38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is page rank still exist in google books ?

by Nexstair
37 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Is anyone know that page rank still exists in google book. Some of the experts say google will not consider page rank further need to confirm that
#books #exist #google #page #rank
  • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
    Of course it does! They still update it daily and factor that into the search results daily. They just no longer export it for us to see the value.
    Signature
    LookAfterWP - Protection, Maintenance and Performance
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10844998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kumaramitkumar
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845016].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
      Originally Posted by kumaramitkumar View Post

      Its almost vanishes from google books .
      WTF are you talking about?
      Originally Posted by mamagenit View Post

      Is rank in ahrefs influence to the page rank in google?
      Of course it doesn't! Google does not use any third party metrics in its ranking algorithm
      Signature
      LookAfterWP - Protection, Maintenance and Performance
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845025].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mamagenit
    Is rank in ahrefs influence to the page rank in google?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845021].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnben1444
    Worry not about this imaginary ool.
    It's nothing but a settled dust be left behind.
    Signature
    Grow your social media account, Spotify Streams, YT Views & IG Followers & More
    Software & Mobile APP Developer
    Buy Spotify, Facebook Bot & IG M/S Method
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845112].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by johnben1444 View Post

      Worry not about this imaginary ool.
      It's nothing but a settled dust be left behind.
      And you peddle seo? I pity the fools that part with money. You are lower than a noob.

      As far as to why it's secret, many reasons.

      People cannot fake it. Puts junk people out of business.
      People cannot see how they are raising it or lowering it. Puts mindless linking off the table.
      People cannot offer PR services.

      I know they use it because it's the root of the company.

      I know KFC uses some secret recipe, even though I have never seen the real one.

      Taking PR out would be like Hershey taking chocolate out of a Hershey bar.

      PR is about links. Links that count.

      Of course google has made tons of things secret in the past few years. I hear nobody say they don't use the secret data anymore.

      When google retires something, they say it. They don't shy away from it.

      Google has changed the way they use nofollow. People still are clueless about that. What makes you think google still "uses" nofollow?

      In fact, nofollow is a perfect clue at to whether PR is still used. Nofollow was invented, by google, to assist in not shmoozing PR.

      If PR is no longer factored in, then nofollow also becomes extinct.

      PR is not the end all to end all....but it still plays a part.

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845387].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        And you peddle seo? I pity the fools that part with money. You are lower than a noob.
        oh please Paul give the putdowns a rest. in fact perhaps he's thought about it more than you have. Case in point

        I know KFC uses some secret recipe, even though I have never seen the real one.
        Huge problem with that analogy is that you can do nothing for your business with KFC secret recipe. The only thing you can do is buy and eat the chicken. The end. You can't improve your business , rank a page or get customers by reciting that KFC has a secret recipe. Johnben is right in one important respect when he says imaginary. It is totally imaginary to believe that a metric that you cannot measure matters to anyone.

        Taking PR out would be like Hershey taking chocolate out of a Hershey bar.
        Hershey could be using substitute sugar in their candy bars and you would have no idea if they don't state so on the wrapper but once again neither KFC or Candy bars are anything that anyone works with to improve their business except those selling the bars and chickem

        PR is about links. Links that count
        Yep and thats why johnben is right again in one thing when he uses the word imaginary. it is complete imaginary that you will get any clue about ANYlink that matter as you stated from a metric that is completely secret.

        Thats jsut plain common sense

        Of course google has made tons of things secret in the past few years. I hear nobody say they don't use the secret data anymore.
        No one talks about secret data anymore because since its secret - THERES NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845439].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulgl
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          No one talks about secret data anymore because since its secret - THERES NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT
          Hmmmm. There are countless threads about certain things that google no longer lets you have access to.

          And they cry, moan, bitch, flutter in the wind.

          And yet, nobody ever tells them to forget it because google doesn't use it.

          I give them ways that they can logically infer what that data might be.

          I assume that's why others have tried to extrapolate PR-ish stuff,and make it DA, etc.

          Anyone who says that PR is some imaginary tool and forget it, really is clueless about SEO. End of that story.

          As I said, if google no longer had PR, they would publicly retire it, as tons of things they have retired.

          Of course you don't address the real catcher:

          If PR is no longer used, than nofollow is no longer used either.

          And using your logic, people should stop talking about nofollow.

          Paul
          Signature

          If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846544].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post


            Anyone who says that PR is some imaginary tool and forget it, really is clueless about SEO. End of that story.
            Depends. if you are talking about a tool used by google then its not imaginary TO THEM. If you are talking about pagerank like its anything thats meaningful anymore to anyone else then yep its imaginary. I took Johben as saying the latter - forget about it because its not something you can use as real to anyone else. Why worry about a measurement tool that we used to know how it was measured but no longer do?

            When will you people wake up. A measurement tool that no one can use to measure any real page is as close to imaginary as you could possibly ask for


            Of course you don't address the real catcher:

            If PR is no longer used, than nofollow is no longer used either.

            And using your logic, people should stop talking about nofollow.

            Paul
            That real catcher drops the ball.

            A) I have never stated that Google presently does not use PR but that saying they do is meaningless because NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH PAGERANK.
            B) We will never know when Google changes their present system so thoroughly it works very different to what we now call Pagerank. Thats the whole point of Google taking it secret. It keeps SEOs in the dark. Its EXTREMELY likely they decided to ax public PR because they wee about to change it drastically over the next few years.
            C) No-follow can still work fine without pagerank. a link can convey relevance, anchor text etc and,no, nofollow isn't secret -its right there in the source.

            rumours are swirling again the Penguin update is soon to come. Will you know at the same time if google changes significant things in the way they pass or calculate what we called PR? Nope you won't.

            Saying a foot ruler is still the same when the company behind it might change it to 13 inches in a foot means what?

            NADA.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846567].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author paulgl
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              A) I have never stated that Google presently does not use PR but that saying they do is meaningless because NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH PAGERANK.
              B) We will never know when Google changes their present system so thoroughly it works very different to what we now call Pagerank. Thats the whole point of Google taking it secret. It keeps SEOs in the dark. Its EXTREMELY likely they decided to ax public PR because they wee about to change it drastically over the next few years.
              C) No-follow can still work fine without pagerank. a link can convey relevance, anchor text etc and,no, nofollow isn't secret -its right there in the source.
              Well, now we're getting somewhere...in between.

              As far as C), nofollow then would be useless to use. It does nothing for PR and nothing for relevance, anchor text, etc. Which means, there would be no reason to use it. Ever.

              I mean we have already taken PR off the table. So what would cause someone to not want to convey anchor text or relevance?

              And as far as PR, one more thing about google.Google only said to NOT get paid links if you are shmoozing PR. Since PR is off the table in your book, we can now freely buy links. I don't want to hear another person talk bad about paid links being bad, if they also say PR is dead. And there's nothing we can do about it.

              Google counts and delineates links. But for what end? What formula? Ahhhhh....PageRank. PageRank is all about links and nothing else.

              Anytime you are getting good links, you are indeed doing something for PR.

              Oh, okay...maybe the catcher won't drop this ball.

              I find nowhere that google stopped paying royalties to Stanford U. Not talking stock, but royalties. Those royalties include PageRank.

              If google stopped using PageRank, they would not be tossing millions in a garbage can. They could give a rip about license fees and having exclusive use of the patent.

              Since everyone worth a dang knows then, that google still uses it, would would anyone say flippant things like, "It doesn't matter."

              I can't do anything about it holds no water. I can't do a thing about interest rates from The Fed.....but they dang sure matter! They have made their rate algorithm secret....

              Paul
              Signature

              If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846813].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by paulgl View Post


                I mean we have already taken PR off the table. So what would cause someone to not want to convey anchor text or relevance?
                Same reason has always been the case - as not a recommendation for the site be it pagerank, authorship or relevance . same reason ad links are designated as such.


                And as far as PR, one more thing about google.Google only said to NOT get paid links if you are shmoozing PR. Since PR is off the table in your book, we can now freely buy links. I don't want to hear another person talk bad about paid links being bad, if they also say PR is dead. And there's nothing we can do about it.
                I think you are pretty much lost paul. You seem to be arguing the same thing Dave does. that links can only factor if they have pagerank. is relevance pagerank Paul? What happens if google puts relevance into the mix? Is that the same Pagerank as we knew?

                Google counts and delineates links. But for what end? What formula? Ahhhhh....PageRank. PageRank is all about links and nothing else.
                this has been answered about three times already and all you and Dave do is ignore and skirt it. Is relevance a part of what we knew as pagerank? Nope. any page linking to another page conveyed pagerank. So again and try answering this time

                IF Google starts to factor relevance is that Pagerank as we knew it?


                I find nowhere that google stopped paying royalties to Stanford U. Not talking stock, but royalties. Those royalties include PageRank.
                A) no one said it had definitively happened but that definitively it matters nothing
                B) If you think you will ever hear if google modifies that you are high
                C) doesn't matter squat if they pay forever and/or even use the name internally.If its so different that we don;t know how it works anymore thats not the pagerank we know and call pagerank

                I can't do anything about it holds no water. I can't do a thing about interest rates from The Fed.....but they dang sure matter! They have made their rate algorithm secret....

                Paul
                umm that kinda sucks as an analogy . Interest rates are published. See if you can answer my analogy previously though. IF google owned rulers for a foot and changed a foot to 13 inches what the junk would it matter that they call it the same word "foot"

                thats trivia not practical - we all consider a foot twelve inches so it would be different if google internally stated 13 inches.

                this is why the putdowns of third party metrics is sooo stupid. Theres only one thing google can't hide - rankings. Dave claims just know your niche but besides the fact that you can't know all the pages in it (and all the apges ranking in it are not enougha s link sources) we all as seasoned SEos on this forum have seen one thing over and over again- -

                People coming to all kinds of false conclusion based on their limited knowledge and anecdotal observations. at least every now and again thrid party metrics are tested against rankings and with a wider by tens of millions of pages of data than ANYONE here has. Since those metrics Are published you can do your own tests as well

                We all know the weaknesses but together your getting a good picture of link profiles across all three major thrid party metric providers.

                For anything that matters in terms of correlating and testing Pagerank is GONE. I can't test it because its not published. I can look at future reports of correlation for the other metriccs. I can test if that holds up in my and customers serps.

                So who the freak caresa about pagerank as anything existing in a SEO's life?
                and all the I jsut look at the links and "my mind tells me the good links" is just guru nonsense. i'll work with the data I can have over the one I can't any day.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846903].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
    Originally Posted by Nexstair View Post

    Is anyone know that page rank still exists in google book. Some of the experts say google will not consider page rank further need to confirm that
    Google still uses PageRank, all they changed was we (the public) no longer get regular updates of what the PageRank of a specific webpage is. Google stopped updating public PageRank years ago and earlier this year (April) removed it from public view (can no longer see old data). Google Toolbar PageRank officially goes dark

    Like most of the hundreds of factors Google takes into account, we know it's a factor, but beyond that we have no details how much of a factor on a particular site.

    David
    Signature
    Freelance SEO Consultant
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845304].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

      Google still uses PageRank, all they changed was we (the public) no longer get regular updates of what the PageRank of a specific webpage
      Heres an interesting question though

      How do you know that? And how will you know if that ever changes? Rely on Google's say so?

      Thats the problem with a secret metric not known to the public. google can slowly change pagerank so its no longer what we knew as pagerank.

      In fact thats what I would do if I were google now that present day pagerank is their secret. Slowly modify the system along with each penguin and Panda update. I'd start with changing their seed sites.

      By closing Access to pagerank they've made it very clear they want to keep people in the dark as much as they can and changing the system slowly does that even more.

      Pagerank was a public facing number to the public - thats gone. Saying google still uses it when theres no way of verifying when they change it significantly or use some new system is meaningless to any of us.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845356].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Heres an interesting question though

        How do you know that? And how will you know if that ever changes? Rely on Google's say so?
        Yes and no :-)

        Although we have the original PageRank formula from years ago The Anatomy of a Search Engine it is highly unlikely it's not been changed and won't be changed again and again in the future. For starters when Google first started out just by the sheer simplicity of the search engine (oh, how I miss those days of easy money :-)) compared to today, PageRank importance must have fallen. If Google had 10 ranking factors in say the year 2000, PageRank could have been worth 40% (arbitrary guess, number not important) of a webpages ranking. Today with hundreds of factors there's no way Google could give PageRank the same importance as it once did.

        That being said, it doesn't matter. It's the principle behind PageRank that's important, NOT the exact formula or exactly how much of a factor it is today.

        PageRank is a function of backlinks, highly unlikely in the near future Google will stop taking links into account. According to Google's Andrey Lipattsev links are still in the top 2 ranking factors: links and content, with BrainRank number 3: Now we know: Here are Google's top 3 search ranking factors

        So the best SEO advice today is the same as it was 10+ years ago, build backlinks. Only difference is we no longer have a value with a green background between 0 and 10 to indicate how well we are doing building links.

        We never built PageRank, we built links.

        David
        Signature
        Freelance SEO Consultant
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845418].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post


          That being said, it doesn't matter. It's the principle behind PageRank that's important
          I get what you are saying but strictly speaking pagerank was not the principle but the actual number assigned to a page source. You could and can talk about how the number was derived and how it works in ranking pages but the pagerank itself was/is a number in their algorythm

          PageRank is a function of backlinks, highly unlikely in the near future Google will stop taking links into account.
          Nope. you don't need to do away with links to not use pagerank. You can for example mix relevance into that metric and its no longer what we knew as pagerank .I am not saying anything about doing away with links. A couple years back google was talking about going to authorship rank. It fiizlled but shows you CAN go to other systems besides PAGErank. I don't believe they have given up on that idea because the idea that a source more than just a page should be trusted is quite powerful.

          I and many others want to see a Webmd page having more authority on the basis of its source not its incoming links and some would and still do argue that wikipedia has such a factor (for example)


          We never built PageRank, we built links.
          Spamming links went out of style years ago. to be effective we built links on pages with authority that had non true zero pagerank because pages that had no link juice didn't matter squat.

          Bottom line is if Google changes the way that it calculates authority it changes what we know about pagerank in such a practical way its meaningless to say they remain the same Pagerank

          So the best SEO advice today is the same as it was 10+ years ago, build backlinks.
          there is no advice to be gleaned from saying Pagerank still exists. None. You are merely assuming no pagerank means no links. No one was proposing links would no longer matter. One is not automatically not the other. pagerank is a metric derived from a mathematical formula. Pagerank was and is a ruler. Saying you are doing away with inches and using millimeters is not ruling out measuring distances. its just changing the ruler by which you measure.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845493].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            I get what you are saying but strictly speaking pagerank was not the principle but the actual number assigned to a page source. You could and can talk about how the number was derived and how it works in ranking pages but the pagerank itself was/is a number in their algorythm
            Actually PageRank is the formula described at The Anatomy of a Search Engine, I assume you don't believe Google ever used the public PageRank number (between 0 and 10 on a green background) in their actual algorithm? Anyone who thinks that is a fool, the PR shown to us was a crude estimate and was never used by Google.

            When I talk about PageRank I'm including the way Google derived the number as can be seen from my articles on PR I wrote years ago:

            PageRank
            PageRank and Google Rankings
            Google PageRank Explained

            The number between 0 and 10 on a green background is the public PageRank figure that was at best a rough indication of backlink value. PageRank was calculated on a logscale of probably 8, the difference between a PR of 5 and a PR of 6 is huge and so the public PR values were never that useful.

            Nope. you don't need to do away with links to not use pagerank. You can for example mix relevance into that metric and its no longer what we knew as pagerank .I am not saying anything about doing away with links. A couple years back google was talking about going to authorship rank. It fiizlled but shows you CAN go to other systems besides PAGErank. I don't believe they have given up on that idea because the idea that a source more than just a page should be trusted is quite powerful.
            PageRank was a direct measure of links, Google will still use a measure of links and unless we know of another way to count links, I think we can safely assume it's a derivative of the original PageRank formula (let's keep calling it PageRank). It's a simple formula only dealing with links, if Google now includes something called "authorship rank" or takes relevance into account, it's another ranking factor, probably not part of PageRank per se.

            One thing we do know has been added to the PageRank formula is nofollow. Nofollow links delete link benefit (Matt Cutts confirmed this years ago : assuming it's not changed of course, who knows), they are included in the PageRank formula, but the PR is NOT transferred through the links (the PR was lost). So where the original formula had a dampening factor of 15%, with nofollow there's an additional dampening like factor added to PageRank.

            Spamming links went out of style years ago. to be effective we built links on pages with authority that had non true zero pagerank because pages that had no link juice didn't matter squat.
            I didn't mention spamming links, I said "we built links". I don't understand how that would equate to spamming links?

            None. You are merely assuming no pagerank means no links.
            No, you are assuming when someone says PageRank they mean the number on a green background. Some of us are talking about the actual ranking factor Google definitely used at it's conception and probably uses a derivative of today: it's not a simple number of between 0 and 10.

            pagerank is a metric derived from a mathematical formula. Pagerank was and is a ruler. Saying you are doing away with inches and using millimeters is not ruling out measuring distances. its just changing the ruler by which you measure.
            Precisely, it's not exactly how it's measured, it's the fact it is measured. The value of links used to be measured by a formula called PageRank, Google probably uses a derivative of that formula today. It does not matter what the formula is, all that matters is Google counts links in some way, BUILD LINKS.

            David
            Signature
            Freelance SEO Consultant
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845575].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

              ssume you don't believe Google ever used the public PageRank number (between 0 and 10 on a green background) in their actual algorithm? Anyone who thinks that is a fool, the PR shown to us was a crude estimate and was never used by Google.
              Dave get a grip there - that was a toolbar and was never a metric public or private - the green toolbar was merely the way it was represented in plugins and a few sites. As a programmer you could consume the then public API without that (and many did in columns and charts). We are obviously talking about the number itself which could and was even fractional

              When I talk about PageRank I'm including the way Google derived the number as can be seen from my articles on PR I wrote years ago:
              The OP mentions nothing about your articles or what you consider Pagerank to be but what everyone else know it to be - a resulting metric as your own source states

              calculate a quality ranking for each web page. This ranking is called PageRank

              PageRank was a direct measure of links, Google will still use a measure of links and unless we know of another way to count links
              Sigh.....I am afraid you are totally lost. Pagerank was never EVER a way of counting links. its a way of measuring authority on a link source. It measured quality not count. You could have a hundred links on a page it did nothing to change the link source authority of that page even though it might and would affect what was passed on to OTHER pages.


              No, you are assuming when someone says PageRank they mean the number on a green background.
              Nope I am not. You are still confused. You are the only one in this entire thread that has mentioned anything about a green background.


              Precisely, it's not exactly how it's measured, it's the fact it is measured.

              Nope its not the fact it is measured. You measure something in inches and you could measure something in Meters. You could even change exactly how long a real inch is They are two different rulers they are not the same thing. You could decide to measure volume rather than two dimensional distance etc.. You are trying to argue that as long as google measures links in any way it will be the same pagrerank. Thats false and nonsensical

              Google can change that to reflect the authority OR THE RELEVANCE of the entire domain (which makes a great deal of sense) or page.

              They can base it on authorship as they have already presented as an alternative

              None of those are PAGErank.

              the bottom line is this and sooooo obvious. You ca't take anything away from a measurement you cannot measure. its totally meaningless.

              This forum is about practical SEO. PRACTICAL not some theory or technicality

              IF someone removed all the rulers and tape measures in the world so that a foot was a length no one knew - what practical value there be in be in saying its the same foot ?

              ZERO

              a foot might be an an entirely different length at any time

              Saying google still uses pagerank when we don't know what that pagerank is, and they can change the way they measure it at any time, is practically - gibberish . It means nothing practical.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845758].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                This forum is about practical SEO. PRACTICAL not some theory or technicality
                Where does it say the above in this forums description? Maybe you should read it, before stating what it is or is not about.

                Interesting number of spelling mistakes in the description. also looks like it was written by a fellow Brit:

                Optimisation vs Optimization.
                Penalised vs Penalized.

                ==========
                Search Engine Optimization

                Search engine optimization or commonly referred to as SEO is the process of optimising your website content such as keywords, images and text to improve results in search engines such as Google, Yahoo & Bing. SEO also involves optimising your content for different devices so your site is visible and displayed to users on a broad range of both opertating systems and hardware such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers.

                The Warrior SEO forum allows you to quickly post questions to get help, answers and advice from SEO experts world wide. Stay up to date with search engine updates and ranking algorithms so your site doesn't get penalised and you continue to increase traffic, exposure and visibility to the right audience. Learn how to target the right users through keyword and content optimisation and how to convert that traffic into sign ups, sales or bookings.

                Discussons, topics and questions regularly posted to the SEO forum range from introductory SEO help and topics to advanced SEO such as rich snippets, XML sitemaps, improving page load speed, increasing traffic and visibility and even how to avoid malware, spam and black hat SEO techniques to avoid search engine penalties.
                ===============

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

                A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

                The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition
                I find this level of discussion (and I use the term loosely) pointless, won't waste any more of my time on you.

                David
                Signature
                Freelance SEO Consultant
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846032].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

                  Where does it say the above in this forums description? Maybe you should read it, before stating what it is or is not about.
                  I helped you out by bolding practical lines in your own quote.


                  Search engine optimization or commonly referred to as SEO is the process of optimising your website content such as keywords, images and text to improve results in search engines such as Google, Yahoo & Bing. SEO also involves optimising your content for different devices so your site is visible and displayed to users on a broad range of both opertating systems and hardware such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers.
                  How much more practical could that be?



                  won't waste any more of my time on you.

                  David
                  thanks that saves my time responding so its all good
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846037].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

              BUILD LINKS.

              David
              No one - not even the OP - states anything about not building links

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

              A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

              The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845763].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Heres an interesting question though

        How do you know that? And how will you know if that ever changes? Rely on Google's say so?

        Thats the problem with a secret metric not known to the public. google can slowly change pagerank so its no longer what we knew as pagerank.

        In fact thats what I would do if I were google now that present day pagerank is their secret. Slowly modify the system along with each penguin and Panda update. I'd start with changing their seed sites.

        By closing Access to pagerank they've made it very clear they want to keep people in the dark as much as they can and changing the system slowly does that even more.

        Pagerank was a public facing number to the public - thats gone. Saying google still uses it when theres no way of verifying when they change it significantly or use some new system is meaningless to any of us.
        Interesting question. In fact, how do you know that the Page Rank they were showing before was even accurate? It's quite apparent that Google puts forth quite a bit of half-truths in an effort to manipulate SEOs and keep them guessing about how their algorithm really works.

        The fact is, NOBODY knows everything going on "behind the curtain" in Google's algorithm. All SEOs have is best guesses based upon correlations. Since Google's algorithm has always been built around page rank and links, it's logical to assume that they did not remove that key part of their algorithm but nobody can say for certain.

        Since it is a metric that may or may not have been truthful and you cannot see it anymore, why does it even matter what it was or may still be? Optimize your pages properly and get backlinks from good, relevant sites. Stop worrying about mythical numbers like page rank, domain authority and trust flow and just get the best links you can.
        Signature
        StoreCoach.com - FREE TRAINING - Learn How to Build Your Own eCommerce Website
        My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox Business News, the NY Times & Flippa
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845500].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

          Interesting question. In fact, how do you know that the Page Rank they were showing before was even accurate?
          it very often wasn't because google would update the Pr sporadically and some pages and not others when they did

          Optimize your pages properly and get backlinks from good, relevant sites. Stop worrying about mythical numbers like page rank, domain authority and trust flow and just get the best links you can.
          and how do you determine whats best without a measurement of any kind?

          Relevance? Nope. there are thousands of pages on the internet that are relevant for terms that no one has ever read but the writer

          Traffic? Nope often don't know that.

          None of the numbers of any of the systems are mythical. They are almost all based on crawlers that crawl through the internet finding external links. No need to throw out any metric. Just use the systems you do have together to cover for the individual weaknesses.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845519].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            and how do you determine whats best without a measurement of any kind?

            Relevance? Nope. there are thousands of pages on the internet that are relevant for terms that no one has ever read but the writer

            Traffic? Nope often don't know that.

            None of the numbers of any of the systems are mythical. They are almost all based on crawlers that crawl through the internet finding external links. No need to throw out any metric. Just use the systems you do have together to cover for the individual weaknesses.
            This is always going to be opinion and speculation. There is no need to get into nasty arguments. I would hope that if you are in a niche, you know what the good sites are. Whether or not they are showing up high in the search engines is a pretty good indicator. In the SEO world, I'm sure you could spit out a dozen sites that would be great to get links from without a tool of any kind.

            "Mythical" was, perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. I should have said "questionable" or "suspect" or "speculative" or "unproven" or "inexact". None of those numbers come from Google; they come from websites that are making guesses based on correlations based on a limited data set of sites that may or may not have anything to do with your site or your market. None of the tools uses the entire internet to base it's best guess numbers rankings.

            One thing is for sure ... getting links from well built sites with good information that are related to yours is very unlikely to hurt you and very likely to help you. It's a heck of a lot better than the spam techniques that 90% of the people here keep promoting.

            And, there ARE a couple of tool that we use but they are our own tools. No need plugging them here because only Store Coach members have access to it. Absent tools, use the one god gave you that sits on top of your shoulders. It's usually pretty good at determining what a good website to get a link from is and what a bad one is. We still use that natural tool in conjunction with our own tools.
            Signature
            StoreCoach.com - FREE TRAINING - Learn How to Build Your Own eCommerce Website
            My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox Business News, the NY Times & Flippa
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845939].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

              This is always going to be opinion and speculation. There is no need to get into nasty arguments.
              I wasn't aware that you and i were in a nasty argument unless you are defining such as anyone that disagrees with you. i thought we were both quite civil until that characterization

              I would hope that if you are in a niche, you know what the good sites are. Whether or not they are showing up high in the search engines is a pretty good indicator. In the SEO world, I'm sure you could spit out a dozen sites that would be great to get links from without a tool of any kind.
              sure but in many niches you might not be able to get a link on them. In addition Unless you are ranking for some pretty weak stuff you better have more than a few sites ranking as link sources for some terms to rank.

              Here s the bottom line . All those metrics providers have one setup that no one in this thread has - hundreds of servers crawling millions of pages every week. people can claim they are not Google but they are whole lot better than a users intuition and knowledge or any smaller operation (including your own). Theres a lot of data in that. Theres absolutely no denying it. It beats the tar out of my or your personal knowledge.

              And, there ARE a couple of tool that we use but they are our own tools. No need plugging them here because only Store Coach members have access to it
              then why did you just plug your tools exactly opposite to what you stated you didn't need to? We can do without the obvious ads in the middle of a conversation. Even worse while you are trying to claim other much larger operation tools are suspect. I'm beginning to see why you consider a disagreement on MOz . Majestic and Ahrefs as hostile yo you - you have your own much weaker tools to push.


              . Absent tools, use the one god gave you that sits on top of your shoulders.
              Now thats pretty hostile -

              I am. are you using yours? What? You have the data of tens of millions of sites in your head like the intersect (Chuck reference - great little series)? no you don't so we all use data and companies that have data. Claiming using the data they provide is not using whats on your shoulders is just total and absolute nonsense. You can use data from those tools and your brain. Its not mutually exclusive .

              It's usually pretty good at determining what a good website to get a link from is and what a bad one is. We still use that natural tool in conjunction with our own tools.
              Sorry - thats just a lot of hot air to push a product.. Everyone here knows on just about any subject there are pages and sites they have never seen. Just coming to a site that you have never seen and your brain tells you whether its a good or bad link is not based on reality.

              This is what I see out of 70-90% of the people i see ripping/putting down Moz. Majestic or Ahrefs metrics. In the end they have some other product or system they want to push and they are at least ten times smaller than those companies with most of the time hundreds time less data sets to go off of. Much more suspect and totally unproven.

              Thats why most of the time I see people not appreciating those operations they are on forums not the top SEO blogs or services (many of which incorporate the data sets from those services).
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845995].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                I wasn't aware that you and i were in a nasty argument unless you are defining such as anyone that disagrees with you. i thought we were both quite civil until that characterization



                sure but in many niches you might not be able to get a link on them. In addition Unless you are ranking for some pretty weak stuff you better have more than a few sites ranking as link sources for some terms to rank.

                Here s the bottom line . All those metrics providers have one setup that no one in this thread has - hundreds of servers crawling millions of pages every week. people can claim they are not Google but they are whole lot better than a users intuition and knowledge or any smaller operation (including your own). Theres a lot of data in that. Theres absolutely no denying it. It beats the tar out of my or your personal knowledge.



                then why did you just plug your tools exactly opposite to what you stated you didn't need to? We can do without the obvious ads in the middle of a conversation. Even worse while you are trying to claim other much larger operation tools are suspect. I'm beginning to see why you consider a disagreement on MOz . Majestic and Ahrefs as hostile yo you - you have your own much weaker tools to push.




                Now thats pretty hostile -

                I am. are you using yours? What? You have the data of tens of millions of sites in your head like the intersect (Chuck reference - great little series)? no you don't so we all use data and companies that have data. Claiming using the data they provide is not using whats on your shoulders is just total and absolute nonsense. You can use data from those tools and your brain. Its not mutually exclusive .



                Sorry - thats just a lot of hot air to push a product.. Everyone here knows on just about any subject there are pages and sites they have never seen. Just coming to a site that you have never seen and your brain tells you whether its a good or bad link is not based on reality.

                This is what I see out of 70-90% of the people i see ripping/putting down Moz. Majestic or Ahrefs metrics. In the end they have some other product or system they want to push and they are at least ten times smaller than those companies with most of the time hundreds time less data sets to go off of. Much more suspect and totally unproven.

                Thats why most of the time I see people not appreciating those operations they are on forums not the top SEO blogs or services (many of which incorporate the data sets from those services).
                My "nasty" comment was about your overall tone to everyone, not necessarily me. People are seeking constructive help here. I've got plenty of confidence built on a decade of success, building more than 100 successful websites and making millions from them. Nobody's going to hurt my feelings because they imply I don't know what I am talking about. I know my track record. I don't know theirs.

                You sure are mischaracterizing things and yes, getting nasty. I did not plug any tool. I said our course has tools and, in fact, I said that we still use our own brains in addition to those tools. Name the tool I promoted, let alone where I said that ours were better than the big brand name tools. They are definitely different but, alas, they are still just tools.

                I also did not bash anyone else's tools. We use the MOZ tools, we use Majestic; we look at our own, AND we use our brains. I simply said that they were not 100% accurate, using other words, since you objected to the word "mythical" to describe completely made up ranking metrics like domain authority and trust rank. Nobody's keyword research tools are perfect because NOBODY has the inside track on Google's algorithm nor does anyone's tools have access to one iota of the website data that Google's has.. All tools are simply guidelines that give clues. Sometimes the clues are dead wrong, though.

                I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. Can you really say that you use either of those tools and just take them at face value? That you don't also make judgments of your own? Have you never seen something in a tool and questioned it, saying, "that can't be right." I sure hope you and everyone is using their brain in addition to tools. If not, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree.

                I guess it will be for others to judge who is hostile here and who is just trying to help people. I'll end where I began, answering the OP's question again. While nobody knows for sure what Google uses, it is pretty clear that they still use page rank, although they no longer publish what that is for sites.
                Signature
                StoreCoach.com - FREE TRAINING - Learn How to Build Your Own eCommerce Website
                My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox Business News, the NY Times & Flippa
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846891].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

                  My "nasty" comment was about your overall tone to everyone, not necessarily me
                  which everyone? I actually was defending John ben who was attacked so apparently your "everyone" equals everyone who you agree with and excludes everyone who disagrees with you (you'd fit in with another poster in this thread well ). - but besides that if you decide to charge in implying others don't use their brain you are no better than anyone else and just as hostile. In fact more because I certainly said nothing to you about you not using your brain which is just a euphemism for calling someone stupid.


                  You sure are mischaracterizing things and yes, getting nasty. I did not plug any tool.
                  You did. Thats just a fact - mentioning your tools and who has or does not have access to them has nothing to do with this conversation. most of us here are seasoned marketers and know when a product name is dropped in that way it IS a plug. If pointing out something you most definitely did do is nasty to you then you will have to run with that.

                  I also did not bash anyone else's tools.
                  Fact you called them "suspect" while you failed to supply the same to your own tools.


                  Have you never seen something in a tool and questioned it, saying, "that can't be right." I sure hope you and everyone is using their brain in addition to tools. If not, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree.
                  Sigh we are back to you mental premise that the people or person who disagrees with you may not be using their brain again only this time with some strawman hypothetical as a mask .

                  spend some more time reading my posts. I clearly indicate that the best use of the metrics is to use all of them to cover the weaknesess they have. NO I don;t use some "suspect" my mind knows process. I use the data from all the metrics together as a solid base for data. It serves me well as real data always does the more you have of it and since I don't rely on just one I never have to question a singular tools output.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sprucevn
    At present, when you check the elements of a website, Google no longer use Page rank to consider, but in the future, it is not sure where Google will get it gain or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10845444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author webby0031
    Lol Mike creating pedantic arguments ? Some things never change!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846274].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
      Originally Posted by webby0031 View Post

      Lol Mike creating pedantic arguments ? Some things never change!
      I'm glad I'm not the only one that picked up on that.

      Felt like I was arguing the sky looks blue while Mike argued, no you are wrong, the sky isn't red :-)

      Talk about arguing for the sake of arguing!

      David
      Signature
      Freelance SEO Consultant
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by webby0031 View Post

      Lol Mike creating pedantic arguments ? Some things never change!
      Like webby sniping and not making any meaningful contributions to any thread...lol
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846376].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Like webby sniping and not making any meaningful contributions to any thread...lol


        Funny how multiple profiles are calling out.

        Everyone knows the drama.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846383].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Funny how multiple profiles are calling out.

          Everyone knows the drama.
          Your shoddy maths surfaces again - a few people in a thread is everyone. Nope..take this fellow

          Originally Posted by mamadsouri View Post

          This is an amazing piece of content. Loved it. We need more people like the OP. Huge thanks!
          if you missed it the thread is here

          http://www.warriorforum.com/search-e...l#post10844530



          relevant to this thread we will cover link and domain evaluation next.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846424].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Alves
    PageRank still exists, but the toolbar is no longer updated. There will always be a PageRank in Google's algorithm or some sort of Trust Rank which determines what websites they feel should be ranked based on backlinks, authority, and other factors. To increase your internal PageRank, you need to build quality backlinks and create quality content consistently on your website.
    Signature
    Quality SEO Articles on Any Topic in 24 Hours!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10846367].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KylieSweet
    Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

    All tools are simply guidelines that give clues. Sometimes the clues are dead wrong, though.
    This is why I'm not relying on tools on my method, analysis, strategy, and implementation, because you need to make your own and experience what's the best, less risky, and effective process for my SEO practice.

    To Mike and Dave:
    Thanks for the point by point discussion. Respect for both.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10856150].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Francisco PIW
    For those knowing a little bit of statistics, you might want to know that Google uses Bayesian update, BBN and machine learning algorithms.

    This means that Google collects data from hundreds of different factors and generates an Artificial Neural Network in where Page Rank is one of the hidden layers. The ranking of your site would be the output of the ANN.

    Of course PR has a weight for the ranking. But more important are the factors which determine the PR value. This is being updated few times a day.

    Therefore, PR weight changes everyday according to the new Bayesian updates coming from the new data collected.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10856214].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author arjupraja7
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10856304].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author domain finder
    Google pagerank is no longer as important as it used to be, plus it might not also be updated again because the algorithm is forever changing and Google is always finding ways on how they could improve on these things. So yeah, not as great as they used to, but if you are on page one more chances of getting your much needed traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10862366].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BeingSwaggatron
    Have you visited checkpagerank.net? It was a website that most bloggers/website owners use to check their rankings. Google Page Rank is a parameter that is not removed from their site. This is a valid proof that google still updates page ranks, but has moved it's limelight to other parameters. How much that matters in today's internet marketing is still a question that pops up once in a while in our mind.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10863031].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ravi Naik
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10952465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author James Clifton
    Here are a few facts about Page rank:
    Google stopped updating page rank of webpages in the late 2013, and the hot NEWS then was that Google Page Rank is dead.
    Google never announced that they are updating page rank internally or not, or we have to consider this parameter or not.
    So, there is no any official answer to this question, but many SEO experts think that Google is still updating page rank internally and not publically. But, the fact of the matter is that Google is not updating Page rank parameter of webpages/websites publically (no one knows whether they are updating it privately or not). So, we should not consider it now. Google might be using this parameter, or they might have invented some other parameter to rank the webpages for their priority. The central idea is that Google used to give high PR to the websites which used to follow all the search engine guidelines, had great traffic, good & unique content, etc. No matter page rank is dead or alive, if you are following the search engine guidelines to market your website in SERPs, and have done a good on-page optimization of your website, whatever be the current parameter of Google for prioritizing websites/webpages, Google will definitely count your website in their list.
    Signature
    Knowledge is Power. Knowledge is Wealth.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10956697].message }}

Trending Topics