#1
  1. Marketroid
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    0

    Smile When Web Pages Show PR 0


    I say that when 2+ year old web pages show PR 0, most likely there is an algorithm penalty attatched to it's url. We know penalties exist because Matt Cutts, SEO worker at Google, already has proclaimed this. Just to let those who didn't already know.

    My biggest thing right now is that I focus on ethical SEO techniques. Ethical meaning that I follow Google's and Yahoo's terms of sevice for their engines.

    Biggest Algorithm Penalties:
    1. Unnatural backlinks that cannot be manipulated by competitors.
    2. Hidden text
    3. Cloaking
    4. Too much duplicate content to another url.
    5. Slow web page load times
    6. Too many pop-ups
    7. Unuseful resources or services (determined, mostly, by lack of returning visitors)
    8. Few updates to content
    9. Use of other unethical SEO techniques
    10. Irrelevant words in url name.
    11. Too many outbound links not working
    12. Too few links pointing to and from its own inside pages
    13. Too young of an url
    14. Too few new backlinks
    15. Irrelevant or no title meta tags

    Comments on this post

    • ClickyB : "Just to let those who didn't already know..." This will just confuse you further!
    • EGOL : Suggest closing thread.
  2. #2
  3. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    354
    Rep Power
    0
    Can you please quote some authority, how you arrived at this list? I dont believe number of back links is going to cause any penalties. I remember Google already clarifying on the matter. If it were so, I can buy spam links pointing to my competitors.
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    354
    Rep Power
    0
    Also it seems youa re wrong about irrelvant or missing meta tags. Meta keywords are always ignored. You can have meta description anyway you want, even unrelated to the page content and there is no penalty. I know from experience.
  6. #4
  7. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gloucester (South West UK).
    Posts
    6,533
    Rep Power
    3520
    Hi seoman5,

    You are talking about several seperate subjects here...

    Page Rank is a by-product of backlinks and Google penalties come in many varieties... many of which have no effect on Page Rank whatsoever.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I say that when 2+ year old web pages show PR 0, most likely there is an algorithm penalty attatched to it's url.
    You're wrong...
    There are hundreds of Google Pages with PR0 - like this one... Do you really think Google has penalised pages in it's own site?

    PR0 isn't really PR0, it's PR<1 (on a scale of 1-10 for most sites, 1-7 for adult sites and something nobody knows for "real Google PR", but is rumoured to be at least 1-100).

    Of course - you could be saying "PR0" and meaning "Gray PR Bar"... But you're still making assumptions (for example Google often mis-calculate PR and remove it from a page temporarily).

    Also...

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    We know penalties exist because Matt Cutts, SEO worker at Google, already has proclaimed this.
    Matt Cutts isn't an "seo worker" and we all knew about penalties existing long before he created his blog.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Biggest Algorithm Penalties:
    1. Unnatural backlinks that cannot be manipulated by competitors.
    2. Hidden text
    3. Cloaking
    4. Too much duplicate content to another url.
    5. Slow web page load times
    6. Too many pop-ups
    7. Unuseful resources or services (determined, mostly, by lack of returning visitors)
    8. Few updates to content
    9. Use of other unethical SEO techniques
    10. Irrelevant words in url name.
    11. Too many outbound links not working
    12. Too few links pointing to and from its own inside pages
    13. Too young of an url
    14. Too few new backlinks
    15. Irrelevant or no title meta tags
    1. Can result in investigation by Google's webspam team but isn't an automatic penalty.
    2 & 3: Fair enough (and obvious).
    4. Not an automatic penalty (and not related to PR).
    5. Rubbish! Why would "Slow web-page load times" incur penalties?
    6. Can - if extreme/reported - incur penalties.
    7. Are you serious? How does Google know how many visitors even visit my site, (much less how many return)?
    8. Garbage: Research Google's "Freshness Factor" for a reality check.
    9. Unspecific - thus meaningless.
    10. This won't incur a penalty... it just won't help (auto-generated sites commonly have words in urls which bear no resemblance to the topic of the site... How about "category" or "tag" in wordpress for instance)?
    11. Hmmm... I'm beginning to think you took this list from Google's webmaster info' pages / quality guidelines! Excessive broken links can cause lower rankings but wouldn't result in reduced PR (if the occurrences were stupidly high it might cause de-indexing but I've never heard of such a thing happening)!
    12. Rubbish... 1 internal link can get a page indexed and ranked.
    13. Penalised for being "too new"... Rubbish!
    14. Rubbish again (You can't be serious)!
    15. Doesn't make ANY difference and will not incur a penalty... You can exclude googlebot from a page (robots.txt) and still get it indexed... they don't even know if you have a title element... and what about all the home pages with "home" as the title? They aren't penalised!
    Last edited by ClickyB; Mar 20th, 2009 at 03:19 PM.
    ClickyB
    "The quality of the visitor is more important than the volume..." (Egol 22nd Feb 2008)
    [New to SEO/SeoChat?] [Canonical Problems?] [Forum Rules & Posting Guidelines]
  8. #5
  9. Marketroid
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    0

    Lightbulb Penalties


    I'd have to say that I have been working on organic SEO priorities, for some time now and what I see as a penalty is really simply a cause for a reduction in new organic hits month to month. In other words, what I see as a penalty on some SEO, is really not a penalty but lack of focused work effort.

    Yes. Google does have some PR 0 web pages. That is interesting.

    Matt Cutts works on web spam and helps webmasters who want to ethically improve rankings.

    I'd like slow web pages to be a penalty. I'm hoping the makers of algorithms think the same way.

    The other unethical techniques being not mentioned on the above list.

    Irrelevant words in url penalty simply means that the web page is not as strong as it could be with relevant words. Not really a penalty to those who will maintain any url name.

    Pointing insides to other insides helps web site quality.

    Too new of a site is not a penalty but just something that is not good in the present.

    When a web page has too few new backlinks it loses rank compared to other sites that have new backlinks.

    The penalty on some of the above items are not necessarily written in the algorithms but are the penalty of a web site losing it's rank. This can be measured by use of Google Analytics and a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel).

    Could I get someone to reply with a "sounds good," instead of "you don't know what you're talking about?"
    Last edited by seoman5; Mar 20th, 2009 at 04:42 PM. Reason: corrected spelling
  10. #6
  11. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gloucester (South West UK).
    Posts
    6,533
    Rep Power
    3520
    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I'd have to say that I have been working on organic SEO priorities, for some time now and what I see as a penalty is really simply a cause for a reduction in new organic hits month to month. In other words, what I see as a penalty on some SEO, is really not a penalty but lack of focused work effort.
    Then please don't call it a penalty; that's a very different thing and - in an seo forum - is likely to cause a lot of confusion and wasted time for anybody who thinks you mean what you said you meant!

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Yes. Google does have some PR 0 web pages. That is interesting.
    PageRank is simply a by-product of the numerical value/accumulated numerical value of incoming links; deep pages on any site will most likely have a lower PR value; all I did was surfed the Google directory for a category with lots of levels and found plenty of them.
    If you know about PageRank you'll understand that it's not interesting at all... Just logical.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Matt Cutts works on web spam and helps webmasters who want to ethically improve rankings.
    In fact - Matt is the head of the Google Webspam team and he has a blog where he discusses (amongst other things) Google SEO... Thay's a far cry from being "an SEO worker at Google" as you said in your first post.
    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I'd like slow web pages to be a penalty. I'm hoping the makers of algorithms think the same way.
    Since page load speed is often not controlled by the site owner, I'm glad that they don't.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Irrelevant words in url penalty simply means that the web page is not as strong as it could be with relevant words. Not really a penalty to those who will maintain any url name.
    Dude - come onnnnnn
    Do you know how much difference it makes having an irrelevant word in the url? It doesn't make it "not as strong" at all; it just doesn't make it strongER

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Pointing insides to other insides helps web site quality.
    This is nonsense (I don't mean that in an insulting fashion, I mean it does not mean anything at all).

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Too new of a site is not a penalty but just something that is not good in the present.
    Look... I'm sorry but this is just more nonsense... First of all you didn't present it as "something which is not good" you presented it as a biggest "algorithm penalty" (a term I've never heard used in all my years here) and second - Once a site is indexed, it competes on it's own merit. Sometimes being new can give a site an unfair ADVANTAGE because of the Google "new site boost"; sometimes age is an advantage... "Too new of a site" has the disadvantage of having less aged backlinks and history (both of which are obvious) there's no penalty attached.
    (Besides which... you didn't say "new site" in the o/p, you said "new url").

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    When a web page has too few new backlinks it loses rank compared to other sites that have new backlinks.
    How is that an "algorithm penalty"?

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    The penalty on some of the above items are not necessarily written in the algorithms but are the penalty of a web site losing it's rank.
    Then why list them as "algorithm penalties"?

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    This can be measured by use of Google Analytics and a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel).
    Yeah right... thanks! I use a crystal ball and tarot cards!

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Could I get someone to reply with a "sounds good," instead of "you don't know what you're talking about?"
    Mate - if you want approval - make it clear from the start that you're stating your opinion, NOT FACT. When you preface a list like that with the words "I say that when 2+ year old web pages show PR 0, most likely there is an algorithm penalty attatched to it's url. We know penalties exist because Matt Cutts, SEO worker at Google, already has proclaimed this. Just to let those who didn't already know...".
    Think about the effect your post might have on a newbie SEO student and don't make claims without making it crystal clear that they're claims ("imho" or "I THINK that" rather than "I SAY that" - there's a huge difference and - to anybody who's job depends on the importance of KEYwords & sentence-structure - that should be second nature)!

    I have a (well-deserved ) reputation for patience and helpfulness at SeoChat and few things Elicit this type of response from me... (Ordinarily I'm a little more gentle)! The fact that your post did is a measure of just how much I disagreed with it and was determined to ensure that less-experienced readers don't get influenced by it.

    If Fathom ever ventured into the PageRank forum he'd have slayed you for this

    Comments on this post

    • lovekills_s agrees : Seconded!
    Last edited by ClickyB; Mar 20th, 2009 at 05:41 PM.
  12. #7
  13. Marketroid
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    0

    Lightbulb Criticism


    For one to criticize so much on algorithm penalties: I'd say that he'd have to have more organic hits than my sites. Is that a fair thing to say? What is your strongest keyword at organic listings?

    Many of the penalties I claim are really from experience. I tell you the truth. It seems to me that it is easier for a man to criticise another because there is little proof than to see his far-fetched point of view and ask kindly for more proof.

    I've been posting to forum for about 3 years now. I can see that because there is little trust between the forum members, seeing the others point of views is difficult. When one sees the other's point of view and makes a good comment on this, this is refreshing the one who is making the post.

    Once a site is getting a gradual, steady increase in organic hits month to month, any pattern that starts it's way on a down turn is a Red Flag that the site is not really a good resource or service like the engine thought it was.

    In my opinion slow sites are bad for users and engine algorithms. The biggest reasons for slow load times is big pictures in bytes, too many html bytes, and using other pictures on different servers.
    Last edited by seoman5; Mar 20th, 2009 at 07:46 PM. Reason: added words
  14. #8
  15. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gloucester (South West UK).
    Posts
    6,533
    Rep Power
    3520
    Originally Posted by seoman5
    For one to criticize so much on algorithm penalties: I'd say that he'd have to have more organic hits than my sites. Is that a fair thing to say?
    What is your strongest keyword at organic listings?
    No it's ridiculous - I could own Wikipedia and know nothing about SEO - it's also none of your business.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    Many of the penalties I claim are really from experience.
    Then you have drawn some flawed conclusions from your experiences!

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I tell you the truth. It seems to me that it is easier for a man to criticise another because there is little proof than to see his far-fetched point of view and ask kindly for more proof.
    Maybe... But I didn't just say "you're wrong", I gave reasons and contrary arguments (which you seem to be ignoring)!

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I've been posting to forum for about 3 years now.
    Now you're kidding right!
    How long / how many posts / how much rep' / how many #1 rankings... None of that makes any difference... I didn't just criticise you, I gave refuting arguments (which you seem to have either not understood or ignored) and now you wanna compare d1ck sizes!

    Read my join date/ reputation and some of my 4k-odd posts here (start by reading my posts in this thread fully - and objectively)...

    Failing that - ignore me and my advice! It's your loss and I really don't mind; but I won't allow you to post incorrect assumptions as facts without contesting them (and - whilst we're on that subject - if you look at some of your past contributions, you'll see others questioning your comments; you really should respond when that happens); I see it as part of my role here.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    I can see that because there is little trust between the forum members, seeing the others point of views is difficult.
    More groundless - and off-topic - claims.

    Originally Posted by seoman5
    When one sees the other's point of view and makes a good comment on this, this is refreshing the one who is making the post.
    Listen carefully: You're o/p was so wrong there was nothing to "make a good comment" about.

    Sorry I couldn't help refresh you... You simply didn't deserve it.
    Last edited by ClickyB; Mar 20th, 2009 at 07:21 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Resource Pages Stripped off PR
    By cybrain in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 14th, 2006, 09:47 AM
  2. Google don't show Indexed pages of my site
    By bashir_ahmad in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun 5th, 2006, 03:58 PM
  3. some pages don't show
    By geordief in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jul 19th, 2005, 01:25 PM
  4. Why does Google show two Home Pages for my site?
    By wimbledon in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Feb 2nd, 2005, 08:29 PM
  5. How long for new pages to show these days ?
    By whitey in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 4th, 2004, 10:38 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo