The Google PageRank system is a Gimmick. I've seen it fail and dance around like a Dodge City resident with someone shooting twin six-shooters at his feet. I've held top positions solidly for 3 years, watched many related relevant sites, and many other websites for years, pertaining to their PageRank, content, text and search engine position for keywords. My article is at... http://www.mdvaden.com/tower_of_google.shtml I've read dozens of threads by webmaster and SEOs who have said that PageRank is "part" of the equation and process: mentioning also the importance of design, clean code, backlinks, etc.. But I have yet to read a "slam-dunk" firm testimonial totally contrary to PageRank. If you do know of anyone elso who has written a rock-solid testimonial contrary to PR, I'd like to know - please list them. I'd like to cross reference if possible. The topic title was partly inspired by another SEO, overlapping my recent writings comparing the mad-dash for search engine results to the "gold rush" days of the 1800's.
At first glance, I'd agree with you. But you've totally overlooked the fact that toolbar PR is just that - toolbar PR. The actual PageRank of a site is an internal number, seen only by Google, and it does have relevance in determining a site's ranking in search results.
No, didn't overlook nothing. I've been on all the aspects of this like a Texan on a porkchop for years. You just mentioned something I did not put in the article, because it's not relevant. Its factual, but not relevant. You see, whether I'm at a zero, or at a 9, I'm going to, and "they' are going to be somewhere on some page. When my "0" page is high on search results page one, and some university's "6" page is at the bottom of search results page two (which we've all seen evidence of) then the myth is busted about the relevance of PR. In the article, one of the competing sites I mentioned, was higher PR than mine, 3 times the age of mine, and more text rich than mine. But my site sat two positions higher than that higher PR site for almost the entire year. It was right after I modified my text. I've brought my site up 300 positions with just the letter "s" making some words plural. And in all that, the PageRank reflected nothing about how relevant my site was, nor my competitors. The PageRank did not reflect which site was in the lead for one year or the other year. The only thing that reflected which was in the lead, was the actual position on the page. Google really has its hooks in some folks - just like in the Matrix or something. Who cares how Google recognizes, stores or catalogues the PR, or if they are the only ones who do - because it does not reflect or dictate where a site will be positioned. Pure confusion. Its just a "drug" to keep people staring and coming back to Google and chasing it. I just removed the meter from my browser 10 minutes ago. I don't need it. And why? All I need to do is monitor the content of my site and competitors each month or week, and see what changed, and see where we display. That, I will know, and my compitors can know. And while we know where we sit, Google's PR will continue to fluctuate, with absolutely no guarantee that a high PR will gain a lead position, or that beneficial merited changes and top notch site will grant it a Google PageRank merit button And for simplicities sake - I don't need the PageRank to figure out what site is meritous enough to get a backlink from. There is a better way. That's doing a few keyword searches to see what site's "display" high for one or several terms. Not "rank" high, but "display" high. Those are the relevant ones that will be worth exchanging backlinks with - and why? Because the actual results from Google will show what their computers really store as relevant.