On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:40:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [Paul B] on Monday 20 February 2006 10:45 \__
>
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:40:52 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>__/ [T.J.] on Sunday 19 February 2006 00:43 \__
>>>
>>>> Going across the DC's now
>>>
>>>I have just checked the usual dozen (arbitrary URL's sample) at
>>>http://www.seochat.com/?option=com_seotools&tool=10 and there has been no
>>>change. Several domains are involved.
>>>
>>>McDar are overloaded at the moment, but 216.239.37.147 and 216.239.37.105
>>>return PageRank 0 for a page that must have PageRank. For another URL, I
>>>definitely see the update (from PR0 to PR4) at:
>>>
>>>216.239.57.98
>>>216.239.57.99
>>>39.37.105
>>>216.239.57.105
>>>64.233.167.99
>>>64.233.167.104
>>>72.14.207.99
>>>72.14.207.104
>>>72.14.207.106
>>>
>>>Backlinks are changing as well, but the values are still rocky.
>>>
>>>Roy
>>
>> Hi Roy
>> For one of my sites, McDar reported these variations (excluding the
>> dead DC's) ...
>>
>> IBLs PR
>> 237 4
>> 237 3
>> 467 3
>> 273 3
>> 273 4
>>
>> The site was a PR4 but looks like it will now be a PR3 although we
>> rank high for a lot of keywords (doubled #1 positions now for about
>> 2-3 weeks)
>
>
>PageRank seems irrelevant to me, which contrasts with older views that were
>possibly mistaken. PageRank updates in their own right rarely (if ever)
>affect traffic, quantified by the number of referrals. In fact, as I pointed
>out before, large Web sites need to accommodate more pages with positive
>ranks, which essentially means that the front page 'leaks energy' to fill
>the gap in the core.
On the whole, yes I agree. But when you in a market domintated by mom
and pop sites. *those* people don't know much apart from what they are
told. To many of them, PR is the holy grail.
>
>> The other site looks like it will be a PR5, but again, the results are
>> varied.
>>
>> plh
>> Paul
>
>
>I ceased to take much account of PageRank when I discovered small sites with
>few inbound links. Yet, they retained an impressively high PageRank. Such
>sites did not get many referrals as a reward because they were too narrow.
>Their only merit was that they projected formidable status to those who both
>installed a Google-oriented toolbar AND understood its meaning, using it as
>an indicator to judge by. Has the site in question grown? Has it remained
>rather static?
The site has grown, but only deep page wise.
I have only accepted about 8 exchanges in the last 3 months or so.
Most didn't have their pages cached, so I didn't link to them.
>There is another dimension to consider here. Let us call it "The Web Grows,
>Web Sites Fade Away".
>
>* The number of sites grows, the size of each individual site increases and
>ultimately the Web as a whole grows.
>
>* A site gets more links over time (with the exception of splogs which get
>shut down), which may suggest that it will rank higher. However, there are
>more sites in the game, thus more links, so the distribution of links (the
>proportion) is unbalanced.
Don't touch splogs or blogs.
>* Another factor: more people on the Net, faster connection, query volume on
>search engines rises, but.... the Net continues to get bigger. With tens of
>millions of active blogs out there, it is rather vast and keeps growing.
How does that affect PR ?
>* Dormant sites are rarely self-maintaining. They may be out-of-date and they
>rely on /fresh/ links.
I am constantly working on the site.
>* Sites that are not looked after are like old software that grows mold. No
>new features, so people are looking elsewhere. This, of course, is not a
>reference to any particular site, but a general remark rather.
Not in this case, but that has nothing why the PR has dropped. (Or
looks like it will)
Okay, IBLs on other sites may have more added to the page etc, but I
wasn't expecting a drop to a PR3. It has good IBLs from the First
People site and other sites.
>* PageRank and traffic are an oxymorons. There are conflicts between the two
>sometimes. See, for example, what I once wrote on "PageRank and Traffic"
>
>http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/08/22/pagerank-and-traffic/
>
>As a final word, when my main site was less mature (only months old) and had
>far fewer incoming links, its ranks were better. Nonetheless (with utter
>disrespect for PageRank), Google gives me about 20,000 referrals per month
>(Search + Images). I used no SEO tricks. I rely on the quantity of content,
>which Cat would argue is the key.
No SEO tricks here either, and good content. Lets hope it will stay a
PR4.
I did see the other site go to a PR5 for an hour or so, but nothing
seen since. Just waiting for it to spread across all DC's
>Track the number of referrals. Gauge your success by traffic. Forget about
>PageRank and think of it as a minor bonus. It's invisible or insignificant
>to 95% of the population, I'd estimate.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Roy
plh
Paul
--
Handmade Jewelry http://www.houstoncrafts.com/ Beaded with loving care.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
