Re: Questions about Google Ranking and Linking

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:32:33 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:va15l1d2r1vgtoh2nlhch3t6rog0ktqr08 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:55:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:


You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.
snip


without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

snip

Also. I'd like to add. It just happened to be showing PR0
I could have shown many examples of pages with low PR outranking
higher PR pages.


You could have. But what does that have to do with the above?

Because it seems the "PR0" part seems to be overshadowing the actual
reply.

Bill showed a very bad example of a #1 SERP.

Yes, I do agree on that.

Let's look at a little more complicated SERP. *Handmade earrings* , I am #2 out of 1,970,000. There are actually 87,700
using the exact phrase. Still not exactly a hard SERP but hey that is how it
goes. The #1 page has a PR of 4, my page has a PR of 5. I used to be #1 but
moved all the stuff over to the sub domain. The #1 site also has PR6 index
page. So, if you look at the on page factors the #1 page should beat mine
even if the actual PR of the page was a 4.

"handcrafted jewelry" in google there is a site on page 1 (was #1 but
not today) of the results with a PR5 for its homepage.
Yet the page is not cached. Now that is strange.

*Simple Stuff*, I am #1 out of 83,900,000. Pages with exact phrase is
462,000. This SERP is one of my favorites:-). Anyway, the sites below mine
all have higher PRs for the index page etc. Their pages have a good
potential of being a higher PR than my 5. I don't think I will ever see my
PR6 again.:-( The reason I rank well and can beat everyone is my site is
optimized for that phrase. My domain name has it and I can not begin to tell
you how many links I have coming in that have that phrase...well Stacey's
Simple Stuff...but still simple stuff in the anchor. And of course Google
uses the title from the directory on this search.

One of my keywords is #2 out of 241,000,000
another is #4 out of 251,000,000
and another #1 out of 105,000,000

They had similar results when it was a PR 3 as well.

May be next time I should have shown one with PR1 or higher, just to
stop people getting mislead by what is written and what people want to
read in it.

<snip>

To show PR doesn't mean anything or what?

PR (on the toolbar) should be taken with a pinch of salt

I got the impression that you still think PR is still useful.

To a point it is.
As said time and time again, important to other webmasters that only
know what the PR part of the toolbar does, and not what is actually
means.

People would rather be linked on a page that has PR than no PR.

Also gives an idea on what the webmaster is like.

Stacey

Paul

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:32:33 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:va15l1d2r1vgtoh2nlhch3t6rog0ktqr08 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:55:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:39:01 GMT, David
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:


You should be concerned with PR since the two go hand in hand. Low PR
means you don't have many high quality links, which says to Google
this site isn't important.
snip


without "" you'll find amiable ol' me is no 1 from 202,000,000 with a
PR of precisely 4. Wired is in there somewhere, you know, like in the
SERPS boonies, with a PR of 7, IIRC, so there goes Dave's fantasy PR
theories. Again.

snip

Also. I'd like to add. It just happened to be showing PR0
I could have shown many examples of pages with low PR outranking
higher PR pages.


You could have. But what does that have to do with the above? Bill showed a
very bad example of a #1 SERP. Let's look at a little more complicated SERP.
*Handmade earrings* , I am #2 out of 1,970,000. There are actually 87,700
using the exact phrase. Still not exactly a hard SERP but hey that is how it
goes. The #1 page has a PR of 4, my page has a PR of 5. I used to be #1 but
moved all the stuff over to the sub domain. The #1 site also has PR6 index
page. So, if you look at the on page factors the #1 page should beat mine
even if the actual PR of the page was a 4.

*Simple Stuff*, I am #1 out of 83,900,000. Pages with exact phrase is
462,000. This SERP is one of my favorites:-). Anyway, the sites below mine
all have higher PRs for the index page etc. Their pages have a good
potential of being a higher PR than my 5. I don't think I will ever see my
PR6 again.:-( The reason I rank well and can beat everyone is my site is
optimized for that phrase. My domain name has it and I can not begin to tell
you how many links I have coming in that have that phrase...well Stacey's
Simple Stuff...but still simple stuff in the anchor. And of course Google
uses the title from the directory on this search.

May be next time I should have shown one with PR1 or higher, just to
stop people getting mislead by what is written and what people want to
read in it.

Still it doesn't matter with what is above and what Dave stated about PR. I
mean I am just trying to figure out why you posted it. To show PR doesn't
mean anything or what? I got the impression that you still think PR is still
useful.

Something interesting about the good search experience serp, when I
put that page together and tested the serp with "" there was me and me
alone. Then, as if by magic, others came. If you build it, hey; they
really will come! Only I don't believe that, of course, it's just a
chance to study the beginning of a serp. I rather doubt that I was the
first on the web to create what Google regards as a page optimised for
that particular serp, which raises the interesting question;
so, um, how come I got to be the first and only, which I was, and then
the others came, as they did and continue to do?
This is a bit like watching planets form or something, out of the star
stuff, with all other serps I ever encountered they existed and were
part of the firmament before I encountered them.
I've been keeping an eye on it. At first there were only 64,000,000
behind me in the no "" version, and slowly it's growed. A consequence
of either the growth in the index or the direction it's expanding in,
or both, I supposes.
Any thoughts?

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

Something interesting about the good search experience serp, when I
put that page together and tested the serp with "" there was me and me
alone. Then, as if by magic, others came. If you build it, hey; they
really will come! Only I don't believe that, of course, it's just a
chance to study the beginning of a serp. I rather doubt that I was the
first on the web to create what Google regards as a page optimised for
that particular serp, which raises the interesting question;
so, um, how come I got to be the first and only, which I was, and then
the others came, as they did and continue to do?
This is a bit like watching planets form or something, out of the star
stuff, with all other serps I ever encountered they existed and were
part of the firmament before I encountered them.
I've been keeping an eye on it. At first there were only 64,000,000
behind me in the no "" version, and slowly it's growed. A consequence
of either the growth in the index or the direction it's expanding in,
or both, I supposes.
Any thoughts?

Well, you built it and hey these will follow.:-) It is funny really to watch
some SERPs. Rag Rugs when I first started was a very low SERP. It now has
grown..............just like people learning how to make them. I am just
after the more tough ones now like home accessories or home decor. But I
haven't got myself to be able to work on them right now. Still to busy with
other things.

Stacey

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:g635l19bgtijdqeqvo11oi7m3c3d193g6b (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I know that perfectly well.

then why do you bother boast about a thing?

I know!

<snip>

So why did you boast you were X from Y? when you knew there were no
competition??

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:47:08 +0300, "Wÿrm"
<nomailstodragon (AT) north (DOT) invalid> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:g635l19bgtijdqeqvo11oi7m3c3d193g6b (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I know that perfectly well.

then why do you bother boast about a thing?


I know!

snip

So why did you boast you were X from Y? when you knew there were no
competition??

I wasn't boasting. I think you missed the point, Wrmy-dude!

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:54:32 -0500, Paul <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us>
wrote:

The main domain is a PR 9, so you know that the page is probably to new to
register on the toolbar. So, the PR isn't really a 0.

Stacey

I am aware of that Stacey, but I think that page has been there for
some time. Hence I mentioned it. But yes, it could be new.

Also. I'd like to add. It just happened to be showing PR0
I could have shown many examples of pages with low PR outranking
higher PR pages.

Your initial post came across as saying "look, this page is PR0 and
doing well, so PR isn't important now".

The reality is that page clearly isn't showing it's true PR, so tells
us nothing about how important PR is/isn't. It made no sense to bring
it up as an example.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:47:08 +0300, "Wÿrm"
<nomailstodragon (AT) north (DOT) invalid> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:g635l19bgtijdqeqvo11oi7m3c3d193g6b (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

snip

I know that perfectly well.

then why do you bother boast about a thing?


I know!

snip

So why did you boast you were X from Y? when you knew there were no
competition??

Because he didn't know it was an easy SERP before we told him. He
thought it supported his mistaken belief PR isn't important any more.

Don't worry he'll get there eventually, I understand after a few years
of trying he's at last got his sig separator working. At that rate
when Google's founders have retired and PR has long since been
replaced by something new and improved Bill will realise PR was
important in 2005 :-))

Do you think I'm a little harsh on Bill?

It does make me laugh when webmasters with low PR say PR isn't
important. No they hope PR isn't important :-))

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/