Eric Johnston wrote:
> Barbara de Zoete wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:32:09 GMT, Big Bill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:31:51 -0400, Nunsploitation Webmaster
>>> <email@example.com.HABIT> wrote:
>>>> Now, my page rank went from 3 to a ZERO in this last update! WTF?!?
>>>> I still rank pretty high for queries like "nunsploitation" "nun
>>>> exploitation movies" or even searches for reviews of movies like
>>>> "Sacred Flesh" or "Satanico
>>>> Pandemonium" ... but there are other consequences to a ZERO PR that
>>>> I'm concerned about.
>>>> I just wish I knew who I rubbed the wrong way to get a ZERO. Any
>>> Google. It's likely they've taken away the PR you formerly had for
>>> the reciprocal links on the basis that they seem to have been gained
>>> artificially. I think the obvious link exchange days are on the way
>>> out. It's a little threatening as serps are more amd more becoming
>>> determined not necessarily by what naturally occurs, but by Google's
>>> interpretation and attempted recreation of what naturally occurs.
>> But, don't you see? There is no such thing as 'what naturally
>> occurs'. Had SEO not developed as a business, links would be the
>> popular vote as to the popularity of a site. In that situation links
>> would count for something, like they used to (and probably still do
>> to some extend).
>> But SEO is all about frustrating this idea of popular votes and all
>> about trying to gain control over, what was supposed to be, the
>> chaotic system. Don't cry over what you brought about yourself on to
>> The last Google dance gave some of my pages a boost in PR. From 3 to
>> 5, sometimes with no incoming links at all, except from within the
>> site itself. I don't really mind the changing algorithm. So far I've
>> never experienced anything bad happening to my pages.
>> On the other hand, it does not noticeably effect my ranking on SERPs
>> though. As it does not the other way around either if PR drops, so no
>> worries I guess, okay?
>>> weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html
>>> | webontwerp |
>>> http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
>>> zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
>> `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@
> Read http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html
> a.. Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule
> of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to
> a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does
> this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
> a.. Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's
> ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad
> neighbourhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely
> by those links.
> My interpretation of the last sentence is that you should never link to a
> site that uses link spamming techniques such as link farm or links page in
> an attempt to mislead search engines as to the merit of the sites linked
> to. If you need to link to a dodgy site (as some do have good content
> their sins) then use rel="nofollow" for your visitors. Then you should be
> Reciprocal link schemes, as attempts to mislead search engines as to the
> merit of the sites linked to, are now history. Quality content that
> satisfies the searcher is the way forward. Put links only to help your
> Best regards, Eric.
I agree with Eric on that one. Stop investing time in doing what is beyond
'natural'. What is natural or not is defined by the algorithms, which
quickly learn the tricks and adapt.
Barbara mentioned pages with high PR that have no external inbound links. I
see more or less the same trend on my site. Also, SERP's do not seem to be
affected by PageRank in many cases, which I found surprising. A new page
with PR0 ranked higher in a SERP than when it received a PR5.
Roy S. Schestowitz