Google's 2007 Q4 PageRank (PR) Update - 10/13/07

I admit I didn't read all 60+ pages... I got better things to do... what I meant was the 1st post had nothing of value so shouldn't have been stickied. As always pages add up...

Also read your article... its baloney. This update had nothing to do with anchor text. Your theory don't add up, mine does.
BTW I got an infraction here at DP for posting an article in which I called somebody a fool. You swore in yours, I wonder what that counts for

 

I agree with your thesis:

It seems to be true from what I've seen on some sites.

 

If the blow to link sales only affect PR and not traffic that would be cool, people might buy links for visitors then instead of PR - actually only buy links from related sites where they think visitors would be interested in clicking through to their sites.

Companies like TLA will have to rethink their angle a bit, really push the "Links for Visitors" angle (including no follow in their code) and remove the whole Page Rank thing - it could still work that way I think.

 

Not really... my theory is that they will catch on to what is happening and what used to be a PR7 is now a pr4. The same amount of link value is passed the only difference is the number in the toolbar... it would be similiar to taking the outside frame of a F350 truck and put it over a little car... the outside would be mighty impressive and visually it would look good but inside nothing has changed. It is still that little old car. Got the point?

 

One of my sites went down by 1 point, the rest remained the same and several jumped up A LOT. For example, my main hosting site went from N/A to PR4.

However, I still believe that toolbar PR isn't really worth that much. My traffic hasn't increased dramatically and I don't think my rankings have either.

 

my site's PR increased from PR0 to PR4

 

This update has been great really, Google are finally trying to sort out the Pagerank system again so that it actually gives a meaningful rating for websites, not a rank based on how much money you've spent or how much you've spammed your site.

A slightly more detailed version of views here: http://www.seoblogger.co.uk/google/pagerank-knickers-twist.html

 

Okay... you obviously didn't do any research or that would seem quite stupid... so far what I see is very reputed sites going from PR 7-8 to PR 4 and I see worthless trash sites going from PR0-1 to PR4.... what Google is doing is diluting the PR so that nobody can sell links... who wants to gamble 50K a month on whether their links are really from PR 1 sites or are indeed from PR 6-7-8 sites?

 

If that is the case, then Google is trying to phase out the stupid PR system all together.

Congratulations Google on that - PR is a waste of time and space in the toolbar

 

I see the PR update as random in some cases. I have subpages on some of my sites that are PR 5 out of nowhere (from N/A) and some other subpages on the same site are PR 0... These pages should have the same links coming in to them (including no outside links) and the homepage is a PR 3. It's almost like it (the PR update) is intended to confuse webmasters.

 

True. Got PR6 site (good site) with no paid incoming links but some sitewide sold links. Dropped to PR4. But visitors is as strong as ever...

This PR updated worked! All clients will leave based on PR-toolbar. This except 2-3 that still see good SERP effects ...

PR-toolbar is not a good rating for he strength of the site anymore. I expect to see alternative paid link criteria. Since buying links still does a lot for your keyword ranking, just useless for PR ranking.

 

Yeah, I think a few link sales sites, and individual link sellers, might try and pass this off as the truth, but I don't agree at all.

 

Ohh yeah 80% of the internet deals in paid links... uhh give me a break man. Even if they did Google couldn't figure them all out.

Your problem is you read and do no research of your own... how do I know this? Cause it would take hardly any research to prove you wrong.

But go ahead spew your nonesense... what really happened according to you?

 

Mine isn't backed up by the 1337 gurus or whatever, but logically, think about it, and I AM right. You say it's baloney, give a reason. Give a contradiction.
Your article doesn't give a SINGLE technical concept. How the hell do you think they identify purchased links? They didn't do it manually, and people don't label it. Your entire argument basically just is that "uhh Google said they didn't like this, and we didn't listen...", and then you complain about some apocalypse "we had this comming" stuff for about a page. That's not WHAT happened. Thats a single possible CAUSE.
Try looking at it from a technical standpoint if you want to be useful. Figure out how google identifies purchased links. It's been established that that is what they were after, so saying it is not news.
Here's a hint: They didn't find the links by hand.
</sassy>
PS: My entry was probably not even 2 pages.

 

I'm not spewing anything, in fact I'm not even slightly nauseous - I just don't happen to agree with your "point" from your previous post.

 

I think perhaps google just assumes links to other sites from homepages and such are paid links. I have links to other sites from my pages but they all belong to me and I think they might have been treated as paid links.

There's also a possibility that it's all hoohaa and Google has just lowered almost everyone's PR to scare people into removing links and they have no technology whatsoever to detect them, and that the whole manually reporting sites idea is just to make everyone even more paranoid about having off-site links.

 

WOW could job of running around the bush... so far you convinced me your good at talking. You said absolutely nothing in that post to prove me wrong and thats what I want... I already proved you wrong and its based on absolute FACT!
Google is very limited in finding paid links... the only way it can do so is if a site is not careful and uses words such as "sponsored", "buy a link" "paid links" etc but most of the sites which lost PR had none of this and never bought a link in their life.

The second method is using public link buying sites such as textlinkads and broker services to find sites participating in paid link buying and selling.

Again most of the sites which lost PR looked legit, they looked natural and there was no way an automated search would have flagged the site as a culprit.

BTW I have a friend who does open link buying and selling... an automated cleansing in theory would have killed him. he is still going. So where does your theory go? I don't see where it holds water...

 

If that was the case why hasn't a mass penalization occurred? We all know Google hates paid links... if they can and indeed did "penalize" the PR of sites because of it why aren't they penalizing rankings? It don't add up...

 

I didn't refute your points because you made none until the post I am replying to. You didn't give a single TECHNICAL CAUSE (readoint) to refute. You also gave a single fact against my point, other than that you, yourself, called it bologna(except you spelled it wrong).
As for the sites that lost PR, they did look natural. However, they were (almost) all prone to having static linking text across many platforms.

If they were doing something so simple as scanning for a single keyword phrase or two in content there would be two issues.
1)Blackhats(myself included) would start spam commenting on competitors sites with those phrases, so they'd get dropped.
2)If it was that simple, they'd have knocked back link spamming MONTHS ago, and yet it remains effective. Wanna know how easy it is to find link spammers? Search google for "[url=http" viagra
You will find a lot. And yet, Google has never implented that idea.

On to your idea about them signing up textlinkads and the like.
It's a possibility, but they would never consider it a primary method. There are thousands of places like textlinkads in hundreds of different languages and countries. It's just not practical.

YOUR theory, my friend, is too simple, too abusable, and overall not effective.

 

I think there's not enough ammo left for all this bun throwing. Here you go. Arm yourself guys. Play fair now!!