Good start, but you probably should have stopped there. That has got to be one of the stupider things I have heard in a while, but it does kind of flow with the other arguments you made. Yes, there are fakes out there, but someone is not a fake by virtue of being in the field for a long time. And how can you possibly disconnect the time/experience relationship? And the whole problem is that you are not qualified to do so, and there are people with less experience than you who have picked up on this faster, who do know what they are talking about. So far, you don't seem to have gotten the gist of what's going on, and your statements that I will quote later reinforce this. What views? Backed up where? So far you have pointed to one post that is Aaron's very unscientific observation and opinion (no offense intended to Aaron, he never claimed it was otherwise), and mislabeled it as proof of something. That whole process points to someone with a very uneducated viewpoint of how things work, what constitutes proof, and what is opinion vs what is fact. Ok, again you seem to be unable to understand how it works. If the two sites are identical in age and links (including when the links were gotten), then they would have identical PR. Not knowing that indicates a lack of understanding of the process. There are billions of sites that outrank Google for billions and billions of phrases. Saying that since this is so, and that since Google is PR10, then that must mean that PR is meaningless, is a flawed argument. It is the same as saying that if you put racing fuel in your Pinto, and racing fuel in a Ferrari, and then the Ferrari beats the Pinto in a race, then that must be proof that racing fuel does not make your car go faster. Leaving out or ignoring elements of how it works does not change how it works. -Michael
PR is influenced by backlinks just as rankings are but PR has no influence on rankings. You say I have no proof yet you bring none either. You say I am inexperienced yet that is also based on your word and your views. Provide one iota of prove that google factors in the toolbar PR and I will be satisfied. I have a PR6 site that is outranked by a PR2. The PR2 has more quality backlinks. The PR6 has a lot of lower quality backlinks. If PR had an influence I would gain a bunch of low quality links and raise my rankings JUST BASED ON MY PR. It is foolish to think a item such as the toolbar PR which is so easily manipulated by low quality links would be used to factor results in a engine based on relevancy and quality. Explain that one to me please. I have no problem with seo who have been in the game for years. I have a problem with seo who think there beyond learning, who don't adapt to changing times. PR no longer holds value.
It holds the exact same value as it always did. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Site A: 10 PR0 backlinks with the anchor text [green widgets]. Winds up with a PR1 when the PR gets updated. Site B: 10 PR0 backlinks with the anchor text [blue gizmos] and 1 PR6 anchor text with the anchor text [orange drogmats]. Winds up with a PR5 next update. Site C: 1 PR8 link with the anchor text [orange drogmats]. Winds up with a PR7 next update. All other factors equal (on page optimization, age of sites and backlinks), then Site A (PR1) will outrank B and C for [green widgets], Site B (PR5) will outrank A and C for [blue gizmos], and site C (PR7) will outrank A and B for [orange drogmats]. As I stated very clearly earlier, it matters how you get your PR. You're now stating that your point has been all along that just having PR doesn't mean you will rank for something. That makes you look pretty damn stupid because no one else is saying that is the case. It seriously looks like you are stuck in a 6th grade level linear math mentality when arguing that PR is meaningless, or that it "no longer holds value". To me that sounds like you think that it used to magically boost your rankings and now it doesn't. -Michael
Know what? You win. You're not intelligent enough for meaningful conversation, and I shouldn't have even tried. I honestly think that my IQ has dropped trying to relate to you. I'm done as far this thread goes. Go ahead and re-post so you can feel like you got the last word in. I'm unsubscribing from this thread, and won't know or care. -Michael
Oh, for crying out loud, Michael, stop being so blatantly childish!!! You can't say anything with any "amount of certainty" about how Visio did his testing, can you? Now, I can tell you, with a very high degree of certainty, that a link from a .gov website is pure gold when it comes to PR value. And links from .edu websites are less valuable than .gov, but are still preferred. But, you will probably make some irrelevant assumptions about how I happen to know this, wont you? Michael, I honestly think you need to go and reducate yourself on search engine basics - that is, what is the INTENTION of PR? What is the INTENTION of designing an algorithum to rank pages for a particular word or phrase? I've only been managing web strategies since 1996 so I'm sure you will know more than me, hmmm???