Page 3 - Is Page Rank Important

Lets sing a little... Neverending stoooryyy,lalalalalalalala...
neverending stoooryyy,haaaahaahaaa...

Please, stop threads like this.

Page rank is like a personalised number plate.

It's a number that doesn't really help you get anywhere faster (But everyone here would like a number 7, 8 or bunch of 9's to make their site look shiny).

And if Google got rid of Page rank, SEO's would only be doing it for the money

well , for me if your website has high page rank, you can sell the advertisement space easily. It's because high pr website have many backlinks,and thus will bring traffic to advertiser site.

I agree... the higher the PR the more likely you will be able to sell ad space and the more likely you will be able to sell links and the more likely you will get link exchanges and ...

But, none of the above will help you go higher in the SERPs. The SERPs and sponsored links (e.g. Adwords) are the primary ways to drive major traffic.

Charles... Your say PR is important to rankings, but your site only has a PR of ZERO and you only have 12 backlinks in Yahoo; almost all free to submit directories.

Your advice is indicative of a somewhat newbie SEO. How long have you been in business... 30 seconds?

Point 1 above is incorrect; you do NOT need a good page rank to achieve good positioning... check some google serps you'll find some low pr sites in top positions above high pr sites (how many times has this already been mentioned)?
Point 2 above is also incorrect, there is absolutely no need to resubmit your site to all major search engines; that's what spiders are for!

1. PageRank is merely a guage like the gas guage on your car - both show "roughly" how much you have (or how little you have) in comparison to the maximum achievable... but in neither case does the guage actually improve anything other than your awareness that you have some value on the guage.

2. The reason why this discussion is a never ending orgy is:

a. There are 200 variables to good ranks - PageRank is but one.

b. Against the other 199 variable the value of PageRank is really moot.

c. Relevance of the "link", relevance of the "page", relevance of the "site", and relevance of the links pointing to that site, that points to that page, that points to that link, that points to you is far more important than PageRank.

d. "On-topic everything" to "related" to "not overly related" to porn vs. fishing... that's a pretty big stretch when it comes to "link value" where the passed PageRank isn't worth a nickle no matter how high it is - it just isn't going to move you up in results.

e. PageRank is "historical" - what you see the day a toolbar or datacenter updates "doesn't exist anymore"... it is "past tense".

f. PageRank value will "ALWAYS" depreciate over time in direct proportion to the number of new pages Google archives as the scale is fixed 0.0 to 0.1 and that doesn't change but the totality of the index grows exponentially... which says one big major thing...

With every new page indexed PageRank become less valuable to improve rankings. Saying that another other way... with each update you need substantially more PageRank than the previous update to achieve the same results - and that my friends in not just 'theory' it's in the math.

So: In 1998 PageRank was extremely important to rankings, by 2002, it was really important to rankings, by 2004 it was fairly important to rankings, by 2005 was somewhat important to rankings, and in the year of 2006 - guess what?

Anyone chasing PageRank today is an idoit - the math says you missed the boat by being tardy.

Please can we put this thread to bed... Its all over this forum, this thread must be here at least 50 times or more...

p..p...p..pleeeeease!

Sad as it might seem, the very fact that there are so many threads on this subject demonstrates that forum members are either not checking for previous threads, or that they have done so and are still not completely convinced...
Putting this thread to bed would simply mean that another one will be started in the near future.
Maybe we're better off keeping this one alive so it remains at the top of the forum, thereby "discouraging" members from starting new threads on the topic

Fair point i suppose. Im erring towards the fact that people dont check for other instances of this thread rather than the fact they arent convinced. Most people are Lazy (including me). Make a Sticky! huzzah!

The problem with this thread is that everyone has given their opinion yet nobody listens. Any seo who is worth his salt agrees that PageRank is not a factor in ranking. Of course as said many many times in this thread a higher PageRank site will probably have more importance either from quality links, domain age or whatever. This does not mean the PageRank made the ranking. It means the ranking was achieved by the quality links and the PageRank was achieved by the quantity. There is a big difference.
Like I have pointed out before I can easily achieve a PR7 or higher page without artificial means and it would be of no use to me. I could still after that fact have the same rankings or maybe lose rankings in that time. If PageRank was the factor that beat all than Google serps would be like Google directory. It would be ranked by PageRank and it isn't.


I fear that nobody is reading any of this however and that is why they still cling to that idea that PageRank is the answer to all our problems. Believe me if Google removed it totaly we would see no difference in rankings.

My serps are #1 in local and regional directory And other local and regional key words, and what i believe put me there was changing scipts and key words to bring me up in every category.
submitting to good content sites, and i am just a pr.3 so i can tell you for sure pr. doesn't put you in the #1 position.

Can you supply me with any concrete evidence to your claims?

PR doesn't guarantee anything of the sort and I still maintain that many low PR sites beat higher PR sites in the serps nowadays... luck has nothing to do with it, it's a consequence of clever site construction and a targetted link campaign.

Yes - if your site is penalised (removed from Google) you need to do a "reinclusion request"... but that's entirely different from "resubmitting your site to Google".

If your site is included in Google's listings they will spider it on a regular basis... there is absolutely no need to resubmit whenever you make changes!

Hi..

This Post is for those who believe that PR gaurantees ranks..

I cant disclose out the URL.. but some of the members do know about my quilt patterns site..

And for a particular keyword my site ranks number 8 on google(thanx to all again, although i am tryin to rank it more higher top-5)

My site PR is 2 and the sites below my sites have a PR-5, PR-4 and even PR-6..

And it was all possible because of those relevant links.. that i got after struggling days and nights sending emails..lol

So ClickyB is right.. PR has nothing to do with SERPS as such.. What else kind of proof is required? Those who know my site they can check.. what else i can say.... My site is a live proof that low PR sites can beat high PR sites..if you get guidance from the right source(my case seochat forums)..

Regards