How Can I get good PR in google

We are singing from the same Hymnbook Bob, I thought you too were referring to the idea that links from pages which are somehow relevant to your page will rank higher, which at this point in time is just wishful thinking, IMO.

 

TOPS30:

#1) I have not done any research into G guidelines and FAQ's, I found that quote when I was searching for PR10 pages - you are wrong there. #2) I not only have attempted by I make it a matter of reading the serious whitepapers etc and I have quoted them a number of time here in this forum - you are wrong there also.
I was asked by compar for some proof for my position that relevant link hold more ranking weight then non-relevant links (all other things being equal) so that is what I did.

They say when you disagree with some one, it is best to disagree with facts, logic and sound arguments than with taunts and belittlement.

I would be interesting in what papers, articles or studies you would use to support your position on this important point.


Mel: Well it seems that Google has stated a fact there - thats all.

 

Bob
There is no doubt that Google has made a statement, but you perhaps should reflect on the fact that it is in Googles best interest to never give out accurate details of its ranking algo.

If you look at that seemingly simple statement in a bit of detail you may realize that in order to accomplish the comparing of the relevancy of one page to another for a particular query involves a geat deal of effort for very little gain.

As an example, Google says in black and white that it does not like hidden text in its index, but there is lots of it their index and there are many other similar examples.

 

I don't understand this sentence. -

IMO you didn't. He asked for proof, you come with a statement saying they do more than simple stuff. Rubbish proof that is. Try that trick in court. Won't work, I tell you.

You seem to rely a lot on what others say but I guess you are right on this one. Yet you didn't come up with facts, not with logic and certainly not sound arguments. Ambiguous arguments.

Have alook at Nohaber's website. There is a section whcih links to all important whitepapers and patent files. They are written by Google employees, G developers and other leading industry experts. It's no PR crap from G's public website. This is the cutting edge technology explained in minute detail. None of these mention increased weight put on so-called relevant links. That still doesn't mean they don't do that, I know, but when that particular technology isn't even mentioned in those papers and all you say is "G does more than counting the words" then my conclusion is that they don't use it right now.

Ofcourse that is a fact. They do do more than counting the words. But does that imply they calculate weight based on relevancy? Very big assumption IMO.

 

TOP30:

I edited my post and removed "so" twice, it should make more since now.

In my statement to compar I noted that what I offered was not proof but a statement from what I consider a reliable source. So it is not rubbish proof as I didn't offer it as proof and I even noted that I didn't offer it as proof. Also this is not court.

I provided the fact that Google makes this claim on their website. I didn't offer any logic, sound arguments, taunts or belittlement.

I don't think I made any stretch there. "and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query." It seems clear what they state. They examine the contents of the inbound links of a pages to determine if it's a good match for the query.

While it can be questioned if this statement is true, I really don't think that my deduction can be considered a "big assumption."

 

That quoted statement has nothing to do with Compar's question to you.

 

TOPS30: Well I disagree. He asked me for proof for my position on relevant links having more ranking weight. I answered him back with a quote from Google stateing that they in fact give more rank weight to relevant links, but noteing that I didn't consider that as proof. I felt it was a good place to start the conversation.

 

The patents and documents are quite clear on the matter.

Relevancy relates to results of a search query.

PR is a mathematical calculation.

 

Wierfire

Have sent a PM

 

Got it and thanks

 

Mel:

Are you saying here that Google is making false statements on purpose to mislead us as to how they find relevance for search queries? That is an interesting position, if indeed that is your position.

Well lets look at the gain. What would Google gain by determining if inbounds are relevant by looking at the inbound page. If they could do that, that means that your 5000 links you paid $1 a piece for from non relevant bingo sites with the anchor text of SEO Consulting are now going to be devalued. Isn't this what Google wants to do?

The next question you pose is how hard is this to do? and is it worth it? There are a number of simple software packages out there that can quickly rank the relevance of inbound links to a certian keyword. It doesn't seem to be a hard thing to do. Is it worth it? Well I would say so! I think that Google would love to do it if they hadn't done it already. All those sites out there that have their cheap bingo and gambling links counting the same as real relevant links that have been give as a real vote for a real page that is really relevant - Google would love to change that, if it hadn't already.

I am not sure what you are apply this statement to. Are you inferring because Google says it doesn't like hidden text in its index and there is hidden text it in the index, that likewise even though Google clearly states it it takes into consideration the contents of inbound links of a page it is ranking, that this really isn't so?

Well if are, I don't think that is good logic. You seem to be saying that as Google doesn't have full controll over what is in its index, it doesn't have full control over what it claims to it does to establish relevence of pages in its index. Sorry I don't buying on that one.

 

Jenny Barclay:

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. I do agree PR is a mathematical calculation. Not sure what your point is though.

 

I have looked several times and I don't see where I said Google is making false statements. If you were to ask me if Google often makes ambiguous and misleading statements, then my wholehearted answer would be Well of course they do.

Do your really think they want to give you the details of their ranking algo? Or have you considered that they might be doing everthing in their power to keep it from you?

Yes I believe that is one thing Google would like to find a way to do, but firstly this would also trash almost all reciprocal links, which is not one of Googles objectives I believe, and secondly who and how do you determine if a link is relevant and thirdly it might trash those links that Google values so highly that the claim they are the heart of their search engine, those links that conform to the spirit of PageRank.

If I run an SEO site (and I do) and if I find that my local pizza parlor has great pizza and want to put a link to that effect on my site (and I once did) is that or is it not a relevant link. Who decides what great pizza is - the customers or the competitors? Just because I am not in the pizza business, I can't have any opinions on Pizza that are "relevant"? In other words how do you determine if the link from one page to another is relevant or not based on the text on the linking page?

What we were discussing was the comparing the content of all the pages that link to each other and determine if they are "relevant" to the pages they link to, not ranking the relevancy of the text in a link. Do you really think that Google looks at the 40,000 pages it selects for ranking, and then looks at the content of every one of the millions of pages that link to those pages and makes a relevancy detemination on the fly? Not to likely is it?

If not, then in order to determine the relevancy of those pages they would have to pre rank every page in the index for anything it would be relevant to, not a small undertaking, and one that would probably necessitate google revamping its storage encoding scheme. Is it worth the effort? Only google could answer that one, but it would appear to me that it is not, as the collateral damage could be worse than the problem

BTW can you point us to some of these cheap software packages that can determine the relevance of links accurately?

No what I am saying is that what Google does and what Google says are often two different things. If as you say Google has complete control over whats in its index and it doesn't like hidden text why is there so much of it in its index?

The big question here is the dermination of relevancy , which is the holy grail of all search engines. What makes a link relevant to a searcher? If a baker gets a great deal on a new Mustang and decides to declare that on his site and put a link to where he got the car is that link irrelevant just becasue it does not come from a competing car dealers site?

Of course it's not, its not irrelevant to searchers who are searching for those kinds of nuggets, and its not irrelevant to search engines who are trying to provide what the searchers want.

Just because you found a bit of text somewhere that says Google looks at the text of lots of pages in determining relevancy IMO does not mean that Google has made major changes to its algo, especially in light of the fact that we all know of sites with many many irrelevant links, who rank very well as a result of those links. And we all know of sites who purchase links, but you may be surprised to find that on the average, purchased links tend to be from "relevant" sites more often that do reciprocal links.

 

I didn't see it either, you "seemed" to imply it, so I asked. I am concluding your answer it no you don't think Google makes false statements?

I wouldn't consider it a relevant link. I don't know how Google checks for relevance of links but according to what they have in the post I quoted they do. I would presume if you were a pizza site they would be very relevant and they would have a scale of relevant.

I am not sure Mel why you keep on making these kinds of statements. We all know well that if Google is dealing with links according to their relevance it would not be done on the fly. I am not a 3 year old. Why use these kind of arguments. Of course I know that Google doesn't go out on a search that takes them 0.15 seconds and look at 40,000 pages and look at the content of every one of them. Give me a bit of credit will you.

Do a search on page reputation, there is a number of software packages out there.

Another one of those statements. I have never implied or said they have complete control over there software, nor has Google stated that either. Why attribute things to me that I don't say and common sense should tell you I don't believe.

Its Googles index they get to deside what is relevant and what is not.

Nothing there to surprise me there. After looking at the links page of some of the people that request links from me.

 

LOL Bob I answered your question quite completely I think :

What part of that don't you understand? Everything does not have to be either black or white, there are at the very least shades of gray, and perhaps even a bit of blue or red occasionally

Interesting to note that you seem to be of the opinion that the only relevant links a commercial site could have would be from their competitors, and since that would be pretty rare, if that were the case it would be very difficult for commercial sites to get relevant links and thus rankings, yet commercial sites seem to rank well without links from thier competitors.

I guess that you and I define relevancy much differently. Do you have any information confirming that Google defines relevancy in the way you assume?

A searche for page reputation returns some sites that provide software that looks at the relevancy of the link text not the text of the page linked from compared to the page linked to.

You seem to agree that Google does not calculate page relevancy on the fly, now look at the way Google stores the data it uses for searches and tell me where they are going to store the relevancy data without redoing their entire storage and ranking mechanism. If they don't do it on the fly and there is no provision in the data they look at when ranking pages to provide the relevancy data, then how do they do it? I say they don't.

Can you not see that when Google says that for instance it considers hidden text spam yet allows a great deal to remain in their index, that the statement and the facts seem to be at odds with one another, and that perhaps they don't always do what they say?

On the one hand you seem to imply that using the relevancy of the linking page as a criteria would get rid of purchased links, but on the other you agree that most purchased links may well be from relevant sites/pages. Bit of a chasm there no?

 

Mel: You posts get stranger all the time.

where did I state that you didn't.

I made no reference to not undersanding that part of your post at all.

What would lead you think think that. That is not my opinion.

I think it is one thing to state that hidden text is spam and not welcome in there index and for it to be still there. But to make a statement about how they do ranking that is not true. Can't you see the different there?

I have not implied that using relevancy of the link page would get rid of purchased links. It would devalue them.

With all do respect you seem to not be able to put 2 and 2 together. I suggest you read my posts a bit slower. You continue to come to conclusions that I just can't see how you do it logically. Honestly, discussions with you are getting more meaningless all the time. It seems in every post I have to correct misconceptoins you come up out of the blue about my opinions.

I agree that purchased links can be from relevant site, of course. I agree that they can be from un-relevant sites also. Also the some for reciprocal links, or any links.

 

Ok Bob one last attempt at understanding, then I give up.

If you ask me a question it is up to me how I answer it. If you don't like the answer fine, but if you just ignore it even when I post it a second time and say I have not answered, then I have to assume that communcation is not possible and thus any further discussion is a waste of time.

 

Mel: You are not making any sense.

For the 2nd time I didn't say you didn't answer anything. I did how ever state in my last post "where did I state that you didn't." That means show me where I said you didn't answer my question. And then you turn around and make the above statement. Like what gives?

I would agree with that. But post after post of you putting words in my mouth really is a waste of my time. If you cann't read what I say with out coming up with silly statement like so you think they check 40k of docs and work out the relevant with each search. What gives with that kind of statement. That is like an insult. A 3 year old knows better. Then to get it post after post after post.

Either you are a game player, or you need some sleep, or you are off you meds. I don't have time for these kinds of meanless discussions, Sorry.

I feel that a couple of days ago after I bowed out of our last discussion after having to deal with the same silly misconceptions post after post after post. Attributing things to me that were so stupit a 3 year old wouldn't believe them.

 

I can only judge you by what you post Bob.

IMO you are making grandious assumptions based on very little information. For instance you seem to feel that Google attaches some sort of importance relative to rankings based on the relevacy of the text a page is linked from, based on two sentences for a Google page. You have also stated that the only relevant link to a pizza parlor would be from another pizza parlor.

How does Google treat the subject? IMO the best way is to do a search on Google. Search for the term Pizza and you will see that the top ranking site out of over 9 million competing pages is the home page of pizzahut.com. This page has almost no content on the page, only have the word pizza in their name on that page, but they do have over 6000 links to that page, most of them from what you seem to feel are not relevant sites.

How on earth then did they get that ranking on such a competitive term?

They got the ranking by text links IMO they got it because Google does not attach any importance to the source of the links. YMMV

FYI I am not a game player, I do not need sleep (just got up from an 8 hour sleep a few hours ago) and I do not take any meds, but I do have one disorder - It really upsets me to see individuals proclaim as true facts which they have not researched, have any evidence of or appartenly have not thought through very well.
I have seen too many newcomers who take such posts at face value and are thus mislead, so I tend to go out of my way to see if there are some unrevealed facts that have not come to light or if it is just conjecture clothed as fact.

 

Mel:

I would agree in some cases I do that to some small degree. I would take the "grandious" out though.

Again you attribute some thing to me that I have not stated or given you any reason to think I would hold that.

Just for the record I will give you an example. For a Pizza parlor relevant links could be other pizza parlors, other resturents, food wholesalers, companys that provide cooking equimpent ovens etc, and the list goes on and on.

Mel it is best to not make so many assumsions especially assumsions that make the other persons view look foolish. It is called creating a straw man and destroying it. You do this post after post.

Discuss with you is no longer an enjoyment but a task.