STOP asking about Google PR (READ THIS FIRST).

[distinctseo]

Alot of webmasters and 'SEOs' alike ask tons of questions about why their PR has dropped, how they can increase it, etc., etc.

I'm here to set the record straight. Google PR IS a major part of your rankings. HOWEVER, the way everyone here uses the term (99% of the time) is in reference to the VISIBLE Google PR value found in their toolbar. This is a POOR measure of PR folks and should not be used in ANY discussion about rankings or loss.

What we know: Google Visible Green Toolbar is updated quarterly. The information in the toolbar is not only old, but it's only snapshot of the overall health of a web site. Basically it's a loose indicator of the value of the incoming links to that particular web site.

But even then it's inaccurate. You do'nt want to even base links (those you acquire) solely on this value. Case in point. I have a web site, 60 Yahoo! back links recorded, more in Webmasters. There are nothing but junky (but related) links. The links are PR3 or less (ALL OF THEM), HOWEVER, what we see is a PR 5 for the web site that is slightly more than a year. WHY?

TWO links from a subdomain from CNN. That's it. PR 5. Visible PR overvalued? Probably, but nonetheless, an example of how basing any web marketing decisions on visible google PR is flawed. This solidifies the case of RELEVANT and AUTHORITY incoming links, NOT LINKS BASED ON PR.

Never should you ask the question about HOW to increase PR. That's the wrong question. That's like asking how far a car can fly. You want to ask, "what's causing my slow rankings or loss? Can I get more links? Should I be investing in more cool content?"

DO NOT ASK, 'should I increase PR'? PR is a result of those two items I mentioned above. You cannot directly influence the stupid green toolbar value! You CAN influence the links you get and the content you provide. whew.


EDIT:

So what IS the green bar good for? Quite simply, buying/selling/doing links.

If you buy links you want more 'PR JUICE' and opt for 'higher PR'. This generally holds water for web sites higher than a PR 6. however, anything lower and you're shooting blanks. Reciprocal linking schemes based on PR are also flawed strategies. Why?

Take a look at the #1 web sites out there, the big PR 10 heavy weights, or anything over 7. They link to whoever regardless of green PR because it suits their VISITORS!

That's a good rule of thumb, however, I can sympathize with brand new web sites clamouring for higher PR links since at the end of the day, currently Google rewards those kinds of links.

[EGOL]

Great post... here is what we need to do when these people post.

Do not answer the question in the thread. Instead give the URL of this explanation.

[JiNxXx]

this post here is going to shut down everyone asking about pr now if they actually come and read it.

Great post as well, picked up some things i didn't even know before

[Visio]

this post here is going to shut down everyone asking about pr now if they actually come and read it.

Great post as well, picked up some things i didn't even know before

Unfortunately no. You see if they read then they would know that PR is meaningless hence this thread would not be needed but since they don't read then it is needed yet few will see it.

Disclaimer: not including everybody here, just those who belong in this category

[distinctseo]

YOu will note that in my signature I add a few comments about Google PR, but the biggest addition is a superbly drawn diagram only a child could have put together. Of course it gets the point of course. KISS I always say (when it's convenient).

[JiNxXx]

Unfortunately no. You see if they read then they would know that PR is meaningless hence this thread would not be needed but since they don't read then it is needed yet few will see it.

Disclaimer: not including everybody here, just those who belong in this category

Unfortunetely that is true...i forgot that if they don't come and read this post then it would be useless...sigh

but the biggest addition is a superbly drawn diagram only a child could have put together.

nc

[inkjetSEO]

I was reading an out of country (can't remember where it was) interview with Matt Cutts. Questions were asked, questions were answered, but the most revealing response Matt had, to a question about supplemental results and PageRank, was this:

"I wouldn't worry about supplemental results. If your site has lower PageRank then it may occur in our supplemental index, but that doesn't mean that the site has a penalty or is losing trust. Usually that just means that if you get a few more high-quality links because your site is good, then we will include more pages from your site in our main web index."

What popped out at me was this "then we will include more pages from your site in our main web index" - the timing of which could not have been more coincidental, one of my main sites had just fallen from a 5 to a 4 PR, and guess what - traffic fell because 'specific' search pages were not being presented.

Just a heads up on PR, IMO, it is a very important part of an overal SEO campaign. You site has 10,000 pages, 8000 of which are served up at a PR5, but only 4000 at PR4, for example.

[ClickyB]

Nice post djstreet

I moved it to the Google Page Rank forum... and I think everyone should read it before starting new threads about PR, so I rated it (I suggest others in agreement do the same)and "stuck it" (I hope nobody "upstairs" minds).

I will also link to it from future answers to questions about Google Page Rank.

For an in-depth explanation of why it's pointless to try to understand why your PR has dropped, check this post

[distinctseo]

"I wouldn't worry about supplemental results. If your site has lower PageRank then it may occur in our supplemental index, but that doesn't mean that the site has a penalty or is losing trust. Usually that just means that if you get a few more high-quality links because your site is good, then we will include more pages from your site in our main web index."

What popped out at me was this "then we will include more pages from your site in our main web index" - the timing of which could not have been more coincidental, one of my main sites had just fallen from a 5 to a 4 PR, and guess what - traffic fell because 'specific' search pages were not being presented.

Just a heads up on PR, IMO, it is a very important part of an overal SEO campaign. You site has 10,000 pages, 8000 of which are served up at a PR5, but only 4000 at PR4, for example.

My thoughts, you're comparing the wrong metric. Webmasters should treat PR as an independent metric that is not a direct result of any of your SEO actions. In my opinion you should not draw the conclusion of PR 5 = 8000 and PR 4 = 4000 but rather how many incoming links you had at each stage.

Real PageRank is supremely important and perhaps can be used synonymously with the Google algo. Toolbar PR should never be used to rate, persuade, or lead any web marketing campaign. It's just a silly toolbar number between 1-10 (and the vast majority of you have web sites less than 7.)

It's like we're a bunch of SEOs looking for what we really need, links from PR 8 9 10 web sites for our crappy <7 web sites

[search_pink]

Alot of webmasters and 'SEOs' alike ask tons of questions about why their PR has dropped, how they can increase it, etc., etc.

I'm here to set the record straight. Google PR IS a major part of your rankings. HOWEVER, the way everyone here uses the term (99% of the time) is in reference to the VISIBLE Google PR value found in their toolbar. This is a POOR measure of PR folks and should not be used in ANY discussion about rankings or loss.

What we know: Google Visible Green Toolbar is updated quarterly. The information in the toolbar is not only old, but it's only snapshot of the overall health of a web site. Basically it's a loose indicator of the value of the incoming links to that particular web site.

But even then it's inaccurate. You do'nt want to even base links (those you acquire) solely on this value. Case in point. I have a web site, 60 Yahoo! back links recorded, more in Webmasters. There are nothing but junky (but related) links. The links are PR3 or less (ALL OF THEM), HOWEVER, what we see is a PR 5 for the web site that is slightly more than a year. WHY?

TWO links from a subdomain from CNN. That's it. PR 5. Visible PR overvalued? Probably, but nonetheless, an example of how basing any web marketing decisions on visible google PR is flawed. This solidifies the case of RELEVANT and AUTHORITY incoming links, NOT LINKS BASED ON PR.

Never should you ask the question about HOW to increase PR. That's the wrong question. That's like asking how far a car can fly. You want to ask, "what's causing my slow rankings or loss? Can I get more links? Should I be investing in more cool content?"

DO NOT ASK, 'should I increase PR'? PR is a result of those two items I mentioned above. You cannot directly influence the stupid green toolbar value! You CAN influence the links you get and the content you provide. whew.

Hey djstreet, I am really confused about your post!!sorry to say!! What the ulimate conclusion u want to make over Google PR toolbar mate?

[poopmonkey]

Hey djstreet, I am really confused about your post!!sorry to say!! What the ulimate conclusion u want to make over Google PR toolbar mate?

I believe he is saying that the toolbar is not a good indicator of PR. That number and quality (not quality measured by the toolbar) of backlinks + content is the better indicator of real PR.

Ignore the toolbar, focus on backlinks & content. Thats my reading of it.

[NavyCS]

I Diggeded the post. Very nice.

[bkk]

Why do we even have a visual PR? What is the point of it, if it's always out-of-date? Why do I need to know another website's (out-of-date) PR? Why did Google introduce this?

(basically all these questions say the same thing: what's the point of visual PR?)

[distinctseo]

I believe he is saying that the toolbar is not a good indicator of PR. That number and quality (not quality measured by the toolbar) of backlinks + content is the better indicator of real PR.

Ignore the toolbar, focus on backlinks & content. Thats my reading of it.

No, I"m not exactly.

I'm saying PR should not be a factor in ANY of your metrics. You should not be asking 'how can I increase PR', what you really mean is, "How can I increase convertible traffic". People are really starting to get confused with semantics here

Why do we even have a visual PR? What is the point of it, if it's always out-of-date? Why do I need to know another website's (out-of-date) PR? Why did Google introduce this?

(basically all these questions say the same thing: what's the point of visual PR?)

No point, that's why they've thought about taking it off. It's merely a brief gauge of the overall web presence of a site. you can't really fake PR 9-10. But PR 0-6 is no big deal for the most part rank wise.

[jacobkell]

I think djstreet wanna say pr is important thing,but not critical for search engine position.For example i have one site pr6 and 150 sites with lesser pr are above me for some reason.