Dude, where’s my PageRank?
This morning, around 1 am, I was finishing up a document and clicked over to Search Engine Journal to see if any comments were made on some of my favorite posts. Looking at the Google Toolbar, I saw the PageRank bar read a PageRank 6. After refreshing a couple of times and rubbing the sand out of my eyes, low and behold, after 3 or 4 years at PageRank 7, we dropped.
I can’t say I was too surprised. Search Engine Journal was not the only site I noticed a drop in PageRank on last night, I noticed many other blogs and forums I read experiencing a drop. And recent Google activity has pointed to a new regrouping of PageRank, which may be addressing the size and growth of the Internet since Larry PageRank was first published, or may be addressing the growth of paid linking.
So, I made some changes to my template to eliminate the 3 links under Supporters, added a button from AdAge and thought about new changes I could make to the site, some which have nothing to do with links, Google or PageRank.
The drop in PageRank did not keep me up last night as I drifted off into dreamland with thoughts of the next few weeks in my mind.
This morning however, I noticed that search marketing blogs were not alone. Actually, we’re in rather good company. Here is a list of some of the major sites ‘hit’ by the PageRank update yesterday:
Like I said, rather good company. Newspaper and blog networks which use a lot of intralinking, seem to have been hit hard; b5media, Weblogs, Inc. and Gawker.
One could say that paid linking led to the decrease in PageRank for these sites, but not all of these sites use paid linking as a source of revenue.
Furthermore, there are many sites which were not associated with this drop in PageRank which sell paid links, but I’m not going to out them.
So, why the decrease? As I wait to hear back from Google on the decrease, there are many reasons which Google may be changing PageRank.
- Paid Linking : The easy excuse is that they’re targeting paid links, but not all sites which experienced the drop sell or buy links.
- Mass Linking : Do we link out to too many sites via Blog Rolls? Does Linkbait just result in TOO MANY links, even if they are natural. Do blog networks use influential linking to their advantage? I think PageRank has been spread too thin and Google is changing its PageRank formula to address the mass publishing which has taken place over the past 2 years.
- Devalue PageRank : PageRank is seen by many as the end all value of a web site. Our PageRank dropped but we are receiving more Google search traffic than ever. PageRank does not define site rankings in Google or traffic and it should not be mistaken as so.
- Kill the Paid Link Market : If Paid Linking houses use PageRank as a pricing metric, then eliminating or devaluing PageRank will devalue paid linking
We’ll have some more news on the changes in PageRank, or the Great Google Halloween Update, but until Matt Cutts addresses this on his blog or Google… please sound off in the comments below:
- Why do you think Google has changed the PageRank on so many sites?
- Was your site hit? If so, why do you think so?
- What sites have you noticed that experienced a drop in PageRank?
Comments
222 responses so far ↓
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:02 am
Oh, I know we’re reading as PageRank 4 on some data centers, and PageRank 6 on others, so no, I’m not in denial saying we’re a PageRank 6 when it reads 4 on your toolbar or Firefox extension.
And if 30 is the new 20, is PageRank 4 the new PageRank 7?
Rhea Drysdale on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:14 am
haha, you’re in page rank denial. Do they have treatment centers for that?
“If Paid Linking houses use PageRank as a pricing metric, then eliminating or devaluing PageRank will devalue paid linking”
–> Great point!!!
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:32 am
BTW, I’d like to add that not all of the links I took off of the Supporters part of my template were paid. They were Supporters, not Sponsored Links :)
Pablo Palatnik on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:33 am
Funny how I just blogged about this issue last night titled, Paid Links Don’t Hurt Your PageRank Right? Matt Cutts? It’s funny how Google puts the Pagerank tool for you to use but don’t tell you how it really works. It’s a guessing game at this point. Don’t think it should affect your search rankings (for now atleast.)
Mike on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:39 am
I think it’s a combination of all the above, Loren. There has been too much of a focus on PR by SEOs and bloggers for so long that Big G are now looking to destroy the monster they created. However in doing so they have seriously upset a lot of their biggest supporters and I think the backlash could prove unpleasant for the Google share holders…
Sam on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:59 am
When i first start buying link 2 -3 years ago, pr4 was high and pr 6 was hard to find.
Now PR4 is consider as low and everyone is selling pr6 site.
A lot of site’s PR went up because people are buying link to increase their PR.
digitalnomad on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:06 am
Looks like 4 to me on FF.
Kent Schnepp on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:24 am
Loren -
How long had paid links been on Search Engine Journal?
Doug Heil on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:25 am
Maybe you are linking out to bad neighborhoods with some of those “sponsors” you list in here?
Some of those could not give me 10K per month to advertise on my sites.
I don’t know, but none of the sites I monitor had any PR go down. I had to “turn on” the silly green bar to find out. If a site’s referrals have not went down, a lower green bar means nothing unless you actually think a higher green figure bar means a better site? Surely you don’t think that? :-)
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:31 am
“If a site’s referrals have not went down, a lower green bar means nothing unless you actually think a higher green figure bar means a better site?”
Well said Doug, especially since the little green bar does not reflect Google’s internal site measurements.
I agree 100% with your statement.
I think it is our job to educate the other millions of publishers in the world of the same mindset.
Like I said, I did not lose any sleep over this last night, especially since traffic or rankings were not effected. But, according to other forums and emails received, a lot of people are. Maybe we can work together to bring some calm.
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:37 am
@ Kent : Supporters was part of the site structure for about 11 months.
I wouldn’t go as far as calling them paid links, as they were not all paid for.
Over the course of 3 to 4 years, however, we have tried many different kinds of revenue generation.
Remember, given the examples, this may have nothing to do with paid linking.
Doug Heil on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:50 am
Well, I don’t discuss much about “PR” in my forums as it’s a useless indicator of anything anyway. Besides that, what you see is about 3 months old data anyhoo. Only Google knows a site’s “exact” PR value and they ain’t tellin, especially the SEO industry.
I’m don’t understand why Google displays the bar anymore. It’s purpose was to get good public relations a long time ago. It’s not needed now. It only serves “text link brokers” and those who sell pagerank text links. In other words, it’s totally useless. It actually always has been totally useless as a “rank” indicator.
Why the SEO industry has made a big deal of the green bar all these years is something I’ve never been able to understand. Oh sure; Google may have created the metric, but it’s the SEO industry who has been their very own worse culprit in spreading the BS and falsehoods about the bar. That’s not Google’s fault. It’s purely business what Google did years ago…… and it worked. It’s purely stupidity what the SEO industry did….. and it shows.
I can thank my lucky stars that my forums and myself “never” got caught up in the absurdity.
CarstenCumbrowski on Oct 24, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I see a 4 for SEJ in IE 7 with Goog Toolbar too. Hey, my site has now a higher PR than yours. Maybe I should start selling links (I am kidding).
I am looking for sponsors that fit the sites/pages content, but the spots for this are prominent and thus advertising and branding rather than SEO. I don’t nofollow them, because I decided not to nofollow any link on my site that I reviewed and approved myself. I also don’t link to anything that would like me to link to it, but has no relevance and value for my visitors. They can go and spend their money elsewhere. Nofollow was not created for that.
I agree with SAM. A PR 4 or 5 was not much until now. It used to be in the past. Since it does not have any relationship to traffic anymore does it actually also not matter. My PR gain (I had a PR4 until recently) did not make my traffic jump, would a drop leave me as cold as this increase.
Jarrod (Textlinkbrokers.com) on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Toolbar PR is down evenly accross the web.
Our inventory sites (Sites selling links) have gone down proportionally to the non-paid-link sites we are watching.
This appears to be an overall reduction accross the board, probably due to many new sites in the index or an overall reduction of link value’s, or both.
Cristian Mezei on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm
My blog’s PR dropped from 6 to 5, after more then two stable years of 6.
New Cars on Oct 24, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Some sites have taken a real hit with movements from PR8 down to PR4.
If Google are trying to address the balance between where they originally believed sites should be in relation to the green bar (two/three years back) and where they have ended up today. I think they have done a years worth of reduction in one foul swoop and guess what it will all be history next month as everyone waits for the next update hoping for an increase or at least not another decrease.
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 24, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I honestly feel that if Google is doing this to bully the paid link market, the industry will just find another way to determine link values.
Technorati, Compete.com, Alexa, Y! backlinks, you name it, there’s another metric out there.
Hawaii SEO on Oct 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hmmm… Has anyone noticed PR-4 or lower websites taking a hit as well or is the update just affecting PR-5 or better websites?
Has anyone been demoted to something below PR-4?
New Cars on Oct 24, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Hawaii
http://www.world-science.net/2007.htm was a PR5 and on most data centres it is now showing a PR3.
It would appear Google have only reached PR5 sites so far maybe tomorrow will be the day for PR4, PR3 and below.
Manish Pandey on Oct 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Loren a website that I personally know is http://www.frogengine.com/blog/ which dropped from PR5 to PR3 now.
The reasons as you mentioned above are very true, but the most important reason that I feel is that it’s about paid links (the blog rolls).
One other reason that I think is that you may have increased number of links on your home page, hence all the links getting equal proportion of link juice may have decreased the PR.
For problogger.net it might be true as Darren recently got a new design for his blog. Which consists of more number of links to his posts, hence the link juice passed may have increased.
Doug Heil on Oct 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Don’t know guys/gals. Someone said above that PR has dropped “across the board”. I don’t see it at all. Matter of fact; I don’t see it on many, many sites. I don’t see “any” changes at all. The site I just added to my profile is the forums. It has had a PR5 for as long as I can remember. It’s still a PR5, so “across the board” is kind of over the top I think.
Jarrod on Oct 24, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Doug,
Accross the board does not mean “every site”, it means that no one particular subset of sites got hit more then another.
We track thousands of sites, so we have a pretty good sample.
Allie Williams on Oct 24, 2007 at 4:46 pm
We monitor the PR for several of our media partners, and most had no change. Of about 20 sites surveyed, only a couple dropped:
LA.com dropped from 6 to 4,
and DenverPost.com dropped from 7 to 4
Zvents powers subdomains on both properties, and we’ve seen an increase in Google organic traffic to both sites.
Prashant Kumar Pracheta on Oct 24, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Hello Friendsssss,
This news is very excited….
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I think it’s people like him ^ that nofollow exists in the first place.
Cristian Mezei on Oct 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Jonathan, leave them be.
PR is anyhow just a small indicator of the whole industry.
Rankings are what we are all after.
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Cristian,
I was just stating what no one else was going to ;)
Mike on Oct 24, 2007 at 7:12 pm
As Jonathan says earlier, link brokers will simply find another metric for pricing links without PageRank. It’s not a big deal.
However, the real question has to be what is Big G’s real motivation behind this? Loren asked the question in the main article and, as far as I can see having spent the last two hours reading conjecture about the drop in PR, Big G haven’t actually come out with an all encompassing answer.
The longer the FUD goes on, the more it builds up.
Pozycjonowanie on Oct 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I also see PR4 I think this is PR upadate and maybe SEJ lost some strong BL (or the BL lost strong BL etc.) and this is the real reason why the PR is getting lower (one site link to other and this spreed like circle if one page is lower it low the other pages). Regards
Duncan on Oct 24, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Loren
I checked a couple of Gawker blogs last night and I didn’t see any PR drop with them, it might have been some I missed if this is the case: which ones?
Also on the paid link side, there are at least two in your list that I’m led to believe don’t sell links, Copyblogger is one of them. As I’ve suggested elsewhere I think this is more to do with heavy cross linking, which goes to your theory of an algorithm change.
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Yeah Duncan, and I think if anything, this change in Toolbar PageRank will help people understand that PageRank does not effect rankings or traffic, only the perceived values of some outbound links.
Pozycjonowanie, I’m not aware of any loss of Search Engine Journal backlinks. In fact, we have very good backlinks.
I’d like to also point out that I have never, to the best of my knowledge, actually paid for a link to Search Engine Journal.
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 24, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Duncan, I’ll double check on Gawker, but b5 and Weblogs, Inc. were hit hard.
Alex on Oct 24, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Notice that www.foxnews.com and www.opinionjournal.com did not take a hit, even though they’re high profile, high PR and obviously selling links (opinionjournal via TLA).
Meanwhile washington post and washington times had their PR knocked. (also missing PR points are topix.com/net and infoplease.com, both prominent high PR TLA clients).
Duncan on Oct 25, 2007 at 12:26 am
Thanks Loren. I knew (or have since heard) about the others but when I checked Valleywag, Gizmodo and Lifehacker last night I wasn’t seeing any change. Gawker don’t do the heavy sidebar links and mass footer here’s the latest 10 post for a dozen blogs in our network style links either.
The more I think about this though: the more I’m liking your algorithm suggestion. I wonder how though they picked this: maybe cross links on shared IP addresses or servers? Maybe one the SEO guys might be able to narrow this down.
Credit Cards on Oct 25, 2007 at 1:00 am
Why do you think Google has changed the PageRank on so many sites?
- I don’t think Google has penalized most of the sites. They simply discounted the juice or boost that many sites were receiving through paid backlinks. Through their automated algo, I think they may have hurt some innocent sites in the process.
Was your site hit? If so, why do you think so?
- My sites were not hit fortunately. Crossing my phalanges.
What sites have you noticed that experienced a drop in PageRank?
- AliveDirectory, AvivaDirectory, JohnChow.com…Shoemoney remains to be PR6.
Ramenos on Oct 25, 2007 at 3:33 am
I have noticed that PageRank of my blog has decreased too. I don’t understand Google which wants to blam blogs which do “intelligent cross-linking”…
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 25, 2007 at 8:50 am
Credit Cards,
As I’ve noticed, AliveDirectory, AvivaDirectory, all of those sites have indeed dropped PageRank, particularly those two to a PR4.
This is definitely a new PageRank algorithm.
Mark Alan Effinger on Oct 25, 2007 at 11:58 am
We’ve been watching this as well, and I gotta’ think it’s really Google’s retelling of the Pagerank story:
It’s gotta’ be hell to track this much social media activity. Add to that, I receive at least one email a day regarding new software promising lots of inbound links.
I would think Google has a pretty large team dedicated to deciphering these “technologies” and thwarting their effects… even if it lowers the overall PR of the web.
We’re all in the same ship.
One more thought: because Pagerank has “cliffs” between rank numbers, couldn’t just a handful of inbound link eliminations, along with some on-site changes, cause what appears to be a radical shift, when it reality it’s part of a point, not really a radical drop?
Just curious.
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I believe that all of the paid link fear stirred up by Google and its notable employees is all in an effort to rile up some feathers and put fear of the sky falling down in the hearts of some SEO practitioners and stop them from buy/selling links because Google cannot algorithmically detect and take action on all purchased links.
Instead, I believe the drop is a general devaluation of pages and their subsequent PageRank. For example, if the links you have are less valuable with less total PageRank to pass around, then your little green bar dips.
manisha on Oct 25, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Ha!! just as I was thinking Bingo!now I have got the whole PR thing right -this turns up. Where to go from here, small fishes like me just got fried.
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 26, 2007 at 12:06 am
Manisha,
Welcome to the world of search marketing :)
Gareth White on Oct 26, 2007 at 4:10 am
Does anyone else believe that this algo may be a punishment for reciprical links. With the data available to me and reading the comments above about other people observations it seems to fit together.
Just imagine for a minuite. What if google stopped passing link juice on reciprical and not paid links. What would be the result in this scenario? I think it could be something similar to what we are seeing at the moment. In additon, its something that would not be too hard for googles programmers to change in the algo.
Credit Cards on Oct 26, 2007 at 5:42 am
I definitely do not think it is due to reciprocal links. The websites we’ve mentioned within these comments do not participate in reciprocal linking, yet they’ve faced drops in SERPs and PR. The case is more likely to be that they were involved in selling or purchasing links.
Ravinder Kadian on Oct 26, 2007 at 11:35 pm
thanx for good information
Mohd. Hashim Khan on Oct 27, 2007 at 3:52 am
My sites also got new ranks (increased) and I am surprised to see one of my site which is not so popular and still got rank 4, this definately looks like a new algorithm but paid linking sites got lower rank ? no this is not the case.
Lisa on Oct 27, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think it is amazing how we struggle to understand this elusive metric. My addiction treatment advertising site was built to compete with the guys who sell ads at 2500 - 5000 per month, to treatment centers - mine are 65.00. There are also the individuals whose sites dominate the industry selling “clients“ disguised by an “advertising fee“ to treatment centers. As a fairly experienced SEO/developer my desire for competing in this market is personal and more idealistic than monetary. My desire is to provide a service to compete with all the dishonest advertising taking place in this industry and provide a way for the dedicated treatment providers to garner some good exposure and really help people. My site ranks well and has only been up 1.5 years. However, could never get past 3 PR and today it is a Big 2! Oh, and my competitors that produce revenues of 2.5 million a year and spend about 30-50K a month in PPC - their PR has not changed-so go figure??? Also, having recently received calls from the President’s of these major cash cows to “feel me out” as they see my site ranking, it makes me wonder how much influence a major client of Google’s actually has.? My site is straight up and honest which does not seem to meet the PR criteria. So, I guess as long as Google profits, everything is good in PR world?
wedding queen on Oct 27, 2007 at 11:14 am
Interesting reading - thanks Loren. Our PR dropped from 6 to 3 yesterday and I am unsure of the cause. We do not sell links for PR and are using the nofollow tags. We review all listings and do not, IMO, link to bad neighborhoods. Our rankings don’t seem to have been affected (yet) though. Our competitors’ PR seem to remain steady. I’m baffled by the drop and wonder if there has been a penalty inflicted, and, if so, what will the future hold for our Google rankings? How can a site owner be sure they have a penalty, what sort of penalty and how to “cure” it? Comments and advice appreciated.
You Mon Tsang on Oct 27, 2007 at 11:20 am
Looks like you need another update. From where I sit, looks like PR has been updated again and many of the sites listed above have regained some or all their Page Rank!
Boris on Oct 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Well, so much as been written about PR being dead… I am surprised by all the comments all over the place…
G Law on Oct 28, 2007 at 12:08 am
I am still wondering if page rank have anything to do with rank position. I have dropped from pagerank 3 to 2 and my rank position varies week to week.
LR on Oct 28, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I don’t think this PR update targeted just sites with paid links. My site has no paid links but my index page and Links page dropped from PR5 to PR4 and from PR4 to PR3 respectively. All other pages did not change. This makes me think G derated reciprocal links.
G Law on Oct 28, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Yeah….mine don’t have any paid links either mine dropped from PR3 to PR2 yesterday. Today it went back to PR3.
The Google toolbar meter is different from http://www.prchecker.info/’s meter. One say PR3. The other says PR2. What’s up with that??
Lisa on Oct 28, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Well, I feel like an idiot for my venting on here yesterday. However, I really did not have a good understanding of the no follow tag, (nor used it). My site clearly should employ them so I have restructured the entire site with regard to paid links and added the no follow tags. I always wondered why my site never exceeded a 3 PR and this was probably the reason because it ranks very well. In any event, it will be interesting to see how these change effect the PR,- sorry Google! :) I am still learning…
Aleks on Oct 29, 2007 at 3:32 am
Hey, even my employee’s website - http://sochi.ru - has suffered from this, 5 to 4, whoa! Not funny… We do sell our space for banners but not high-PR-mindedly…
Peter on Oct 29, 2007 at 6:17 am
I had been adding content to a site (http://www.BalloonShop.net) recently and suddently saw it dropping 1 PR point! Oh no! What did I do wrong?! But now I read a large part of the Internet has been effected so I guess this really is an algorithm change, or recalibration.. It probably isn’t as bad as we initially thought.
Those people at Google really know how to stir up the market! ;-)
mvkozyrev on Oct 29, 2007 at 7:09 am
This news, this article and all of comments are interesting. But offtopic question: Does it meen that Internet go arround SE and SEO?
I think, we have a big problem, and we realy need alternative way to searh somethink in the Internet.
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 29, 2007 at 7:24 am
I think what everyone needs to understand is that not all of your sites that lost PR were “penalized.” Instead, other sites on the internet were! The PR that those “demoted” sites pass on has been reduced, which caused the receiving sites to get less PR. The PR that those receiving sites pass on has been reduced and the receiving sites of those receiving sites has been reduced. This process repeats until the total reduced amount of PR being passed is linked to your site and thus you now have less.
So dont worry, you didnt do anything wrong. :)
In either case, I dont think that Google is somehow algorithmically penalizing all sites that sell links (which we all know is theoretically impossible). I think they have devalued some of the higher profile sellers (Forbes, Standford Daily, Washington Post), as well as many sites that perform extensive reciprocal linking and have effectively created Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the industry. Now everythone thinks big Google will get you for selling links–even though you didnt.
…sort of like when the police follow you for a while and you start to question yourself if you actually did something. Guilty conscience.
Antonio on Oct 29, 2007 at 7:56 am
Google decided to penalise who they *think* is selling links. Yeah, they decide…
Our site gives information about the Algarve to people who is interested in visiting the region. We have a page that is part of our site which goal is to help people decide about car hire in Algarve. There is a lot of links in that page all of them from local car hire companies and none of them are payed links. We just have there the links that local companies ask us to put there as part of the information process. We don’t sell these links. But aparently Google decided we sell these links and our page droped from the first page of the search to nowhere.
That’s good. Good think and decide… Meanwhile all the pages that gain positions in seach due to the money they pay to adwords are there and always climbing…
AussieWebmaster on Oct 29, 2007 at 9:29 am
The best indicator is how many “link buyers” are complaining about dramatic drops in their SERPs for their keywords…..
If they have not been effected “across the board” then the impact is not as bad as people are saying - the links still have value.
If the only ones crying about drops are those that bought links without regard of topic and only for PR then we can see a change in the industry and not its death.
Loren Baker, Editor on Oct 29, 2007 at 9:32 am
“If the only ones crying about drops are those that bought links without regard of topic and only for PR then we can see a change in the industry and not its death.”
That my friend is a change I would like to see :)
Snuggley Heating Pad on Oct 29, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Someone was wondering if lower PR sites took a hit. I did…I use to be a PR5 years ago. I went to a PR4, which was probably right, I should not have been a PR5. Last Year I dropped to a PR3, I was fine because I was still on page one of my words that I wanted.
Two weeks ago, I dropped from most of my keywords on Google only (Yahoo, MSN, and Ask I am still fine) and now I went from a PR3 to a Pr2. I have never bought any links, but, I have exchanged them with craft sites. I also post my site on anything that I write on. I thought that I was suppose to do that. So, yes, even little sites like mine (PR3)took a hit the other day. Just thought that you all would want to know that. Google has really hurt me and I am not sure why.
AussieWebmaster on Oct 29, 2007 at 2:26 pm
SHP - how far did you drop? Do you have numerous links on your pages to other sites? Do you have a blog roll, a favorite sites box… some type of repeated linking - or even a section on your home page?
Sigs are generally no follows in most forums and blogs - they are a pure branding, direct traffic play.
maybe a bunch of the places you have dropped site links have been devalued and you used anchor text for the keywords you were ranking for….
if it is actually tied to this recent algo change then there should be a relationship somewhere
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 29, 2007 at 2:52 pm
It seems there is a lack of informed knowledge about how PageRank works. Please reference my comment above for why all of your sites are losing PR.
Snuggley Heating Pad on Oct 29, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Aussie, I do have links pages…but not on my home page. Most of those links for other sites are craft related sites (since mine is a craft related site) I do have all of my pages listed at the bottom (linked together) The one outgoing link on my home page is my dad’s site.
What do you think about this…I read somewhere that Statcounter.com dropped in PR. I use them. I wonder if they were penalized by Google and so Google is indirectly penalizing me as well. I like Statcounter to track my visits.
I dropped out of my top 4 keywords. I can not find myself anywhere on those 4 keywords. Now, I am on some keywords that I never used in anchor links. The words that I use for anchor links are the words that I am gone from on Google. This is rather humerous because I am just a little site that sells corn heating pads…nothing big…just a home made site making home made items!! ha-ha! :-)
Snuggley Heating Pad on Oct 29, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Send Traffic SEO
Maybe the rain down efect is why I dropped in PR. I could really care less about my PR, I just wish that I had not dropped from my most important keywords. I have sites that have my website on there ranked higher than my own site, on my keywords! Sort of weird. Oh well, I do not want this to be a pity party for my webstie, I just wanted to answer someone’s question above about lower PR sites losing PR…and I am one of those. Thank you
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Snuggley Heating Pad (LOL),
You can attribute a rankings drop to this PR update?
AussieWebmaster on Oct 29, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Yes the weight of text links drops and the anchor text terms will fall with them….
let’s face it no one cares about PR it is all about SERPs
Free Link Directory on Oct 29, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I do NOT really care about PR but rather RANK POSITION is important to me. Is it tied together??
Carson Coots on Oct 29, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I’m loving the Halloween update…my site jumped from a PR zero to PR2.
And I bet that if pagerank jumped for everyone, nobody would be talking about how it is completely worthless.
Even though it is worthless, it does help with morale :)
venkat on Oct 30, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hey I have lost my page rank 5 to 4 last night how can i bring to 5 plz suggest me thanks in advance
venkat
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 7:55 am
Venkat,
You need to hop into bed with a Time.com senior editor and have them post a link to your site, that should do the trick.
AussieWebmaster on Oct 30, 2007 at 9:08 am
Jon… when did you get a job at Time?
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 9:21 am
Aussie,
I have an interview lined up for August of 2017. Hopefully by that time, SEM will be a pastime and it will all be social marketing.
Shannon on Oct 30, 2007 at 11:02 am
My site was consistently a PR6 for years and now it’s dropped to PR5. We’ve recently added a links page with recip links and I’m thinking this is the problem. All of the links we exchange with are related to what we do so I didn’t think it would be a problem. Should I remove a lot of these links? Is it the outbound links that are causing a problem?
AussieWebmaster on Oct 30, 2007 at 11:08 am
Was the addition of pages done at the same time which lowers the over PR of everyone as it were.
Alan on Oct 30, 2007 at 11:22 am
I have to disagree with Doug Heil’s second post. The majority of the SEO industry is, and always has been reacting to the rules set forth by Google in an effort to do what’s best for both their clients and their business. When high PR on a poorly optimized site results in a number one ranking (which is common), what else are we to attribute the ranking to? If you eliminate all other factors outside of PR (as many SEO’s have on behalf of their clients), yet still can’t touch the top spot on a particular term, logic says that PR has to be the culprit. Though Google is changing the way they valuate sites today, it certainly doesn’t mean PR was a “useless indicator” yesterday.
Lisa on Oct 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Who can tell me the exact elements required to achieve a high PR? Anyone…..Anyone… Is it time of the domain + high PR backlinks +not too many BL too soon+ relevant content+some PPC+SEO+no follow tags? What is it????This is based on white hat endeavors only. I know a few old time SEO’s and they live and die by PR. There also seems to be a direct correlation to high SERPs and PR. I just removed 1200 outgoing links to clients and replaced that with 40 outgoing with no follow tags. Prior to this or actually during, I went from a 3 to 2 on PR dooms day. Any thoughts on what else I can do? I had also starting adding video to my site, then also uploading it to utube and google for additional exposure. My backlinks doubled overnight. Do I have a mess or what? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I still get the same amount of hits, but not the higher level of difficulty key words.
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Lisa,
No one can, not even Google. There is not a single person on earth that knows exactly how PageRank and the Google algo works. There are dozens if not hundreds of people working on it at any given time.
Do not worry about PR. PR doesn’t matter.
Worry about your search positions. Work on getting relevant backlinks to your site and that will solve your problems.
For one of my sites, I have a PR3, but I rank #1 and #2 for very competitive keywords. PR is meaningless.
Lisa on Oct 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Jonathan-I feel better now-knowing that it’s ok not to know-thank you! ;) I have been focusing on the backlinks and will continue.
wedding queen on Oct 30, 2007 at 3:41 pm
And how, praytell, are we to get ANY backlinks if Google insists that all links should have the nofollow tags?
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Wedding queen,
Pray to the voodoo people in Hawaii. They might have some backlinks for you.
Or just start using Yahoo! instead.
Hey wait! That’s a great alternative actually! Let’s all start using Yahoo! instead and then maybe Google will stop pooping in their pants about PR.
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Google never said that all links should be nofollow. Just the paid ones.
Next question: Whats a paid link? :)
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 3:48 pm
SendTraffic,
I’ll mail you a shirt with the Ginside logo on it if you link to me, sound good? mmmk thx!
Oh wait…maybe that’s a “paid” link….but maybe it’s not!
*spins the 8-ball….waits….poof!* the 8-ball said it wouldn’t be!! It must be ok then!!!
*sigh*
wedding queen on Oct 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm
EXACTLY! Who does Google think they are to know what motivates a link?
wedding queen on Oct 30, 2007 at 4:02 pm
YES - we all need to REVOLT and use Yahoo. Good Deal. Pass the word.
dt on Oct 30, 2007 at 4:41 pm
My PR dropped from 5 to 3 and happen at a very tough time at work for me.
It did not help as I once wrote that “blogging keeps me sane” in this insane world.
I’m one of these small bloggers and not a SEO expert. As a result it was a huge shock and disappointment as my blog Design Sojourn, like many other bloggers, had a lot of work put into it.
I have found that PR had only affected my advertising dollars not so much on traffic (a slight drop) nor search result.
Not much more that hurt to personal pride.
Satya on Oct 30, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I think PR should be discounted. Search for “perl database script” will show that, in the over 2.7 million sites in the results, the top site is www.dbperl.com, yet its PR is 2.
Credit Cards on Oct 30, 2007 at 6:31 pm
In response to Shannon, I do think you should stop exchanging links. You can keep a links page, but the original intention of links pages were to link out to “sites of interest” or a “friends’ sites” without the requirement of a reciprocal link.
Over the last 6 to 8 years, webmasters have been saavy to reciprocal linking for the benefits of SEO and SERPs.
I think Google is trying to take the internet back to the days of innocence when reciprocal linking wasn’t done for PR juice or SEO.
Jonathan Dingman on Oct 30, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Google has never owned the Internet and they never will. Google is simply a search engine on the Internet.
Live.com, Yahoo!, Ask.com, there are plenty of other search engines out there.
Credit Cards on Oct 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm
In response to Jonathan Dingman,
I like your optimism, but the reality is Google plays a major role on the internet, and they have a huge influence over how companies conduct business.
MSN and Yahoo are fine, but they are in my opinion, still behind on search result relevancy. Let the numbers speaks for themselves, Google gets twice as many searches than Yahoo, and 4 times more than MSN. It’s not just a coincidence. Consumers and webmasters both like Google best.
hostyasui on Oct 30, 2007 at 8:34 pm
a lot of webmasters are curious about the new change in google page rank. In my view they changed the way the page rank used to show, so all the sites which were linking with greater page rank sites page rank were decreased. some of the sites which were not linked to any of the high page rank site has not decreased the page rank, as far as i have seen of my clients websites the new sites has increased their page rank, while other has been decreased.
Mike Koenig on Oct 30, 2007 at 9:07 pm
In case no one has notice… some pages that have 0 backlinks have pr’s of 4 or higher. Not going to give an example, as one is my site… lol but its out there. Are backlinks no longer relavant
D. Murdock on Oct 31, 2007 at 1:03 am
My PR has actually gone back UP after a drop last spring. In the meantime, Google has snagged my site for some reason - duplicate content? “excessive” internal linking? - to the point where you can’t even find it by typing in my name. That started one week BEFORE your PR problems. My traffic from Google has dried up almost completely, and every time I check to see if the site is still in the index, hundreds of fewer pages show. As this rate, my site will disappear off the index within a few days.
Is Google on the edge of chaos? My site is considered, I believe, an “old authority site,” in view of the high SERPs it was receiving for several years. Now, nada. I’m wondering if gutting the whole thing will unsnag it. Naturally, no real help from Google at the Google webmaster groups…
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 31, 2007 at 7:08 am
Mike Koenig,
When you say a site has 0 backlinks but a PR4, are you referring to using the “link:” operator in Google?
If so, that database has not been updated in months!
Satya on Oct 31, 2007 at 7:16 am
Quote “I think PR should be discounted. Search for “perl database script” will show that, in the over 2.7 million sites in the results, the top site is www.dbperl.com, yet its PR is 2.”
It has backlinks; but being just PR2 it is top most in Google for search results.
You could try 3 way links at toptenserp.com; this site gives FREE links for one site and runs on auto, no link building involves webmasters. Good point is, there is no reference on your links pages to toptenserp.com as a links provider
Doug Heil on Oct 31, 2007 at 8:40 am
Alan wrote this:
“When high PR on a poorly optimized site results in a number one ranking (which is common), what else are we to attribute the ranking to?”
You are assuming you know what a good optimized site is, right? I don’t know who you are so I have no idea if you know or not, but if you are assuming that PR is what gets a site to the top then you are mistaken.
Lisa; you say you know some “old time” SEO’s who live and die by PR. I suggest you get to know some old time SEO’s who do not. :-)
Alan; Like I stated in that second post you referenced, the PR you see in the silly toolbar is NOT your Pagerank at all. Why people keep on talking/discussing this green bar is extremely funny. I decided to take a look at this thread since I haven’t in quite a few days. It keeps going and going and ya all keep on discussing the green bar. :-)
SendTraffic SEO on Oct 31, 2007 at 8:43 am
Doug Heil,
I like your post. I have one pending from yesterday that pretty much says the same thing and helps explain PR. It also tries to calm everyone’s hysteria down.
Too bad its still in moderation.
Satya on Oct 31, 2007 at 9:38 am
I think I am conceited in believing that I know how to seo a site. Of course how you link carries a lot of weight too. If you search for “mardi gras beads” you will will mardigrastrading.com also in top-10 though not right at the top. This is just another example.
Oh by the way, I do SEO for others trying to get their sites up in PR and SERP (we are all brainwashed). But personally, when required, I search in Yahoo, msn and then Google, in that order.
Another of my experiences. I have a PR zero 2 months old site. It has more traffic than all my 3 years old sites even, and plenty from Google too. Personally, I think we should stop bothering about PR and get sites to give some purposeful info
Alan on Oct 31, 2007 at 10:11 am
Doug,
I understand what you’re saying, and I’m certainly not assuming PR is what gets a site to the top. In the absence of competition, an indexed site with little to no PR can easily be on top (especially for long tail searches). Often, an indexed site with proper on-page optimization can outrank a site with a higher “showing” PR, but again, just as often the opposite happens. I say “showing” because the little green bar everyone is talking about is the only immediate indicator we have.
Is it accurate in the sense that is depicts the actual PR value? By no means. Is it reflective of link relevancy? Not by a long shot. Still, it is at least somewhat reflective of Google’s valuation of a pages’ PR or it would have no function or purpose.
The point I was making regarding your post is that I don’t begrudge any SEO for using it as a method of PR valuation , especially in the absense of anything more concrete. It’s not only a visible indication (albeit inaccurate) of established PR or PR deficiency to the SEO, but to the client as well.
More importantly, regardless of the inaccuracies it contains across the boards (for all sites), it’s still a somewhat accurate reflection of Google valuation of any one page. That’s more in line with trust rank and quantity than relevancy, which is why PR isn’t the be all and end all of ranking attributes and what makes the scenarios I’ve presented in my two posts possible.
It is a piece of the puzzle, however, so how you can say that you don’t undestand why the SEO community “makes a big deal” about it is beyond me. It’s a lot like a performance evaluation at a job. Sure, it doesn’t account for an employees real value, but it’s nothing to ignore.
Lisa on Oct 31, 2007 at 11:49 am
Doug-thanks for the thought on the old time seo, because I do not really respect this guy and his methodoligies anyway. He was the reason I built my site to begin with. It has been good for me to hear from other seo’s and their take on PR. He tells prospective clients how important PR is (my prospective clients). He is a 5 me a 2 now. I guess at the end of the day nobody still likes to be demoted, and clearly if we did not care we wouldn’t be talking :) My site still ranks well but I think that the majority of the sites that link to me are a 1 or 2, could that be part of it? And should I not ask my clients for a reciprical links any longer? This freaked me out so much that I changed all my out bound link structure and sent G a reinclusion email telling them I fixed it with no follow tags - why am I so afraid now? I am still learning but have never participated in link farms, etc. I used to have 1 God in my life, now I have 2. But I still love this business….
Adam T on Oct 31, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Yes, we too have just made some much anticipated updates to our site www.YoungEntrepreneur.com and overnight we went from a PR 6 to a PR 3.
My thoughts and ‘hopes’ are that we will bounce back to a PR 6 or better within the next short while based on all of our new SEO friendly updates.
It was quite a surprise to see the sudden drop but I have noticed that our google search rankings are quickly climbing the ladder under aggressive keywords. So, all in all it should be worth it in the long haul!
Cheers,
Adam T.
Shannon on Oct 31, 2007 at 3:23 pm
In response to Doug Heil, I am basing my PageRank on the green bar in my toolbar. This went from a 6 to a 5. How or where else would I find our what my PageRank is?
Paul on Nov 1, 2007 at 4:42 pm
We have taken a hit from PR4 to a PR2. I have made lots of recent paid links.
I’ll have to keep an eye on position and traffic to see if this does have any affect.
Cheers,
Paul
Shannon on Nov 2, 2007 at 9:54 am
I just found this info about “nofollow” tags but I don’t understand why they are so important. Why would Google penalize us for posting our courses on sites as advertising? Why is this so wrong?
It’s more work, or rather, more thought of SEO to include these “nofollow” tags. So in an a way Google is punishing people who really have no clue of SEO. I mean I understand SEO but I never knew that to not add “nofollow” would hurt us.
We post hundreds of our courses on dozens of free calendars as well as a few paid ones…so is Google saying that for each and every one I need to add “nofollow” tags? This is absurb. We have a data entry person who just submits our sites on the calendar’s form so is Google asking that now our data entry person become schooled in SEO and require that she add tags left and right. This whole thing is frustrating me quite a bit.
So every banner ad and every link into our site must include “nofollow” tags? Or Google penalizes us? Is that everyone’s understanding of this blurb?
Comments?
Buying Your Rank
NEVER pay for inclusion in a text-link Pagerank-boosting ring. If you use advertising, the links to your site should include the ‘rel=”nofollow”’ attribute, which informs Google and other engines to not associate the linking page to yours in the calculation of rank. Indiscriminately paying sites to link to yours without including ‘rel=”nofollow”’ on the links is not only wrong (you are attempting to boost your rank above other, more deserving pages), you also risk being penalized by search engines. If a known spam site links to your site, you risk losing your ranking or being “black-holed”.
Doug Heil on Nov 2, 2007 at 10:35 am
Shannon; The responsibility of having a website is that the owner needs to be very aware of all things about their own business/site. Being aware of what the guidelines are for search engines that give all sites free referrals is something that is basic.
If you already know that a form of search engine spam is tricking the search engines, then you really should know that anything a site might do to trick the engines is something you should know as well. Claiming that site owners do not know about search engines is actually saying you don’t feel that owner is responsible for their own sites.
Example:
Loren is choosing to use nofollow on all blog comments in here and also choosing to use nofollow on other selected outgoing links in here on every page of his site. For some reason he is choosing to “not” use nofollow all the paid ads in here. I find that interesting.
Many of the paid ads in here are to bad neighborhoods, etc and to sites you could not pay me one million dollars to link out to. He chooses to link to them for one thing, but also chooses to not use the nofollow tag. You see; this is going totally against Google in every way. In my mind, he is saying that he trusts all paid links and votes for them, but does not trust “any” outgoing link that is not paid for. Of course; this is strictly my opinion only. :)
Loren is choosing to run his site the way he wants to run it. He is not claiming ignorance though. I know many out there use the ignorance spin to bolster their arguments about why Google should not be doing what they are doing, but clearly, each and every owner needs to wise up and take responsibility for their very own websites.
dt on Nov 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm
What about spam blogs that scrape stuff from your site, but linkback to your work? Does that affect your page rank?
Credit Cards on Nov 2, 2007 at 6:37 pm
SEO is not black and white; it has a lot of gray areas especially because search engine algos are so complex.
So, one site that buys paid links might get penalized, while a different site that also buys paid links might not.
It all seems arbitrary, but you have to realize that there is a complex algo at work here. Maybe it’s based on the number of paid links. Maybe it’s based on the ratio of paid vs natural links. Maybe it’s based on how quickly you’ve built these links. Maybe it’s who you link out to. Maybe it’s how or who you buy links from.
There are many unknowns and variables. The best we can do is try to make educated guesses.
In regards to spam blog links, those links are probably just ignored by Google. It depends on how Google views that blog via its algo. Does it look at it as a spam blog or a legitimate blog with good content.
Sean @ DeepRough on Nov 7, 2007 at 8:50 am
My page rank had been stuck around 4, for approximately a year. Then, all of a sudden, I noticed last week that it had bumped up to 5. It stayed there until yesterday, where now it has dropped down to 3?
The strange thing is, I’m seeing more inbound google search traffic than I have in the past month?
Any ideas why that would have happened? Did the do a ‘trial’ run around 10/24 then make changes and re-run their algorithm again?
Thought of the Day on Nov 7, 2007 at 9:04 am
I have a question for you all?
Lets say it true, you buy links - you get penalized!
I have a competitor - we all have competitors.
Lets say I am ruthless enough to buy links for them (without there knowledge), I am then ruthless enough to report them for buying links.
Surely Google must have thought about this?
Selling links, thats down to you, it’s your site, it’s there in Black and White, its easily trackable, its easy to spot - Google could easily punish you for that.
But buying links? I’m not sure.
SendTraffic SEO on Nov 7, 2007 at 9:17 am
Thats called GoogleBowling and they are quite aware of it.
Steve on Nov 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Response to Thought of the Day,
How is selling links easily trackable? What if the link seller doesn’t label those links as sponsored or advertisements? How would Google track those? There’s no way to tell if a link was paid for or not if there is no reference to it.
Sites get punished for buying links too. Take a look at Aviva and Alive Directory. They were quite openly buying up all the links they could get their hands on. This SEO method worked very well for the owners until the recent Google hit.
GOWRI on Nov 9, 2007 at 3:08 am
The stock has gained 150% from Oct 8, 2007 to Oct 22, 2007.
By the way check this company MDFI. Their stock is set to increase because of their association with Apple iphone and Complete Care Medical. Find more about this company and stock http://www.growurmoney.com/medefile/
GreenPeace on Nov 9, 2007 at 9:32 am
Google PageRank is not so important by now but I preffer more than less :)
boris on Nov 9, 2007 at 11:43 pm
One reason to avoid paid links… Other than they have a cost associated with them, is that they are addictive… An SEO heroin, if you will… Easy to get and harder to walk away from.
Satya on Nov 10, 2007 at 2:46 am
Boris,
At http://www.toptenserp.com you can get free one way links if your site is PR2+. There is no posting to your link pages required by you, all on auto. And there is no reference to toptenserp.com on your links pages.
joe on Nov 10, 2007 at 11:00 am
I’m keep tracking my site’s posting in directories by reciprocal links on my site. I’m starting to thinking that this may lower my Google PR.
Shannon on Nov 12, 2007 at 9:11 am
My SEO company just submitted us to a bunch of directories, all of which have PR 0. I’m annoyed they did this without consulting us and I hope it doesn’t negatively impact us.
Can our site be removed from directories?
Doug Heil on Nov 12, 2007 at 9:19 am
I guess I’m wondering where all the recent above posters are learning? Who the heck are you reading anyway?.. and then believing/trusting? It seems to me that many people seem to believe that tricking google regarding links is the thing to do.
Jason Adair on Nov 13, 2007 at 10:49 pm
My page rank had been stuck around 3, for approximately a year. Then, all of a sudden, I noticed last week that it had bumped up to 4. It stayed there until sunday, where now it has dropped down to 1. guaranteed google seo australia. What is happening.
Jason Adair
Website Design Melbourne Australia
www.globalsolutionsit.com.au
Satya on Nov 14, 2007 at 7:07 am
Shannon,
Join at http://www.toptenserp.com to get 3 way links FREE, if your site is PR2.
You won’t regret. My dbperl.com link page has already got a PR1 in 40 days
Payday Land Stace on Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00 pm
My page rank was stuck at 1 for a while, now I’m finally noticing an increase in page rank. It actually jumped to PR4 for a few days then to PR3. I say if there’s anyone to pay, it’d be Google =)
Satya on Nov 14, 2007 at 10:03 pm
MARVEL OF THE MONTH
www.dbperl.com is Top-1 in Google for search term “perl database scripts”. And it has PR zero. It appears PR is bull ..it
Web Design Company in India on Nov 15, 2007 at 6:55 am
The Web Mento is leading Web Design Company in India | web design company in lucknow | affordable web design company in india | web design company in noida offers Offshore Web Development, Outsourcing, E-commerce, Web Design, Multimedia Presentations, SEO and Web Hosting services globally in the world
Steve on Nov 15, 2007 at 2:20 pm
What’s the deal with all this spamming within the comments?
Joe on Nov 19, 2007 at 12:00 pm
We went from a PR of 3 to 2, then lost our main page in keyword searches being at #1 for years to not being there at all. Our other pages show up. We don’t buy links and can’t figure out why???
Sherri on Nov 19, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I can’t figure out this pagerank thing either…we have been a PR6 for years and now a PR4. We haven’t paid for any links so I don’t know what is up. Alexa rank is getting worse and worse to but business seems the same and even increasing.
Sherri
http://www.spiralhaircase.com
Lara Kulpa on Nov 20, 2007 at 10:37 am
My site’s PR has been all over the map the past few days actually. I’d been at PR 5 for quite some time, and then dipped down on the last update (prior to this one) to a PR4.
However this one… I’m floored. Literally! I went from 4, to 3, to ZERO, back up to 6, and then 1, and now, for the past two days, flatlined at 0 again.
I have no idea what’s going on - it’s making me crazy. Not because I have that much stock in it - but rather it’s a slap in the face that Google’s telling me they don’t like me anymore. :(
Satya on Nov 20, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Lara,
In absence of direct true info from Google on their methodology, there can any number od interpretations and fretting by site owners.
Wht not take it that Google is trying to prove that PR is all b*ull s*it so that people get away from it?
Satya on Nov 20, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Lara,
In absence of direct true info from Google on their methodology, there can any number od interpretations and fretting by site owners.
Wht not take it that Google is trying to prove that PR is all b*ll s*it so that people get away from it?
Lara Kulpa on Nov 20, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Satya,
I’d love to look at it that way, but I’ve been in this business far too long to think that they’d go so non-random. There are far too many of my friends who’ve paid for this whim with a PR drop.
Add to that fact that it’s all but been said that this was because of selling links, anyone who really knows anything about Google will know that this was a purposeful slap in the face (or, wake up call, depending on how you’re feeling) from The Big G to the rest of the world.
Freelance UK on Nov 21, 2007 at 6:24 am
Very interesting to see what impact the update had; our site http://www.peopleperhour.com actually went from PR0 to PR4.
The URL is relatively new but we had PR0 since the beginning of the summer, then all of a sudden we jumped to 4 without doing any link campaign etc.
Like everyone else, I think there isn’t necessarily such a strong correlation between PR and coming up in google results anymore; I’ve seen low PR sites come up on the first page of google many times, but having said that there are some high PR usual suspects frequently dominating the first page so it’s hard to judge how important it is..
Alex
Satya on Nov 21, 2007 at 10:05 am
Lara,
I have about 11 sites including subdomains omes. I have never sold or bought links. I had 2 sites at top-1 and they are both PR0, yet top-1 in SERP. I have a new site toptenserp.com with over 200 links, yet its PR is green. I think PR should be not considered whlst linking. I have already adapted to examining sites in some details that request links. Incidently, my traffic has gone up.
Lara Kulpa on Nov 21, 2007 at 11:23 am
Satya,
You’re absolutely right that PR has little or nothing to do with your site’s rankings in the SERPs. I already know this.
And yes, if you’re not buying or selling links, PR SHOULD mean nothing to you.
However this site in particular is over 10 years old, and has very high SERP results for chosen keywords. There has NEVER been an issue with PR even dropping before. It’s made it through all sorts of Google dances and updates. And suddenly, because I had a few links that someone paid me for, it’s received a PR drop not by 1 point, but down to a flat out zero.
And in terms of link exchange requests that come in via email? For the most part you can ignore 99.5% of them. ;)
Shannon on Nov 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Our site dropped from a PR6 to a PR3 … we’ve been a six for many years and don’t purchase links … I have no idea why it dropped
Tom Waite on Nov 22, 2007 at 7:19 am
One of my old sites dropped from a PR 4 to PR3.. My new site at www.2create-a-money-making-website.com has not yet budged from PR0. I have bought some links for it and I am really hoping that these will not have a negative effect on possible future PR risings. Hmm
Stefan on Dec 1, 2007 at 9:46 am
I think Google is trying to prove PR means ‘nothing’. I have a site as top-1 in serp for ‘perl database script’ even after it has gradually come down from PR6 to ZERO in steps. I have not a single paid link, incoming or outgoing, ever.
Abby on Dec 8, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Our website has been growing steadily for almost 5 years now. We even reached at one point a PR of 6 and yet remained steady at 5 for two years. Today we looked and found a PR of 3. We don’t utilize paid for links and never have. We have come to the conclusion that PR is starting to mean nothing, or at the least, have very little importance. Especially since this PR change has in no way affected the sales and increasingly unique daily visitors at www.CustomLabels4U.com
We believe in general that people are giving too much importance to PR. It’s almost like an “icon” as opposed to an actual measure of success earned by other means of business “savvy-ness”.
We also believe that nothing will ever substitute good old fashioned advertising!
praveen on Dec 12, 2007 at 1:50 am
My website is just a entertainer and a learing purpose that i have been booked a couple of months before www.praveenkumar.in . I see my site is countinue gaining rankings in alexa at 1st it was .93 m and then .63m and now it is .40 m ranked by alexa. but i have nothing done for my site for promoting alexa.
Plz anyone suggest my why google is still not alotted PR to my webpages?
CarstenCumbrowski on Dec 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm
praveen: your domain is too new, registered on 2007-09-25, that’s not even 3 months. It can take 6 months and longer before it shows any PR.
p.s. Another tip. You only registered the domain for 1 year. Do you plan to ditch it soon or are you in for the long haul? If it is not a temporary domain, show it by registering it for 5, 10 or more years. Google looks at such things, as do some people who might be interested in doing business with you. You also save on the registration fees, because you get usually a big discount for long term registrations.
Free Indian Matrimony on Dec 15, 2007 at 6:38 am
Free Indian Matrimonial|Hindu Muslim Sikh Christian Matrimonial|Indian Matrimony
Free Indian UK USA Canada UAE Pakistan saudi arabia Matrimonial Bride grooms Hindu Matrimony Muslim Matrimonial Sikh
Matrimonial Christian Marriage.Free Matrimonial Kundli match.Add your Profile Now
Free Indian Matrimonial on Dec 15, 2007 at 6:42 am
Free Indian Matrimonial|Hindu Muslim Sikh Christian Matrimonial|Indian Matrimony
Free Indian UK USA Canada UAE Pakistan saudi arabia Matrimonial Bride grooms Hindu Matrimony Muslim Matrimonial Sikh
Matrimonial Christian Marriage.Free Matrimonial Kundli match.Add your Profile Now
Hair Girls on Dec 15, 2007 at 9:23 am
We are page rank 1 now but our site actually went up in the ranks for the keywords that people are searching for.
http://www.hairoffthesquare.com
Ravinder on Dec 25, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Thanks For Good Information !
Praveen Kumar on Dec 26, 2007 at 3:02 am
Thank you very much Mr. CarstenCumbrowski ,
But how could i see and check a domain that which domain is temporary or permanet (long time), I use history of website only through www.archeive.org, but this website takes min. 6 months for caching a website’s back time.
Is any tools by which i could check “period of registration” of a doman.?
CarstenCumbrowski on Dec 29, 2007 at 1:07 am
Praveen. My previous comment was not posted so I post again and hope it goes through.
You can use any WHOIS service to find out more about a domain. I prefer the whois service from Domaintools at whois.domaintools.com.
They provide additional services (some free, some paid), which are also interesting.
Cheers!
Web Design Company in India on Dec 31, 2007 at 6:32 am
Planetecomsolutions is a leading web design company in India delivering quality web design, Web development, SEO, software Development outsourcing Services in uk, India London, Mumbai, delhi and globally in the world
Web Design Company in India on Dec 31, 2007 at 6:34 am
<a href=”Planetecomsolutions is a leading web design company in India delivering quality web design, Web development, SEO, software Development outsourcing Services in uk, India London, Mumbai, delhi and globally in the world”
Jim Frank on Jan 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm
We manufacture and sell flower girl dresses for weddings. We have been on the first page for a “flower girl dresses” search for 11 years. We are a small family-owned, 25 year old company, but one of the leaders in the industry and have a huge, content rich site and follow all the rules. No funny stuff. Since Dec.12th our only page to show up is on the 21st page (result 203) and our index page is completely gone. 90% of our traffic came from “flower girl dresses” searches on Google. What is going on??? We don’t know where to turn.