On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:59:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>Carol W wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:31:47 +0800, "Harps" <darren@netflowsystems.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>>>dcqg6g$2c38$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:dcqg6g$2c38$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>>>> Bruno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "... please use with the intention of entertainment purposes only" is
>>>>> mentioned on the page itself.
>>>>
>>>> I can't recall ever reading this. I wonder if they rephrased it once
>>>> they realised it wasn't working properly.
>>>>
>>>> Roy
>>>
>>>Does PR even matter anymore?
>
>
>Definitely. In terms of traffic from search engines, it might not play a
>huge role. Titles appear to make the most impact, i.e. relevance supercedes
>level of trust or pupularity. It's a trade-off -- something the engineers
>must have tweaked over the years.
>
>Some surfers like me would use PageRank as an indicator of trust. I won't
>lie. I am more likely to cite a Web site with decent ranks because it is
>less likely to become some porn slash casino Web site the following month.
>And that happens too, trust me...
>
>
>> Only to those using PR for SEO purposes, in my opinion. Examples of
>> this would be not linking to a site below PR4 in value [some don't
>> consider the PR of the page itself where the link resides but only
>> look at the PR value given to the main page] or those seeking out
>> 'link partners' and looking at their Google Toolbar as a guide of whom
>> to email asking for a trade of links.
>>
>> But then again, I always thought it was silly to limit oneself to PR4+
>> sites for backlinks. *shrug* Today's PR2 page could be a PR5 or PR6
>> on the next update.
>>
>> Does this mean you can ignore PR as a whole? Not necessarily - as PR
>> is still part of the Google algorithem, even if on a decreased value
>> in that formula that it may have had in the past. So you want to try
>> to get the PR above PR0 or PR2 even if you can. But the PR value, on
>> the toolbar, is only updated 3 to 4 times a year nowadays - so you
>> really can't go by that a week or so after the update happens as
>> people may have started to implement changes on their sites.
>>
>> As Google is still regarded as the main search engine to rank well on,
>> then PR is not wholly shelved just as yet. However, on the other hand,
>> it is only used by Google - Yahoo and MSN, which help feeds other
>> places search results and have their own repeat/return users, do not
>> consider Google's PR value of a site/page in their algorithems.
>>
>> Part of raising PR, such as getting links pointing your way, will help
>> on Yahoo and MSN. So, that helps to explain why I don't feel PR is
>> totally shelved as a "site goal" in SEO thoughts - although it is not
>> the main concern it once was in some people's minds as a PR4 or PR5
>> page/site can rank higher, in placements, on Google than a PR6 page.
>
>Well said. I also imagine that search engines are causing jealousy and
>disdain (directed at themselves) by making these ranks public. The fella'
>who has just built a site whose exposed and projected PageRank is 0 will
>not be happy. It is as if search engines tell the world what sites are
>worth and all is based on brute-force.
>
>I sometimes wonder if the disppearance of PageRank world-wide (May-ish) for
>a couple of days was a part of some experiment, perhaps with the intention
>of listening to reactions.
In the past, Google and other search engines placed a lot of
importance on # of backlinks - which resulted in people doign
guestbook spamming and places like Yahoo Clubs/Groups - the precursor
to Blog comment spam (which shows how unoriginal the idea is) to
inflate the # of backlinks.
Google came out with PageRank as a value to a site but part of the
value is derived on the # of backlinks - with PR, however, part of the
value of those links is also derived from those pages' PR value.
(which is wehre many people get confused and think if they have a link
back from a PR7 site then they get part of the PR7 when the link may
reside on a PR3 or so page, so actually only getting part of the PR3
... if the PR is allowed to flow, that is.
So part of it still nothing more than link popularity thoughts.[1]
Part of the importance given to it, in my opinion, was over-inflated
by users more so ... even though it has been devalued and observed to
being devalued, some people still place a high amount of importance on
their PR value - to the point that they may focus more on that than
other thoughts.
If PR dropped off the face of the Google tomorrow ... this wouldn't,
porbably, affect the link popularity thoughts as I beleive that is
still given some degree of value (as per the rel="nofollow conception
shares that all 3 major players support).
Ah well, time to sit back, and enjoy a noon-day cuppa.
Carol
[1] not saying that is all that PR was though but most of it did seem
to hinge on nothing more than IBL/link popularity thoughts and that is
how most people, in my observation, approached builiding up PR. Which
may explain the devaluation that Google has given it in their
algorithem as some sites had no problem going from PR0 to PR5 almost
overnight through linking stragegies alone - even if the page had
little going for it content wise.
|
|
