Page Rank Update In Our Toolbars

[Phoenix Realtor]

Well, my brand new blog is PR 2/10 from 0. And, all of the new pages on my main site have PR now. Seems to be eratic right now...

I even see back links in the tool bar for my new blog! Could be a double wammy for us.

Anyone else see any changes?

[kyle422]

My main site jump up to PR 5. My blog is staying at PR 3.

[Phoenix Realtor]

Congratulations on the 5 Kyle! :cool:

[kyle422]

Thanks man. Congrats on your blog seeing some PR. It's hard to get PR on those blogs.

[kyle422]

I noticed this site is showing PR 3 on some data centers.
http://www.seochat.com/?go=1&option=com_seotools&tool=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realestateforum.com%2F&submit=Check

[HHI Golf Guy]

I noticed something very interesting with this PR update which seems to confirm an assumption I made on the last update regarding links pages.

One of our sites moved to a PR5. In most cases, the second level pages are PR4 and the third level pages are PR3 - except for the links pages. The second level links pages remained at PR3 and the third level links pages remained at PR2.

Perhaps the PR update has not propogated through all of the pages, but I don't think that is the case. As I stated earlier, I noticed this on the previous PR update.

[San Diego Real Estate]

That sounds like a good Analysis HHI!

[frobn]

My new site http://TheBroadwayGroup.com is pr5 and most sub pages are pr4. The blog is PR3. I did very little optimization. All of the pages are pure content pages with information for the various sections of Miami and the Miami Beaches. In addition http://cssdesignmagic.com went from PR4 to PR5.

What does it mean? We all know you can have a good PR but Google will keep the site in the sandbox for months or even years so why even bother with Google.

[HHI Golf Guy]

Toolbar PR is nice, but SERP's are what counts.



What does it mean? We all know you can have a good PR but Google will keep the site in the sandbox for months or even years so why even bother with Google.

Because Google handles 50%-60% of all web surfer search queries.

[gemini]

What does it mean? We all know you can have a good PR but Google will keep the site in the sandbox for months or even years so why even bother with Google.

It will pay off big time when released fromt the sandbox - I witnessed that with one real estate site - we couldn't figure out what to do because it ranked #1 in Y! and MSN, but nowhere in Google. When it was released from the sandbox (after almost a year) it appeared on the 2nd place on most competitive keyphrases for that site - the owner is busy working the leads now and don't hang out in the forums as much :cool:

[frobn]

Toolbar PR is nice, but SERP's are what counts.

Because Google handles 50%-60% of all web surfer search queries.

What good does it do your site if it is nowhere to be found in the google search queries? Perhaps in a year or two it will be out of the sandbox but by that time MSN or Yahoo may be handling 50 to 60% of the search queries. My prediction is that in short term (6-12 months) MSN will pull even with Yahoo and in the longer term will pull search share from Google and it the long long term will bypass Google. The prediction is based on an assumption and 'hope' that MSN will be successful with their content-centric approach.

[gemini]

What good does it do your site if it is nowhere to be found in the google search queries?
You don't really need to do anything special for google, follow the basic rules of optimization and work on the content - when time comes to be out of the sandbox - you'll be on the top just sit tight.


..in the longer term will pull search share from Google and it the long long term will bypass Google.
sounds like long long long term to me.. are you planning on making some money form your sites after your kids retire? :rolleyes:

[Phoenix Realtor]

are you planning on making some money form your sites after your kids retire?

LMAO! That was pretty funny Max.

No doubt we all need to focus on what is here and now, not what may or may not be. I'm not picking on you Frobn, I just thought Max's comment was really funny. :D

[gemini]

I don't mean to upset anyone with my sarcasm and I hope I didn't.
From a marketing point of view discarding a big part of the market is not right step - small underestimates lead to pretty noticeable miscalculations and huge losses. It might be okay with small personal sites, but if you're marketing manager for a pretty big company - they will burry you alive for that :D

[Phoenix Realtor]

Hey Max,

We love your sarcasm and input. Plus, no way Frobn took it wrong, he's too cool for that. :)

[gemini]

Thanks for cheering me up Matt :D I don't know locals very well yet, but I can recognize a few that I can mess with :p

[smindsrt]

It is nice that the PR updated. I have a handful of new sites that are now showing decent PR.

[Phoenix Realtor]

It is nice that the PR updated. I have a handful of new sites that are now showing decent PR.

That's because you rock.

I noticed the PR 8/10 on site-sift...

Congratulations bro! :cool:

[frobn]

LMAO! That was pretty funny Max.

No doubt we all need to focus on what is here and now, not what may or may not be. I'm not picking on you Frobn, I just thought Max's comment was really funny. :D

No offense taken I think it was funny too. As a matter of fact one of my main projects is a site for my step son in an extremely competitive market. And yes I am looking two years down the road.

I may criticize google because what I see are too many, otherwise intelligent people, who are not thinking things through. Look on any forum where links are exchanged and you will see a frantic merry-go-round for links, with little thought and no investigation on how it will help their sites. I can imagine google sitting back and laughing at all the wasted effort.

My complaint about google is their link-centric approach. You may not agree with me but it is fill of holes. It can not work past a few major news and information sites. If you follow MSN, it may be as apparent to you as it is to me that they have come to the same conclusion and can care less about links. MSN is putting their efforts into what they call a 'neural net'. If they are successful, they have the brain power and a the money to easily bypass their competitors. If anyone can make a case that a link-centric approach is better than a content-centric one I would love to hear it. Please note that with the present state of technology the approaches appear to be about equal. I think the content-centric approach has an advantage because it is simpler, their is no need for search engine guardians to manipulate it and that the only way SEOs will be able to manipulate it is to improve content.

At best, we make intelligent guesses as to what will happen in the future. For the present, I believe it is best to build sites using the best technology and content I can. If you look as some of my other posts it should become obvious that is my goal.

[HHI Golf Guy]

My complaint about google is their link-centric approach.
While Google may value links, it still pays very close attention to on-page optimization factors.

If anyone is paying attention, they may have noticed that Google is in the beginning stages to apply a more concise weight the value of links. For example, a link to your site from a poorly planned and optimized link page provides even less value than in the past. "Links" pages, "resources" pages and their sub pages are not receiving incremental toolbar PR value from their parent pages. I'm sure the same can be said for Google's internal PR.

By drastically cutting the weight given to links from "links" pages Google can easily defeat link spam.

What's the best way to defeat Google at their own game? Get rid of links pages altogether and place your reciprocal links throughout all of the pages on your web site. Of course, this only works for you if your link partners do the same for your link. I have 2 major sites in development, and this is the approach that I will take if I can find willing partners.

One word of caution - in order to receive the greatest value for the outbound links they should have at least some relevance to the content of the originating page (i.e. real estate).

As far as MSN is concerned they can throw a lot of money behind their efforts - but so can Google. It will be very, very hard to beat Google simply because the word "Google" has become part of the everyday lexicon. That is what strong branding is all about. If you were to walk through your local mall and ask people to name any internet search engine I bet that 90% of the responses would be "Google".

And here's the kicker - I have not seen Google spend one dime in TV, radio, or print media advertising. That is a huge statement as to the strength of their brand. They are a cash rich company, and can easily spend as much money as needed to combat any MSN marketing efforts.

Early on I really thought that MSN had a chance to take away significant Google market share, but now I don't see that happening anytime in the near future. Google is a monster, and they keep growing.

MSN seems to be getting better and better with their search results every month. But even with THE most relevant search results they still need to find a chink in Google's armor.

There is one more important factor to consider: There is no way I could convince my customers that MSN can give them or will give them the amount of prospects that come from Google.

[frobn]

While I agree with most of what you post there are still parts I disagree with. Google can tweak their linking weights which they do many times per year. It is not what they do it is the perceived benefit of linking that drives SEOs, web master behavior and web spam. I actually think that Google is devaluing links but not quickly enough.

What's the best way to defeat Google at their own game? Get rid of links pages altogether and place your reciprocal links throughout all of the pages on your web site. Of course, this only works for you if your link partners do the same for your link. I have 2 major sites in development, and this is the approach that I will take if I can find willing partners.I can not agree more, please keep me in mind for a link partner.

I agree that today, google is the search engine king, but if anyone thinks that search will be the same July 2007 then I suggest they look at the history of the internet. If MSN is successful in improving search results with a content centric approach Google will out of necessity have to follow. I believe they will be smart enough to do so, and I wish them luck, but still it will cost them. Here is a prediction for July 2007, Google 39% MSN 41% Yahoo 12% all others 8%. The numbers may vary a bit, my crystal ball was a bit hazy. :D

[HHI Golf Guy]

OK.

I view Google the same as I view Wal Mart. A lot of people hate Wal Mart, but they are not going away. I heard a report that said that 3 out of every 10 retail dollars are now spent in Wal Mart.

I hate Wal Mart, but there are still a few times when I need to shop there. The same goes for Google. As much as I try to stay away, sometimes I still need to use their search engine.

[marcinsarasota]

All of my interior pages moved up to a PR 4. However, my home page dropped from a 5 to a 4. :mad:

[frobn]

I think that most of us would agree that SEs will change over the next two years. Whether Google maintains their present leadership or not is dependent on many factors. As I said in a previous post my crystal ball is hazy. I would hope that all SEs move to a more content-centric approach because I believe it is superior to linking and I feel comfortable competing on the basis of good relevant content. Those who have older sites and many links will obviously disagree and want to remain with the status quo.

That said, there is much we can learn from Google's PR update. I think it is a fair assumption that if your PR went up you did something that Google likes. If people on here are willing to share their thoughts as to why their sites have good PR the many good analytical minds on here will be able to discern the patterns.

I have one new site http://thebroadwaygroup.com that went to PR5 out-of-the-box and a second relatively new site (4 months old) http://cssdesignmagic.com that went from PR4 to PR5. One is a development site the other a real estate site. Neither site has been optimized for SEs, one thing that I did for both was to add around 30 pages of good content, mostly text. Most of the external links are from forums. A preliminary assumption is that 25 to 35 relevant content pages will boost a site's PR. Many will say this is obvious but first, in reality nothing is obvious. Second, there can be many hidden factors, just because we don't see them does not mean that they don't exist. And third, I am suggesting a narrow range (25 to 35 pages).

I would like to hear opinions from others. If you have had a PR increase or decrease and your thoughts about it.

[frobn]

All of my interior pages moved up to a PR 4. However, my home page dropped from a 5 to a 4. :mad:

That interests me. On my http://broadwaykeys.com I picked up dozens of PR4 pages but the main page stayed at PR4. Logically, one would think that the main page should have a higher PR. On http://keysglee.com, a non-profit site the main page dropped in the last update to a PR2 but several other pages are at PR5 and many at PR4. There is even one page under construction with a PR4.

I recently changed the main page text on broadwaykeys.com so I am thinking that may have keep it at a PR4. Did you make any recent changes (last 30 days) to your main page?

Anyone else with weird Google behavior?

[frobn]

Today http://www.sitepronews.com/ has an article "Google PageRank Update Analysis" By Dave Davies. In a paragraph under the heading "What Do I Do - My PageRank Dropped?" Davies states,

"Now, if you've noticed that everyone around you has stayed the same or increased in PageRank try to remember this, there's nothing you can do about where you're currently positioned in regards to PageRank and it will probably be another 3 months before Google updates the public PageRank again so ... start building some good quality (high relevancy, solid PageRank) links. Work towards an increase in the next update."

This is at the heart of my disappointment with both Google and many SEOs. Davies who may otherwise be a good SEO appears to be blinded by Google's emphasis on links. Nowhere in the article does he even hint at improving content. From my experience several of my sites that I added content to but not links have gone up in PR, none have gone down. Could the drop in rank from sites with many links be because they have little to say? Perhaps there is hope for Google after all.

[HMiller]

I think that most of us would agree that SEs will change over the next two years. Whether Google maintains their present leadership or not is dependent on many factors. As I said in a previous post my crystal ball is hazy. I would hope that all SEs move to a more content-centric approach because I believe it is superior to linking and I feel comfortable competing on the basis of good relevant content. Those who have older sites and many links will obviously disagree and want to remain with the status quo.

That said, there is much we can learn from Google's PR update. I think it is a fair assumption that if your PR went up you did something that Google likes. If people on here are willing to share their thoughts as to why their sites have good PR the many good analytical minds on here will be able to discern the patterns.

I have one new site http://thebroadwaygroup.com (http://thebroadwaygroup.com/) that went to PR5 out-of-the-box and a second relatively new site (4 months old) http://cssdesignmagic.com (http://cssdesignmagic.com/) that went from PR4 to PR5. One is a development site the other a real estate site. Neither site has been optimized for SEs, one thing that I did for both was to add around 30 pages of good content, mostly text. Most of the external links are from forums. A preliminary assumption is that 25 to 35 relevant content pages will boost a site's PR. Many will say this is obvious but first, in reality nothing is obvious. Second, there can be many hidden factors, just because we don't see them does not mean that they don't exist. And third, I am suggesting a narrow range (25 to 35 pages).

I would like to hear opinions from others. If you have had a PR increase or decrease and your thoughts about it. I think moving to a more content oriented approach is a good move. The only issue is how they determine relevant and quality content. I can create a page primarily to generate Adsense revenue and mention Dutchess County Real Estate, Dutchess COunty Homes, etc. a handful of times yet the quality of the page will be zero. Or I can do the same, but only this time focus on my end user, and create a wonderfully relevant and high quality page according to my point of view. If the SEs can evolve to the point where they can weed out the good from the bad, then a content-centric approach will definately be the way to go.

As far as PR goes, I haven't had a change either up or down. I've only added one page with content and just a handful of links to my main site. However, I did create a "placeholder" site youratlantarealestate.com . I may be moving to Atlanta later this year and wanted to create a barebones site well in advance so that in case I do move I'd have a site to develop that has gotten past most of the sandbox time. If you look at that site, it's very minimal with only a couple of sentences of content on each page. The vast majority of links to it are forum sig links as I've only exchanged links with a few other real estate websites. This is the first PR update since I created it and the 'top level' pages had a PR 3 and the pages below that are PR 2. Not sure how this would help any analysis other than to show that it doesn't take much to get a PR3 site. I'm not planning on doing alot more with this site in the short term so maybe I'll do a PR experiment with it. Maybe do nothing but add links or just add only content between now and the next update and see what happens to the PR.

[smindsrt]

That's because you rock.

I noticed the PR 8/10 on site-sift...

Congratulations bro! :cool:

I'm just happy to see that all of our new sites have some PR now. People get way to hung up on it. We get a lot of the:

"We do not exchange links with PR0 sites. Please email us when you have PR."

or

"I will give you a PR4 if you give me a PR4"

CRAP! :D If an exchange is good make it. The thing is most of the time my new sites get higher PR on the links pages than some people get for there homepage. If they don't want to exchange links b/c a site has no PR yet..... that's is their ignorance. :eek:

[Phoenix Realtor]

It's funny how once one is doing well in the SERP's, one gets bombarded with link requests. Many of them look and "feel" automated, yuck!

I agree about getting and giving links, if it works (IE possible traffic increase from themed pages, etc.) do it. Don't get hung up on PR. Some of today's PR 2's may be tomorrow's PR 6's... I know 'cause my blog is only 2 this time and it is only 2.5 months old right now.

:D

[frobn]

I think moving to a more content oriented approach is a good move. The only issue is how they determine relevant and quality content. I can create a page primarily to generate Adsense revenue and mention Dutchess County Real Estate, Dutchess COunty Homes, etc. a handful of times yet the quality of the page will be zero. Or I can do the same, but only this time focus on my end user, and create a wonderfully relevant and high quality page according to my point of view. If the SEs can evolve to the point where they can weed out the good from the bad, then a content-centric approach will definately be the way to go.

The major hurdle for the SEs is to improve technology that can better evaluate content 'relevance'. In some ways doing so may be more difficult than improving on linking technology, I believe the advantage is with content simply because the SEs have ALL the control whereas with 'linking' the SEs become dependent on SEO behavior. For example, each time there is a Google update the SEOs analyze how they can once again manipulate links to their benefit whereas with in a content-centric world the SEOs are actually encouraged to improve their content which translate into a win for the user.

As far as PR goes, I haven't had a change either up or down. I've only added one page with content and just a handful of links to my main site. However, I did create a "placeholder" site youratlantarealestate.com . I may be moving to Atlanta later this year and wanted to create a barebones site well in advance so that in case I do move I'd have a site to develop that has gotten past most of the sandbox time. If you look at that site, it's very minimal with only a couple of sentences of content on each page. The vast majority of links to it are forum sig links as I've only exchanged links with a few other real estate websites. This is the first PR update since I created it and the 'top level' pages had a PR 3 and the pages below that are PR 2. Not sure how this would help any analysis other than to show that it doesn't take much to get a PR3 site. I'm not planning on doing alot more with this site in the short term so maybe I'll do a PR experiment with it. Maybe do nothing but add links or just add only content between now and the next update and see what happens to the PR.

You analysis is important because it lends support that you don't need a lot of content or links to obtain a PR3. Perhaps with slighty more content it would be a PR4. I like your idea of doing one or the other to see what happens. We can expect the next Google PR update in the next 3 months. If I were doing it I would add 10 pages of content, 250 to 400 words per page. There is a factor I may have glossed over regarding links, I do get many links from forums and I noticed with your Atlanta site that it too has most of its links from forums.