Google Page Rank is for entertainment purposes only - apparently

http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...2GooglePageRan
kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?
--
Wendy mailto:wendy (AT) tne (DOT) co.uk
The Net Effect http://www.tne.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0)114 251 3377 Fax: +44 (0)114 251 3388

"Wendy Jervis" <wendy (AT) tne (DOT) co.uk> wrote

http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...2GooglePageRan
kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?

The toolbar of course is out of date. Google updates the PR for the toolbar
not that often, and you just can not take it for full face value. It isn't
saying that PR is for entertainment...just the toolbar.

Stacey

Wendy Jervis wrote:

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?

Yes. My comment is that I like the lik to the original source
of the information better than a second-hand account.

Here is the correct URL:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=3054

Also see the comments posted about it on the same page.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:50:56 -0500, "Stacey"
<stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Wendy Jervis" <wendy (AT) tne (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kt8FHeOrJKsBFwck (AT) tne-adsl (DOT) demon.co.uk...
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...2GooglePageRan
kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?

The toolbar of course is out of date. Google updates the PR for the toolbar
not that often, and you just can not take it for full face value. It isn't
saying that PR is for entertainment...just the toolbar.

Well ... it can be for entertainment purposes if we held a "Guess when
the next PR update will be" type pool.
[I pick the 3rd Wednesday in January.]

But there are some folks who didn't clue in and were/are trying to
brag about their low to no PR pages ranking well - just based on
outdated info shared via the toolbar. If it makes them happy ...

Carol

"C.W." <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:50:56 -0500, "Stacey"
stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:



"Wendy Jervis" <wendy (AT) tne (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kt8FHeOrJKsBFwck (AT) tne-adsl (DOT) demon.co.uk...
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...2GooglePageRan
kisforEntertainmentPurposesOnly.html

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?

The toolbar of course is out of date. Google updates the PR for the
toolbar
not that often, and you just can not take it for full face value. It isn't
saying that PR is for entertainment...just the toolbar.

Well ... it can be for entertainment purposes if we held a "Guess when
the next PR update will be" type pool.
[I pick the 3rd Wednesday in January.]

Since Google loves everyone I will say 14th of February.:-)

But there are some folks who didn't clue in and were/are trying to
brag about their low to no PR pages ranking well - just based on
outdated info shared via the toolbar. If it makes them happy ...

Sure, and I am happy I got a PR of 9. :-)

Stacey

Just because the toolbar doesnt work doesnt mean that PR is of no
value.

Sites ranking with little or no PR may actually have PR but possibly
google hasnt bothered to show it via the toolbar.

Let your sites drop in PR over a couple months like I did and watch
your traffic drop with it.

Tim



http://www.on-line-insurance-quote.com/

On 3 Dec 2004 16:59:51 -0800, vgo_2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Tim Arnold) wrote:

Just because the toolbar doesnt work doesnt mean that PR is of no
value.

Sites ranking with little or no PR may actually have PR but possibly
google hasnt bothered to show it via the toolbar.

Let your sites drop in PR over a couple months like I did and watch
your traffic drop with it.

I sort of disagree.

Before Google went longer inbetween updating PR - it was not uncommon
to see a site, even right after a PR update, stating on the toolbar
that it was a PR3 or PR4 and beating out a PR5 or PR6 even page.

PR is still a criteria with Google - that is something I will agree
with. Most likely Google will use PR somehow or another in their algo
for some time to come. However PR does appear to been lowered in where
that thought is placed in among with other criteria they also use for
ranking thoughts.

Evidence of this alone in the number of people "selling ad space", per
se, on their sites at this time versus at this time last year - and
those who are selling may be asking a lower price than they did around
this time last year. Around this time last year there were people even
posting about their eBay 'auctions' of getting a link on a PR6 or PR7
site. I havent' seen any of those being posted about in several months
now - about when it became somewhat noticed that PR was gradually
being shifted about in where it stood in terms of the algo on Google.

The PR fad has been put into its place as being a fad due to Google
tweaking their algo enough to have it lowered from the "pedestal" that
a number of site owners put that thought on.

Carol

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:33:47 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Wendy Jervis wrote:

Anybody got any comments after following the above link?

Yes. My comment is that I like the lik to the original source
of the information better than a second-hand account.

Here is the correct URL:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=3054

Also see the comments posted about it on the same page.

I got nothing from the original link. The above one was helpful.

Did anyone else notice the person posting it has just a handful of
posts on the forum?

If this was from a member with hundreds/thousands of posts you could
check previous posts for credibility. Without better evidence I'd take
this info with a pinch of salt, PR is still very important and I can't
believe a Google representative would say otherwise (at least not in
the way reported).

This is apparently what Google sent in response to why a PR6 page
dropped to PR0-

"The PageRank that is displayed in the Google Toolbar is for
entertainment purposes only. Due to repeated attempts by hackers to
access this data, Google updates the PageRank data very infrequently
because is it not secure. On average, the PR that is displayed in the
Google Toolbar is several months old. If the toolbar is showing a PR
of
zero, this is because the user is visiting a new URL that hasn't been
updated in the last update. The PR that is displayed by the Google
Toolbar is not the same PR that is used to rank the webpage results so
there is no need to be concerned if your PR is displayed as zero. If a
site is showing up in the search results, it doesn't not have a real
PR
of zero, the Toolbar is just out of date"

This sounds like a canned response (like most of Google's responses),
but note the mistake at the bottom "it DOESN'T NOT have a real PR
of zero" suggesting a custom response. Google help response doesn't
give this sort of detail, they don't have the time to, it's all canned
responses.

There are other inconsistencies in the writing as well, would someone
familiar with the subject say-

"The PR that is displayed by the Google Toolbar is not the same PR
that is used to rank the WEBPAGE RESULTS so there is no need to be
concerned if your PR is displayed as zero."

What the hell are WEBPAGE RESULTS!

I think someone made this post up for a laugh (or I'm over estimating
Google Help's level of expertise :-)).

Anyway.

The above does not answer why a PR6 page would drop to PR0, but could
be how someone who doesn't understand PR too well might understand it.

There are three reasons main reasons why a PR6 could drop to PR0.

1. The page lost all links (highly unlikely) so really is a PR0.

2. The toolbar PR is faulty.

3. The page was penalised for doing something wrong.


Now the persons original question was about-

"This is not helpful to me in trying to determine WHY one of our
clients sites went from a Page Rank of 6 to 0. I could take it for
what it's worth, and say "Oh, they launched a new site in October,
therefore the pagerank just got set to zero (even though it was a 6,
at the same domain name) because it's new, and I can just ignore it. "

So they uploaded a new site and PR dropped to 0. It's reasonable to
assume the PR6 is the home page.

Now unless this site is highly unusual and the home page has no direct
external links to it, creating a new site on an existing PR6 (home
page) domain can not remove all PR from the home page. So this
suggests two things to me.

1. The site was penalised (hence PR0)

2. The new site has a new home page (different filename) that is PR0.

Based on other information supplied ("Admittedly the site has huge
issues with indexability due to long dynamic url params.") I'm going
to go with number 2.

I bet they have gone from a domain.tld/index.html setup to a setup
that redirects automatically to something like
domain.tld/cgi-bin/loadacrapgfjkfjgkfjgk?blah home page that is PR0
and not spiderable by Google (probably has session IDs or something).

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

SEO Dave wrote:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=3054

Did anyone else notice the person posting it has just a handful of
posts on the forum?

If this was from a member with hundreds/thousands of posts you could
check previous posts for credibility. Without better evidence I'd take
this info with a pinch of salt,

There are other inconsistencies in the writing as well,

I think someone made this post up for a laugh (or I'm over estimating
Google Help's level of expertise :-)).

I found it to be interesting how many people ran with it as if they
had verified it, and how many people only referenced someone talking
about the original without referencing the original. Do these people
all work for 60 minutes?

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:08:02 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

SEO Dave wrote:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=3054

Did anyone else notice the person posting it has just a handful of
posts on the forum?

If this was from a member with hundreds/thousands of posts you could
check previous posts for credibility. Without better evidence I'd take
this info with a pinch of salt,

There are other inconsistencies in the writing as well,

I think someone made this post up for a laugh (or I'm over estimating
Google Help's level of expertise :-)).

I found it to be interesting how many people ran with it as if they
had verified it, and how many people only referenced someone talking
about the original without referencing the original. Do these people
all work for 60 minutes?

It is very interesting and far from an isolated occurrence, the number
of times something has been hypothesised on a forum etc... only to be
stated as fact a month or two later is amazing! It would be really
easy for Google to plant really stupid ideas into the heads of SEOs
etc... just by making forum posts like the one we've been discussing.

I suppose it's human nature, if someone says something you either
already believe or you want to believe it's difficult not to agree
with them for just that reason. I've been guilty of this myself and
it's why I try to verify as much stuff as I can rather than relying on
others research/opinion.

Most forum posters now state as a fact PR is not as valued by Google
as before (most would say significantly less, PR almost worthless),
yet it is far from a fact. Clearly Google's algo has changed from a
year ago (it's always changing), but that doesn't mean as some are
stating that PR has little value now (less value, probably. very
little value, no way).

Then in the same sentence they'll say stuff like you need links to do
well in Google now!! Hang on a second PR is a measure of the value of
the links to a page, so when someone says you need links they are
saying you need PR.

The value of PR compared to other factors has probably changed,
(Google has probably been tweaking it every big update) or most likely
they are getting better at determining the true value of the link
(where it is, how related the page is and of course the anchor text)
but no one can honestly believe a link from a PR6 page is worth the
same or less than a link from a PR5 page. All other things being equal
(and this is the crux of the matter, they never are equal) the PR6
link is worth much more (about 6 to 8 times more) than the PR5 link.

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/