Does PR has to do with the quality of content?

Does pagerank has anything to do with the quality of the site's content? If it does, how google measures the quality of the content.

 

The short answer is "no", not nowadays.
When Pagerank was conceived, it was probably the indicator of quality of content but manipulation by webmasters has resulted in a devaluing of PR weight over time so that now it does not guarantee quality.

 

It is all about links and quality of the links you have coming to your site.

 

Quality of links = PR that the page, that links to your website, has.

 

But still, when you have great quality content and submit to some directories like DMOZ, you should still easily get a PR of at least 4, so I'ld say PR is still a measure of quality content, but in an other way.

 

I respectfully disagree.

1. Many websites listed in DMOZ are of poor quality; DMOZ even lists complete duplicates of some website.

1.2. Furthermore, DMOZ does not list the website of great quality immediately. It can take up to 8, 9 months for the submission to be accepted. Given this, I don't think we can say that DMOZ represents quality.

2. Suppose that websites listed in DMOZ have all right quality on average. But there are gazillion other ways to get PR without having any quality in your website.

 

Allright, you might be right.
But you can only see the PR of a site if you are on that site.
So you can still look at the PR and then look at the content.
If both is great, perfect!
If only the PR is good, hit another site!
If the PR is bad, it's most likely the content is bad, so hit another site!

What I wanted to express is that it's very easy to get some PR if you have good content. So if you don't have any PR, you most likely don't have good content.

 

That may be true, but doesn't mean that PR is based on quality content. PR is based on backlinks.

It's also not true that no PR means no good content. It could just means that the person hasn't bothered to work on getting backlinks.

They are loosely, indirectly related at best.

 

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

In other words, a page rank results from a "ballot" amongst all the other pages on the World Wide Web about how important a page is. A hyperlink to a page counts as a vote of support. The PageRank of a page is defined recursively and depends on the number and PageRank metric of all pages that link to it ("incoming links"). A page that is linked by many pages with high rank receives a high rank itself. If there are no links to a web page there is no support of this specific page. The Google Toolbar PageRank goes from 0 to 10. It seems to be a logarithmic scale. The exact details of this scale are unknown.

 

From GOOGLE


PageRank Technology: PageRank performs an objective measurement of the importance of web pages by solving an equation of more than 500 million variables and 2 billion terms. Instead of counting direct links, PageRank interprets a link from Page A to Page B as a vote for Page B by Page A. PageRank then assesses a page's importance by the number of votes it receives.

PageRank also considers the importance of each page that casts a vote, as votes from some pages are considered to have greater value, thus giving the linked page greater value. Important pages receive a higher PageRank and appear at the top of the search results. Google's technology uses the collective intelligence of the web to determine a page's importance. There is no human involvement or manipulation of results, which is why users have come to trust Google as a source of objective information untainted by paid placement.

Hypertext-Matching Analysis: Google's search engine also analyzes page content. However, instead of simply scanning for page-based text (which can be manipulated by site publishers through meta-tags), Google's technology analyzes the full content of a page and factors in fonts, subdivisions and the precise location of each word. Google also analyzes the content of neighboring web pages to ensure the results returned are the most relevant to a user's query.

 

PageRank is a measure of "off page factors" and therefor is not impacted by any factors on a page. It is based on the quality of the pages linking to a page.

PageRank is page specific and not uniform for an entire site. The "best pages" on a site usually have the most PageRank.

The majority of web pages that have a PageRank of 7 or greater are good quality pages with worthwhile content that naturally gets their share of links.

There are exceptions of course, but it's rare to see a PR 7 site that that has little or no value.

Many web sites with pages that are LOW in PageRank, say 3 or less, and have been around more than say 6 months or so, are generally NOT good quality web sites, otherwise they'd be getting more links naturally because others would see value in the page's content.

Good quality web pages with worthwhile content do not have a hard time getting people to link to it. It is more difficult for less than good quality pages to get linked.

Quality is subjective. Agreement on what quality is will never happen in this forum or any other.

So, in answer to your question (which I bet most people have forgotten about by now :'>)

"Does PR has to do with the quality of content?"

The answer is YES, kinda. BUT PageRank is NOT evaluated based on the content on a page - it is based on "off page factors".

 

I've tested this... Pagerank only has to do with the pagerank of incoming links - period. As a test, I linked a pr6 site of mine with very few outgoing links to a new domain with nothing on it, a blank page. Within 3 months, it ranked a pr6 itself. So obviously it has nothing to do with the quality of either site, but simply the PR of incoming links.

 

@1001:
That's pretty much what I tried to say, but I probably expressed it a bit wrong, so I was misunderstood.

That's true, but look at 1001's post. You can get a good PR without content, but usually a high PR also indicates good content.

 

I agree that was the original intent of PR, I'm just saying now that so many ppl know how to manipulate PR artificially, it's becoming less true all the time.

 

It is all on the links:
Link's pr the higher,the better;
Link's quanty the more,the better(qualified links);
Link's quality higher,the better.

 

Thanks for all your postings, they were very informative.

 

Hi,

I am sure most of the mosts are accurate and correct - especially going back 1-2 years...

Now seing links being de-weighted by

- non or bad topical matching
- youngness of link (link dampening, low age = low power)
- position of links on page

I am sure that the original PR papers from 19xx are no longer valid as is. But that's what "yisou" e.g. also said with "Link's quality higher" ...

jez