Why Visible PageRank is a Useless Metric (Blog Post)

[James Lewitzke]

Use this thread to discuss the following post from the Engipress Blog:
Why Visible PageRank is a Useless Metric

[krystofo]

I have not been active in SEO for several years. However according to my experience and what I have read:

1. Page rank is "probably" important for external links. A link from a PR-6 page is much more valuable than a link from a PR-1 page. (So I hear.)
2. Page rank is "definately" important for how highly your page is diplayed in the SERPs (search results).
3. For obvious reasons, Google is required to be as secretive as possible and therefore as obfuscatory as possible concerning their search algorithm, which in addition, can always change. When they say "page rank is only one of 200 values..." This is obfuscation, in my small opinion. There may be 200 values but... last I read... it seems well-proven among the SEO specialists that "page rank" is a trump card. The ordinary person can see this also. Very often, a page from a "famous" site (with a high "PR") is high in the results, even if its content is not very on-target for the search.
4. More to the point, in my opinion,
--if the Home page of a site is PR-0, then do not link "to" that site from your home page or from a page linked directly to your home page. Otherwise however, do not disdain to exchange links, because hopefully his PR will improve over time.
--If someone offers you a link whose Home page is PR-3 or more, do your utmost to maintain that linkage, even if the "posting" page of his link to you has no PR. Just make sure he is not giving you a link from a dead-end page (no link tracks from his Home page), or with Javascript or "nofollow" code.

But, as I say, I am no expert and might be out of date here. I was interested to read your opinions and will keep this in mind as I come across further research!

[James Lewitzke]

One of the primary reasons I stay out of the "SEO Business" is because of this, and all the misinformation and BS so-called "experts" purport about PR. (This isn't meant as a knock on you or any of the people out there who believes it genuinely helps them.) I just try avoid doing this type of work and discussion as best I can, and as the results too often vary from what "could or has been" accomplished within the given timeframe, and people often take the varying matters too personally.


However, regarding your points above:

1) Why should the PR of the page determine whether a link from it is "valuable" or not?

2) Actually, it isn't. Lower PR pages outrank higher ones all the time.

3) Personally I don't think Google should have ever disclosed the nature of PR to the public, because there's always going to be people out there who try to manipulate the algorithms to their own advantage.

Bottom line is, link (or don't link) to a webpage because YOU find the page valuable, not based on what some Search Engine "says" the value is.

[krystofo]

The reason that a high-PR link "might be" more valuable than a low-PR link is the same reason that a job reference from a professor "might be" more valuable than from a hobo... And PR certainly has significant effect on SERP rank or else what is it for...

I am not saying you are wrong. I don't really know. I am just saying that my view is a possiblity.

But anyway, in spite of differing opinions, there seems not much difference in our practices...

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

Bottom line is, link (or don't link) to a webpage because YOU find the page valuable, not based on what some Search Engine "says" the value is.

I agree with that. And I have decided to be extra-generous with my outgoing links, crediting every source and inspiration, whether or not they return the link. And, if they are so kind as to return the link, I am organizing the capability to send TWO more links from TWO separate sites to each of "their" pages that link to "my" pages...

My practice, like yours, is thus the opposite of the typical PR-retentive types who you are justifiably criticizing. So I think maybe we agree here.

My only problem is with linking TO a PR-0 site from my level 1 (Home) or level 2 (one-click from Home). Because PR-0 might mean IP-blacklisted for spam, phishing, etc. I don't have time to look up all that stuff.

I.e., my "bottom line" for PR is that any PR is good that is not 0.

And if I like the site, and it has PR-0, I will still link, just not from my level-1 or level-2. I don't want to tell Google that I am "highly recommending" or possibly even "affiliated" with a phishing site. Maybe I am wrong, but I hope you can understand my concerns.

Also, I have succeeded in raising a new site's home page from PR-0 to PR-6 in a few months, mainly by seeking out obvious link exchange offers with good PR. Usually, they will "require" that I post a return link on a level-2 page--and also, that my page to them is not filled with many other links. So for sheer practicality, I must reserve level-1 and level-2 for links that really matter. Furthermore, since the vast majority of incoming links will point to my Home page, my level-1 and level-2 are also, in theory, the foundation for all the PR value of my entire site, transferred via my navigation links. I do not want possibly to dilute this value with too many links on those critical pages. Here again, you probably do not agree, but I hope you can respect that these are logical possibilities which follow some mathematical reason.

Nobody really knows how Google works, and it is always changing, and much is definately inane about it. For example, according to Google itself, if I post a link saying Click here for potato sandwiches...--this tranfers signifiant value for searches for "potato sandwiches".... but... Click here for potato sandwiches... transfers almost no keyword value. Isn't this inane? Shouldn't the search spider give MORE if not EQUAL value to words "around" the link text which were more likely placed innocently and sincerely? But, that is evidently the way it is.

Furthermore, Google of course has gone corporate, and is raking in so many dollars with "paid" advertising--why should they even bother to refine their "free" results signifcantly? And indeed the whole "free" search traffic era may fade with time. If my new site Popocracy.com happens to be hugely successful, and if I happen to join up with the right people, I have new ideas for seach engines that might alter this trend. But meanwhile, it is what it is.

Anyway, it's all trial-and-error. If you are interested, then as soon as I get my new sites going, I will be happy to post some links to you, in ways that test out some of these conflicting theories. The real test is in finding one or twosearch terms for which you happen to show, and try to push you higher, using high-PR links. Then switching to low-PR links, seeing if there is a difference. If you dare accept a friendly challenge, haha.

[James Lewitzke]

Remember though that the PR you see is what's know as Toolbar PR, and not the real PR Google uses to calculate page value, which I go into detail within the article.

Originally Posted by krystofo

My only problem is with linking TO a PR-0 site from my level 1 (Home) or level 2 (one-click from Home). Because PR-0 might mean IP-blacklisted for spam, phishing, etc. I don't have time to look up all that stuff.

Just because a page has a Visible PR of 0 doesn't automatically mean it's bad. It could be rather new, or it just hasn't been discovered my many other sites yet. However if you feel it's a good indicator of what's "good" and what's "bad" on the web, then by all means use it. I'm just saying there's multiple reasons a page may have that amount of visible PR.

Originally Posted by krystofo

I don't want to tell Google that I am "highly recommending" or possibly even "affiliated" with a phishing site. Maybe I am wrong, but I hope you can understand my concerns.

That's what Nofollow is used for. (Or, at least, that's what it's supposed to be used for.)

Originally Posted by krystofo

Also, I have succeeded in raising a new site's home page from PR-0 to PR-6 in a few months, mainly by seeking out obvious link exchange offers with good PR. Usually, they will "require" that I post a return link on a level-2 page--and also, that my page to them is not filled with many other links. So for sheer practicality, I must reserve level-1 and level-2 for links that really matter.

Personally I don't agree with the entire "link exchange mentality". If I have something on a site of mine that's worth linking to, people will link to it because they enjoy the content they're reading. People should link to me because they like what they see, and when I link out to other people's pages, I do so because I enjoy what they're saying, or they have something useful to offer the reader. And I don't "expect" anything in return for doing so, nor do they.

Good sites don't need link exchanges to become successful.

[krystofo]

Hello again! I happen to be up late and noticed your reply. Shall we give this one more go...?

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

Remember though that the PR you see is what's know as Toolbar PR, and not the real PR Google uses to calculate page value, which I go into detail within the article.

Toolbar PR is 1-10, real PR is 0-1, toolbar PR is several months old... This is interesting but, if there is no better way to determine "real" PR than toolbar PR, I don't see any practical relevance in the differences. Maybe I'm missing something, but so far as I can see, any such differences seems rather academic.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

Just because a page has a Visible PR of 0 doesn't automatically mean it's bad. It could be rather new.

Of course. That is why I said I don't mind linking to PR-0. (Except on level-1 or level-2 pages.) If I believed that PR-0 was automatically bad, then of course I would mind linking.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

However if you feel it's a good indicator of what's "good" and what's "bad" on the web, then by all means use it.

No. PR-0 means unknown, unvetted, new, possibly blacklisted. Does not mean good, does not mean bad.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

That's what Nofollow is used for. (Or, at least, that's what it's supposed to be used for.)

<nofollow> means you are posting a link for which you do not want the destination site to receive any Google link credit. Which is a total self-contradiction and the ultimate in PR-retention syndrome. In practice, <nofollow> is a sleazy way to make sites think you are giving them proper credit, when you are not. <nofollow> also has become a popular way to cut down on spam. Based on my experience, I doubt this works at all. All that <nofollow> really does is to take advantage of naive webmasters who believe they are receiving acknowledgment from their contributions to your website.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

Personally I don't agree with the entire "link exchange mentality"... Good sites don't need link exchanges to become successful.

Aha. So this has not been a disagreement of tactics to increase search traffic. You simply don't see any point at all in increasing search traffic. It is not that we disagree in methods for Search Engine Optimization. Rather, you do not believe in doing Search Engine Optimization, period. Perhaps you don't understand that this makes the difference between receiving a few dozen site visitors per year, to several thousand?

Truth be told, probably very few of the thousands of people who attempt to do SEO get anywhere. Not because SEO is difficult or complex, but simply because it takes a combination of practical understanding, patience and persistence.

In your article, you seem to say that 'visible PR' is irrelevant to SEO. What you now seem to want to say is that SEO itself is generally irrelevant. If so, then I still would not agree, but I would think you would have more of a point.

I also ignored SEO until several years ago, when someone explained in detail how he went from a struggling e-business to an established success, within one month after bringing his site to the front page of search results. If you are not interested in SEO, that's fine. There are many ways to be successful. However to argue that SEO is worthless, seems not in agreement with most online business professionals nor with my personal experience.

[James Lewitzke]

Originally Posted by krystofo

Toolbar PR is 1-10, real PR is 0-1, toolbar PR is several months old... This is interesting but, if there is no better way to determine "real" PR than toolbar PR, I don't see any practical relevance in the differences.

The point being, Toolbar PR isn't useful in anything, and webmasters should use it as an indicator for anything. The truth is there is no "best way" to determine what your real PR is (outside of working for Google, anyway), therefore people shouldn't worry about what the PR of their pages "might" be at any given time.

Originally Posted by krystofo

All that <nofollow> really does is to take advantage of naive webmasters who believe they are receiving acknowledgment from their contributions to your website.

How so?

If the link is any good to them, it shouldn't matter whether it's "nofollow" or not.

Originally Posted by krystofo

Aha. So this has not been a disagreement of tactics to increase search traffic. You simply don't see any point at all in increasing search traffic. It is not that we disagree in methods for Search Engine Optimization. Rather, you do not believe in doing Search Engine Optimization, period.
.....
In your article, you seem to say that 'visible PR' is irrelevant to SEO. What you now seem to want to say is that SEO itself is generally irrelevant. If so, then I still would not agree, but I would think you would have more of a point.

Umm, what? I wasn't stating that...

I was commenting on link exchanges above, not SEO.

[exoticious]

greetings sir well done mate.. great work...

[exoticious]

YouTube and Facebook.