Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:37:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>SEO Dave wrote:
>>> On 30 May 2005 22:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus2969
>>> <ignoramus2969@NOSPAM.2969.invalid> wrote:
>>>>So much for the theory that google was disposing of PR. I hope that it
>>>>does not happen, for purely egocentric reasons (having a PR7 site).
>>> LOL, me too. I use PR as guide to how I'm doing in terms of getting
>>> enough links to everything, if a page is low PR I funnel more PR to
>>> it. I'd hate to have to use my brain to work it out :-))
>>> Think I got my highest day's traffic from all my sites yesterday, two
>>> of the main sites alone came to 14,000 visitors (each site had over
>>> 7,000 visitors, one of them has increased from just under 3,000 last
>>> month) so whatever Google's doing I like it a lot :-)
>>Are you sure it is Google that brought many of these visitors? And if so,
>>why? Was there a lot of content added or just a PR increase? I sometimes
>>feel like Google place greater emphasis on content while PR gets a lower
>>weighting. Then again, I might be wrong. My PR is quite poor.
> Then again, David doesn't show us his log files, does he?
Well, that statement is missing the point in a sense. I guess that all
depends on his client/s. An SEO for Dixons (if they have any), for example,
can quote high figures.
High PR and number of visitors are not correlated. I know a sites that have
an enormous number of visitors (10,000-100,000 a day) and a PR as low as 4.
Conversely, some pages of academic staff will have PR 6 and merely any
Roy S. Schestowitz