Google toolbar Update

Dodger:

I would agree with that. See my post on 37 PR10 Pages Drop to PR9's .

 

Exactly.

(adding another "exactly" because vBulletin won;t let me say it just once )

 

LOL Minstrel don't get your knickers in a bunch!

I submit that true PR is not a myth at all, the myth is that there is a way to use the toolbar PR to understand your true PR.

I do agree that PR is not a great factor in ranking but it is a factor, and if you start neglecting all the small factors I am going to outrank you every time.

Thanks for the Psych ward warning, but its not necessary thanks, once you get some real life experience you will be able to deal with small matters like this without needing professional help.

 

I think it applies as stated before I think by Shawn....

PR pages are based on a percentage of the entire index.

i.e. .1% of site will be PR10 - so for every 1000 pages there is 1 PR 10 page.


There has been talk before of pages disappearing from the index, which would account for a reduction in the total size of the index and reduction of PR for some pages.

We have also seen alot of deep deep crawls. I speculated that googlebot was looking for things it previously hadn't looked for.

My speculation now, is that there is a new element or elements which google considers spammy. And pages containing this new element have been removed from the index. In order to accomplish this google basically had to crawl every page it could find, hence the crawling activity of the past month.

I also think it took some time to build this new element into the algorithm - which between that and crawling the entire index at once, is what took so long for a toolbar update.

Question is, what are these new element / elements?

 

Thanks for your concern about my knickers, Mel, but I think you vastly overestimate the significance I place on anything you say. As for "true PR", knock yourself out... and again, please stop that annoying tactic of implying that I said something I didn't say so you can refute it: Where did I even hint that anyone should ignore PR or any other "small factor"? What I actually said was stop obsessing about it and what the mythical "true value" of PR is...

 

Totally agree with that Ron, as more pages are added in all liklihood the range of True PR increases, and thus the assignments of PR to the toolbar boxes must change, though the 1 -10 scheme remains in effect.

It should be noted that in some cases a very minor change in PR can result in the demotion or promotion of toolbar PR.

 

Right on Minstrel we are on the same wavelength. When I use the word you, I did not mean the you Minstrel I meant the you as someone. Perhaps it would be clearer if I had used the term one instead of you. So far as I am aware I do not compete with the you Minstrel for rankings.

 

hurricane sh: That page has 47 links. Try this in yahoo: link:http://www.vokaboly.de/englisch-lernen.php

 

Dodger: Ok that that is not a change in the algo for PR at all. I would agree what what you say, there have been another of posts over the years made concerning this. 37 of the 152 PR10's that were on my list dropped to PR9. CNN.com dropped to a PR8, I have seen this all over the place. I did a post on this 37 PR10 Pages Drop to PR9's. Let me know what you think.

 

But they are all internal links except a couple of cgi redirects links which don't pass PR at all, how can it compete with the main page?

 

I think Google is updating more often than before...


Thanks

 

No backlinks update , no pr update and no internal pages' pr update -the same as it was in the last update

 

Aint this thread slightly ancient??? Why did you dig it out?

 

Would somebody post a page rank checker tool where the changes are applied?

I don't see anything at all!

 

Anyone that posts with regards to the update below proves the following.

1. Web user scans pages and not read.
2. Web users ignore alot of stuff that they are not looking for which may be obvious to the designers. e.g. Dates on every post.
3. They have been afflicted with the PR virus.


Thanks for the web usability test.

Matt