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.
Not with mine it doesn't!!
>* 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.
This reminds me of when I was a kid and I went to the Planetarium.
>* Dormant sites are rarely self-maintaining. They may be out-of-date and they
>rely on /fresh/ links.
>
>* 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.
>
>* 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.
>
>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.
Dark stars.
BB
--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bill.kruse/wall-tapestries.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/anheuser-busch/index.html
kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Gifty! Shiny! BB!
|
|
