There is more to it than just being out of date. I am not too sure why you decided to skip over the first 3 quotes that I posted. The quote above says it all...there is more to it than just a number form 0-10. Also, you are absolutely correct in saying that PR plays a role in how you rank in SERP's. Nobody is arguing that point (well at least I wasn't). What I was saying is that your Toolbar PR is not a useful measure. Think about it for a second: 1. It's always being updated 2. There is more to it than what you see in your toolbar 3. There are tons of cases where Toolbar PR is way off. What about those people who buy expired PR6 domains and sell links on them? We all know what happens after the PR update...they drop to nothing (if they aren't maintained). How useful is a tool that shows you a PR6 in this case? Better yet, if you used the Toolbar PR as an indicator to purchase a link on a PR6 expired domain a month back...and it dropped to nothing after the update, how useful was the PR6 in the Toolbar in helping you make the proper decision?
Just one... how the hell do you eat when you are so damn full of yourself all of the time? I didn't ask how you would go about link building without the Toolbar, I answered your question of what use it has. No, by itself it is not the end all be all determiner of where to get links, nor (before you start making more false assumptions) did I ever imply that it was. I gave you a way to see for yourself what use it might have. I didn't say it couldn't be done without the toolbar, and honestly you look a little more like a dumbass after posting that then before. The Toolbar PageRank is a quick visual cue that can be added in to your mental calculations when viewing a site very painlessly to help you judge the prime targets from the average to low ones, before you ever leave that site. So, was "useless" a 10th grade vocabulary term, and you only made it to the ninth? Or are you maybe going to try and explain your viewpoint further? Edit - WTF you talking about? No, it's not. And no clue what you think it is. -Michael
Did I get you angry Michael? LOL. There is no need for your personal attacks on my intelligence. If it makes any difference, I did graduate Magna Cum Laude from the University of Southern California...but that's neither here nor there. Also, just because you are unable to make any valid points and you keep going around in circles, doesn't mean that you have to resort to making these types of comments. You did it in the last thread and now you are doing it here. Look at the quote above and tell me where I made my assumption. Specifically, your statement about the Jedi. Sure I am a big Star Wars fan...but your implication (with the Jedi comment) was that I would probably run into quite a bit of difficulty finding quality sites, or 100 of the most powerful links, without the Toolbar PR. You said, turn off the toolbar and go hunt down 100 of the most powerful links. Is that not the same thing as you telling me that I would have a difficult time finding quality sites without it? Then why are you so shocked that I gave you an example of how I would go about link building without it? I could have only responded by either agreeing with you or providing you with an example which would prove otherwise. I asked you to give me an example of how the PR toolbar could be useful and you come back with a star wars reference. Then you tell me that I am full of myself and that I am using 10th grade vocabulary. Don't you see something wrong here? EDIT: The fact is this. We are on a forum where we can all voice our opinion. What isn't useful for me may be useful to you. Is the Toolbar PR useful...well if you think that the PR Prediction Tool is useful then sure, why not. Let's then agree on the following: The Toolbar PR can be used in conjunction with a variety of other tools in order to determine the quality of a site.
Precisely, and that's the point I was making, in contrast to the thread-starter's wrong statement — "The thing with PR is that it's completely useless." I was replying to the main point of the thread (not at all to your post) . He couldn't be more wrong. Internal PR factors into the SERPs, per Matt Cutts. The toolbar simply gives us an approximate idea of how we are doing PR-wise.
I completely agree. It's just really a shame when people use that PR indicator as the only means for comparison (along with the PR Prediction Tool and the Multi-DC Check)...because it doesn't show the entire picture. In fact, if it is used on its own, it really shows nothing at all. Although I may come off sometimes as being a little condescending, my intention is to help people gauge a quality site.
In much the same way your being unable to see the use in something, your lack of comprehension is not the same as me not making valid points. Although I'm guessing that sentence will go over your head as well. Nope, and again, there is your assumption. I was implying that were you to actually test this, instead of just spouting what you "know" to be true, you would soon discover that there is a certain amount of time saved by having what is basically an on-page indicator of what Google thinks of a page. Doesn't matter one bit that this indicator is not perfect... it's the only one you have. When doing a large link building campaign, that time saved adds up fast. I did not accuse you of using 10th grade vocabulary. I accused you of apparently not knowing the meaning of the word "useless". The full of yourself part needs no explanation. So, define "useless" please. It's the part of your initial statement that I corrected, and apparently your ego got so wounded by that it caused the rest of this argument to follow. Ok, so, mind proving that this statement has any place whatsoever in this discussion, perhaps by showing exactly where anyone stated that they relied solely on them as their only means of comparison? Bullshit. Your intention is to attempt to make yourself look better. It is blatantly obvious in the wording you use and in how you later ad lib facts to make it seem like you were saying something different than what you actually did. EDIT: Actually, nm, don't bother answering any of my questions, I no longer care. -Michael
I ad lib facts to make it seem like something different? LOL. That's a pretty strong statement there coming from a guy who says so much and yet says so little at the same time. What's the difference. I answered your question by telling you how I would have gone about it (which is in fact what I do). What's time saving for you is a waste of a glance for me. Why are you being so thick headed about it? Not helpful and without purpose...which it isn't. I used that example as a reference and this is a practice commonly used by a lot of webmasters. Proof? How many times have you seen people with a PR requirement in order to exchange links? These people rely solely on PR to gauge the quality of a site. So if the next big site launches tomorrow and they turn them away because of their PR (which already has value over at Google...but the Toolbar says 0)...is that considered useful? And since the title of the thread was "Discussion - PR Is Useless", I provided an example of how PR can be used in a manner which was useless...when it's used as the sole indicator for evaluating a site in a link exchange. No my intention was to prove that Toolbar PR was a useless (not helpful, without purpose) measurement. Whether or not it's being used with another tool or to save time is irrelevant...if it's not consistent, then it's useless (unless of couse you see usefulness in an inconsistent tool...in which case, use it). You have yet to contribute one valuable piece of information. Actually I take that back...you did say: Too bad this quick visual cue is flawed. Examples? Ok. Look through the Link Sales directory and you'll see tons of blogs with 2-3 posts (recycled) and a PR5. To the untrained eye, it would be a PR5 and everything else would be irrelevant. And yes, there are people out there (especially those new to SEO) who only consider that factor. Is that what you consider useful, helpful, or with purpose? We both know that it shouldn't be the only deciding factor, but unfortunately, not everyone does. And that is who this thread is for. Or what about all the sites that jumped to a P6+ after this last PR Export...would you have considered their site two weeks ago when it still showed a PR0? Now head on over to the directory solicitation forum. Look at all those sites giving away PR4 and PR5 Links away for free...have you ever kept tabs on any of them? This one guy was selling links on a PR6 word cloud site with the url "milfcruizers.com" or something to that effect. So now I ask you, what good is a tool if it isn't consistent? Shouldn't there be other criteria involved when evaluating a site? Of couse....and that's what I have been saying all along. Your intention is to disprove me and the OP in order to what...? Filter out the truth? And what have you proved? That the Toolbar PR is useful for you? I'm glad you find it useful, but I don't. I don't use the Toolbar PR and I am perfectly content with my progress. If I choose to say that the PR Toolbar is useless (not helpful, without purpose), that's my opinion. Why does that intimidate you so much? It could be that you are being argumentative, or that you simply have nothing better to do so you play Devil's Advocate. If I can convince one person here that there is more to evaluating a site than just Toolbar PR...then I have succeeded. Meanwhile, what have you done besides advocate it's use and effectiveness? You did say that there are other methods to evaluating a site...so why don't you mention what those are?
I can see that PR is one of many tools but answer me this. Would you rather have your link on my site that has a grand total of 65 backlinks (mostly PR0 and 1) with a PR of 3 or my other site 7 years old with 1200 high quality backlinks with a PR of 2. I personally look at MANY factors for determining where to place a link. The PR factor doesn't hold as much value in my box of tools anymore.