I don't care about the PR update, do you?

Since PR and SERP are intertwined, I care a great deal about PR. I don't care so much about the update, although it is nice to see my hard work over the past few months 'rewarded' by google.

 

The premise is false. Thus, the logical conclusion is also false.

 

uhm, the premise is pretty much true (with G), we just don't know how much "intertwined" are they

 

hmmm.. I'm doing some search experiments, and from what I see, PR has maybe more weight than even the weight the keyword has (not much more).. Also, a big factor in the PR part of the algorithm seems to be the PR of the main page of the site. I've seen PR8s rank number 2 in google, with a keyword density of 0.3% (that's only 2 references of the word in the whole page source), after many pages with (much) higher keyword densities and many more references

again, these are only some experiments, and they don't show me anything rock-conclusive, but just gives me the idea that PR is not a factor in the G algorithm, but a number of factors that actualy makes up xx% of the algorithm.. also, the idea of PR may be more complicated.. the number we know as PR may only be shown to us for a simplistic view (everyone likes a 1 to 10 scale, in increments of 1.0)

 

Again, PageRank Information

Add to that the numerous examples of lower PR pages ranking higher, sometimes much higher than higher PR pages and the statement that PR and search engine ranking are "intertwined" seems at best greatly overstated.

Additionally, on the subject of "keyword density":

The Death of Keyword Density Tools
Aaron Wall, March 30, 2005

 

IMO is not enough to affect the search engine ranks as of now. But it does give your page a good reputation in exchanging links.

 

Folks Minstrel is absolutely correct. There are endless examples, including in previous posts in this thread that concur with Minstrel's statement.

In my view PR is a derivative of many aspects of SEO. It is NOT a exclusive parameter that "weighs significantly" against your SERPs. Google states that PR is the measure of importance of a page or authorativeness, which in my opinion is a complete bunch of rubbish, with its current algorythm.

For example, in my industry, the sites of governing bodies, which I would classify as authorative and important sites, have for the most part (99%) lower PRs than my PR4 site. I can post relevant data with these results if someone would like them or it is required.

The fact that these authorative and important sites are showing a lower PR and generally speaking have poor SERPs allows me to conclude that.

1) SERPs positioning is not important to these authorative sites or that these authorative sites do not know how to optimize.

2) Perhaps there is enough awareness in our sector that users will know where and how to find the information/sites required without using google or another SE.

3) These authorative sites' primary mission is to inform the user as to its mission and provide relative industry specific and sector information without any consideration to PR (not important to them). Some of these sites provide excellent resources adn do not find it a necessity to compete as they all work for the good of the industry.

4) Google lacks the knowledge as to how to adequately identify these authorative bodies as authorative/important sites. Or that Google's algo regarding relative importance is flawed. That is to say that G's PR algo is based on overall accreditation (like comparing my site to yahoo) and not tuned by sectorial importance (comparing my site to others in my sector).


Personally I think its a little of all BUT the key is number 4.

Frank

 

sayles, pm me with some searches where you believe that PR is not important (has insignificant importance), and I'll have a look at them

ministrel, from what you are saying, PR doesnt matter, and keywords density doesnt matter.. what matters then?

 

I did not say that PR doesn't matter. What I have said, repeatedly and consistently, is that its importance in Google ranking is seriously overestimated. It does play a role - just an increasingly smaller role than in the beginning when Google first launched its search engine. And the reason it has evolved that way is that webmasters have been vigorus in their efforts to thwart or pervert the "democratic vote for page importance" originally envisioned.

As for keyword density, the issue is not whether the page (and Title) contain your search terms but rather the concept of keyword density - the belief that your keywords should be repeated a certain percentage of times on the page, not more or less. I'm not sure where this concept originated or whether it was ever true for any search engine (possibly Alta Vista at one point?) but I see little to support the assumption that it has any importance now.

 

great post minstrel, I mean the one before, and the one before it and after.. well all your posts are very informative!

Is there any really good list of these over 100 factors or just the most relevant ones from them and are you aware of any oficial statements by google representatives as about anything like this and how the serps are determined.. anything, but reliable...


PS: please don't refer me to the google patent papers or some other pages where they explain it in more than 1000 words, you know I'm lazy

thanks

 

I'm not aware of such a list. The only information I know of that is publicly available is in Googles "Guidelines for Webmasters" and similar public pages. All the rest is assumption and conjecture derived from patents, patent applications, and various attempts by various people to interpret shifts in page rankings and application of algorithm updates, some of which may be accurate or close to the truth and much of which seems to me to be pure mythology.

 

Here is what I believe (just my opinion):
The public PR is a measure of popularity and it has "nothing" to do with serps. when doing a certain query you will have a new dynamically calculated PR based only on relevant links. The public PR takes into account all the links so it is not related to a certain keyword. However the higher your public PR is, the most probable you will have more relevant links and then higher query related PR.
What I noticed lately that even the public PR algoritm has been changed. Now google looks at a site and kind of categorize it and then is able to ignore irrelevent links even without queries. You can see this from the google sitemap panel where they mention top keywords in your site, it is like a categorization, right?
again that's just a thought

 

once again, we just have to build good quality content sites hoping google will rank them good and give us traffic..

jk

 

Here's one for starters ... kw = leather jackets .... BTW ... there is a good bunch of PR6 and > sites that don't even show up in top 10. Some of these PR6> are well established retailers ... anyways have fun let me know what you figure out

 

MG I've got the secret list .. paypal me all your adsense revs for 18 years and I'll give it to you then.

 

Here is a GREAT example of optimization ... if you carefully analyse this screen shot you quickly find out what makes Top 10 SERPs ... kw = leather, basically this is an idea of what is important.

1) Allintext links with keyword in it
2) links from theme related sites
3) Keyword in URL
4) Keyword in Title
5) on/off page optimization

 

sayles, with leather jackets, the pages that show up as PR0 are PR3 and PR5 (your prolly calculated before the updated took place).. also I believe the PR of the domain plays a big role in the PR part of google's algorithm (so google knows if NASA releases a statement about x-y-z, it would rank a bit higher than if billywilly.cc made a page about x-y-z)

also, in parts where PR is bigger than the previous result (although 90% of the time the difference between two consecutive PR's isn't bigger than 2 -- which again leads me to believe that PR isn't just a tiny marker), it's logical to think that the other part of the algorithm was higher on the previous result (on-page optimization for example)

 

I don't understand what you are saying. Still a PR3 is higher than a PR4, 5 or grater site!!!

There are some serps in my previous post with greater than 3 PR seperation. I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you please explain ...?

 

Even if you find something to support your beliefs about PR in that example, Gordon, there are numerous examples of low PR sites ranking higher than high PR sites. That is nothing new. That has been true for some time now. And it isn't only true for newer sites but for long-established sites. Try a few random sites yourself - it isn't hard to find examples.

 

I don't see serps in your previous posts with a greater than 3 PR separation.

I didn't say a PR3 is higher than a PR4 or 5 site, I'm just saying that, when a PR3 site is on number x in SERPs and a PR4 or 5 is on number x+something, it just means that the part of Gs algorithm dealing with relevance (text-matching, semantics, etc) yeilded a greater result than the PR weight.

I think it's basicaly like this (I repeat, basicaly): There are 2 main factors - PR, and relevance, and each has it's own weight. The weights are added, and give the position of the page in the results. So you could have a PR5 site, but with moderate relevance, and then a PR4 site ranked higher, because of the greater relevance (which has more weight than the difference of PR between the two sites)

Let me give a better example.. let's say for each point of PR, weight=100.
Now, the PR5 site has weight=500, plus a relevance of 200, so that gives 700. The PR4 site (which is ranked higher) has a PR weight of 400, but the relevance adds a weight of 350, which gives 550, and that's why it's ranked higher.

OK, now, since I ussualy DON'T see big differences of PR between close ranked sites, I find that relevance has a limit, or better be said, you can take it like PR (a scale of 1 to 10). So that page has relevance 2, that one has 6, and the best has 9 and 10.

Of course, the algorithm is hugely more complicated (well not hugely, it's just 100 factors, and we don't even know how many of them are actualy variables), but I think it simplifies like I said.