Quite a few people told me that since my site was almost all duplicate content (it's a message board that acts mostly as a repository for recipes, medical research/studies, news articles), that it would be very difficult to get Google to bump the PR since Google likes fresh new content so much. I went from a PR1 to a PR3, with only a dozen or so quality anchor-texted backlinks, a few thousand non-quality backlinks, and very poor homepage optimization. Site has only been up 9 months now. Maybe I just lucked out, but Google didn't seem to mind my duplicate content. Not sure if it's just a myth or not.
almost all article sites have duplicate content by definition. However, most have good PR. Somehow google has to consider them as repositories of information. I guess if your site is at least indexable, google will find it and index it. Wonder when google will reach its limit of indexable duplicate content.
It shouldnt be an opinion. These are already established facts for years. PR isnt even a subject that should be discussed for anyone who isnt in the business of selling links/advertising directly. It's been very inaccurate to determine a website's strength for quite some time. Dont worry about that green thing in the toolbar! It'll save you time, and you can work on other things that will actually benefit your website. PR is only based on links by the way.
Inv, why do you say PR is not a factor for a website? almost everybody around here waves around their PR all the time. If Pr is based on links, and google ranks in part based in the number of links you have, shouldn't this be a big consideration for any webmaster? Please let me know your opinion on this.
well Pr is required. but if you have some bad links as well google is gong to give you PR but not the ranking. PR is not high rank. but generally sites with high pr get ranked hight that is not becauseof the Pr but it's with the traffic. when some websitesi s popular it gets backlink automaticallly. Google looks for how much time a visitior stayed there on a particular site that is the BASE of ranking . PR is virtual. cheers
It seems many people worry about PR for different reasons, and in some of these cases, PR isnt a factor to worry about. For example: Case #1- Your looking to rank your website, you have good content and your link building. In this case you shouldnt care about your websites PR because it has no direct relation to the SERPS. Yes, PR is based on links but the PR measurement is inaccurate and a PR5 can be outranked by a PR3 in the SERPS. Case #2- If your a link seller or your selling advertising on a website. Saying you have a high PR is a great pitch. What it comes down to is that PR isnt a good measurement and is inaccurate to based on.
Guyz i am amateur webdeveloper, but i had learned from my short experience is this, that duplicate content is accepted by the google spiders, but i am nt sure how much time, it will take. But one thing is sure in todays world people are forgetting the art of originality.. Most of us wants to earn money and we are just concentrating on that part.. Hope you will think this in Positive manner..
Before last PR update my one blog at blogger had PR4 with ony 3 post. It has only 3/4 back links from my other blogs which has PR of 2/3. But I can't fully agree with: Is it possible?
Can you really get PR 7 on a blank page....I'm gonna try and get PR on a blank page...... I only use PR when I am buying or selling links
Eventually advertising will come into play on my website, and PR is something people consider when doing link exchanges.....
I've seen a few sites that are like that with a PR4 or so; it seems as if just because they've been around for years they get a good PR, even though the site is no longer active and hasn't been updated for 3 or more years.
does PR really matter? If your PR goes down but sales and traffic go up, who cares about page rank. PR is only good for GOOGLE indexing.