__/ [Paul B] on Monday 20 February 2006 10:45 \__
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:40:52 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>__/ [T.J.] on Sunday 19 February 2006 00:43 \__
>>> Going across the DC's now
>>I have just checked the usual dozen (arbitrary URL's sample) at
>>http://www.seochat.com/?option=com_seotools&tool=10 and there has been no
>>change. Several domains are involved.
>>McDar are overloaded at the moment, but 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199
>>return PageRank 0 for a page that must have PageRank. For another URL, I
>>definitely see the update (from PR0 to PR4) at:
>>Backlinks are changing as well, but the values are still rocky.
> Hi Roy
> For one of my sites, McDar reported these variations (excluding the
> dead DC's) ...
> IBLs PR
> 237 4
> 237 3
> 467 3
> 273 3
> 273 4
> The site was a PR4 but looks like it will now be a PR3 although we
> rank high for a lot of keywords (doubled #1 positions now for about
> 2-3 weeks)
PageRank seems irrelevant to me, which contrasts with older views that were
possibly mistaken. PageRank updates in their own right rarely (if ever)
affect traffic, quantified by the number of referrals. In fact, as I pointed
out before, large Web sites need to accommodate more pages with positive
ranks, which essentially means that the front page 'leaks energy' to fill
the gap in the core.
> The other site looks like it will be a PR5, but again, the results are
I ceased to take much account of PageRank when I discovered small sites with
few inbound links. Yet, they retained an impressively high PageRank. Such
sites did not get many referrals as a reward because they were too narrow.
Their only merit was that they projected formidable status to those who both
installed a Google-oriented toolbar AND understood its meaning, using it as
an indicator to judge by. Has the site in question grown? Has it remained
There is another dimension to consider here. Let us call it "The Web Grows,
Web Sites Fade Away".
* The number of sites grows, the size of each individual site increases and
ultimately the Web as a whole grows.
* A site gets more links over time (with the exception of splogs which get
shut down), which may suggest that it will rank higher. However, there are
more sites in the game, thus more links, so the distribution of links (the
proportion) is unbalanced.
* Another factor: more people on the Net, faster connection, query volume on
search engines rises, but.... the Net continues to get bigger. With tens of
millions of active blogs out there, it is rather vast and keeps growing.
* Dormant sites are rarely self-maintaining. They may be out-of-date and they
rely on /fresh/ links.
* Sites that are not looked after are like old software that grows mold. No
new features, so people are looking elsewhere. This, of course, is not a
reference to any particular site, but a general remark rather.
* PageRank and traffic are an oxymorons. There are conflicts between the two
sometimes. See, for example, what I once wrote on "PageRank and Traffic"
As a final word, when my main site was less mature (only months old) and had
far fewer incoming links, its ranks were better. Nonetheless (with utter
disrespect for PageRank), Google gives me about 20,000 referrals per month
(Search + Images). I used no SEO tricks. I rely on the quantity of content,
which Cat would argue is the key.
Track the number of referrals. Gauge your success by traffic. Forget about
PageRank and think of it as a minor bonus. It's invisible or insignificant
to 95% of the population, I'd estimate.