Since when does the quantity of backlinks have to do with PR? A person can have 1 link from a PR10 page and have a PR9, whereas someone can have 500 PR2 back links and have a PR1. Look for quality, not quantity. Mind you, as has been stated many times, the BL numbers shown on Google are absolutely meaningless anyway. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of sites linking to us have gone down in PR a point. Consequently, we've lost a point as well. BUT, more importantly, it looks like we've had some good improvements in the serps over the last day!!
Yep, just went from 0 PR to PR 4 Feels nice to have the toolbar show some green.. whether it matters or not.
Even though BL's increased, perhaps they did not increase enough to stay even with the increase in the growth of the total web. Ex: The web increases x% requires an increase of x% in BL to maintain PR. If BL increase is x/2%, then PR decreases? I'm a newby on the net, but as an old accountant this makes sense to me. What daya think? Roger
Well, I certainly do NOT want the job of translating compar's posts for the forum, but I think people are misinterpreting what he said. In this latest update, some sites showed increased PR, some showed decreased PR, sone showed no change. Similarly, some sites showed an increase in the number of reported backlinks, some showed a decrease, and I'd guess some showed little or no change. IF I am correctly interpreting compar (and I wish he'd get the heck back here and do it himself), he was suggesting that he observed an anomaly in that ALL sites showing a reported increase in number of backlinks showed a decrease in PR. While the observations that there is no direct link between NUMBER of backlinks and PR (since the PR of backlinks and other factors need also to be considered), IF compar's observations were accurate, the explanations posted here so far do not explain his observation. On the other hand, (1) I may be misintepreting compar, and/or (2) compar may have been mistaken in his observations.
These are my changes. 1. Site 1: gained 2000 backlinks, no change in pr. -themed, several hundred pages 2. Site 2: gained 1 backlink; went from a pr1 to a pr 2 - themed to a point 3. Site 3: Lost 1200 backlinks; went from a pr0 to a pr1 - themed, several hundred pages (these sites have been around for well over a year) 4. Site 4: Gained 150 backlinks;went from a pr0 to a pr3 - strictly themed 5. Site 5: Gained 1 backlink. Went from a pr 0 to a pr 4. - totally non themed (I mean each page is a different subject; kinda slapped up there), 6 pages. (these sites have been up since mid October) The only thing that makes sense to me is the backlinks; one month they're up; the next they're down.
Google backlinks have no meaning. For example, half a year ago I had about 140 backlinks and PR4. Now I have about 30 backlinks and PR6. No dramatic changes in the site itself, but REAL backlinks must be up.
You are doing just fine Minstrel. I've checked my observations several times and they are accurate. And I agree with you that none of the learned positions to date have adequately addressed my query. In my opinion PR is the result of the value of all the PR from pages that link to your page. There is no reason to suspect that Google is suddenly reporting more links but that they are predominantly from pages of lower PR than the last BL reporting. If these first two assumptions are correct then how does one explain the consistent drop in PR I am seeing on every datacenter which reports an increase in BLs?
Here's an analogy relating to my earlier post on the subject: If minimum wage jumps to $15.00 and hour, does a loaf of bread still cost $1.50? No - of course the price of bread will go up. Now, in our case - with so many sites working to add hundreds or thousand of backlinks - the value of each backlink is diminished (regardless of the PR being sent). Thus it takes incrementally more backlinks (even higher PR bl's) for a site to maintain or increase its own PR. If the baseline for each PR level was not recalculated each time G does a PR update, then anyone working on their BL's would eventually get to a PR8, 9, or 10. Another conspiracy theory is that G is trying to find a way to combat sites that try to overpower the SERP's through BL's and anchor text. It would make sense if they were trying to measure the relevance between the sites, and placing very little value on links from unrelated sites. (No bonus for related sites, just a diminished value - or even zero value - for unrelated sites). I'm sure that once the update has been completed that it will be a little easier to test this theory.
Yay! I really hope this is accurate, if so, I jumped from PR 2 to PR 6.. almost all the servers are showing PR 6 for my site ( www.ki4bbo.org) Thats a nice jump! All the work I have done spa, I mean promoting it paid off Josh
Quality and relevant links are where it's at, not the quantity of links. Ask Compar how a PR0 page or low PR page can show up number 1 in the SERP's. There are a lot of lost so-called SEO's out here. Did not Google come out and just say that PR was simply an entertainment device a while back? Ask Rusty Brick, he published that.
Yes, i think we all understand this. You're still missing the point and you still haven't answered the question posed by Compar. Go back and read his post again... slowly.
Might as well share my experiance: my weight training site has a PR5 on the google toolbar and a PR3 if searched by http://www.prsearch.net so....
So in all probability it is datacenter difference issue. Have you used McDar's tool and looked at the different datacenters?
Very cool search engine tool. Shows your current PR, inbound links as well as some other useful features.