Carol W wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:31:47 +0800, "Harps" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>"Roy Schestowitz" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>> Bruno wrote:
>>>> "... please use with the intention of entertainment purposes only" is
>>>> mentioned on the page itself.
>>> I can't recall ever reading this. I wonder if they rephrased it once
>>> they realised it wasn't working properly.
>>Does PR even matter anymore?
Definitely. In terms of traffic from search engines, it might not play a
huge role. Titles appear to make the most impact, i.e. relevance supercedes
level of trust or pupularity. It's a trade-off -- something the engineers
must have tweaked over the years.
Some surfers like me would use PageRank as an indicator of trust. I won't
lie. I am more likely to cite a Web site with decent ranks because it is
less likely to become some porn slash casino Web site the following month.
And that happens too, trust me...
> Only to those using PR for SEO purposes, in my opinion. Examples of
> this would be not linking to a site below PR4 in value [some don't
> consider the PR of the page itself where the link resides but only
> look at the PR value given to the main page] or those seeking out
> 'link partners' and looking at their Google Toolbar as a guide of whom
> to email asking for a trade of links.
> But then again, I always thought it was silly to limit oneself to PR4+
> sites for backlinks. *shrug* Today's PR2 page could be a PR5 or PR6
> on the next update.
> Does this mean you can ignore PR as a whole? Not necessarily - as PR
> is still part of the Google algorithem, even if on a decreased value
> in that formula that it may have had in the past. So you want to try
> to get the PR above PR0 or PR2 even if you can. But the PR value, on
> the toolbar, is only updated 3 to 4 times a year nowadays - so you
> really can't go by that a week or so after the update happens as
> people may have started to implement changes on their sites.
> As Google is still regarded as the main search engine to rank well on,
> then PR is not wholly shelved just as yet. However, on the other hand,
> it is only used by Google - Yahoo and MSN, which help feeds other
> places search results and have their own repeat/return users, do not
> consider Google's PR value of a site/page in their algorithems.
> Part of raising PR, such as getting links pointing your way, will help
> on Yahoo and MSN. So, that helps to explain why I don't feel PR is
> totally shelved as a "site goal" in SEO thoughts - although it is not
> the main concern it once was in some people's minds as a PR4 or PR5
> page/site can rank higher, in placements, on Google than a PR6 page.
Well said. I also imagine that search engines are causing jealousy and
disdain (directed at themselves) by making these ranks public. The fella'
who has just built a site whose exposed and projected PageRank is 0 will
not be happy. It is as if search engines tell the world what sites are
worth and all is based on brute-force.
I sometimes wonder if the disppearance of PageRank world-wide (May-ish) for
a couple of days was a part of some experiment, perhaps with the intention
of listening to reactions.