22
Contributors
36
Replies
37
Views
8 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Joe55555
0

Backlinks are very important in terms of Page Rank (PR). It is not the single biggest contibutor (who can say which is? - different strokes), but should definitely be one of your top priorities.

Here is a nice site to assist in managing, growing Backlinks:
http://www.checkmypr.com/

xfranco out

0

PR is indeed calculated based on the links added to websites but the point is about their quality rather than quantity.

For instance, when you add a link from a PR7 homepage to your site, the result after the PR update could be very different from the time you add thousands of PR zero links to your homepage.

0

Indeed there are several factors that contribute to Google's calculation of a webpage's PageRank; one significant source being the volume, credibility, importance and relevancy of the incoming links to the web page, another being the volume, credibility, importance and relevancy of the internal links (from the same domain or sub-domain) to the webpage; commonly known as the internal linking structure.

Let's look at this a bit more. I fail to see what's the PR frenzy is still about. Bear with me ...

A webpage can reach as high as a PR4 simply from the inside of the web site itself (this is quite common); beyond that it appears to require external stimulus; hence comes into the play the power of a corporate blog or additional website(s) dividing the marketing agenda logically. What I'm saying is, you can probably get to wherever you want on the PR scale armed with your own resources. For example, you may want to attain a PR7 status, for whatever reason. You probably could pull off a PR5 or 6 on your own, with the use of enough of your own ingenuity and you may have to maximize in your innovativeness. After that you'll most likely require additional fortitications so ... so eventually you get to PR7 and wonder, where the heck's my prize for this effort ...

0

Important NOT to get confused between Pagerank and SERPs. I think too often in these forums I see people not understanding the difference between the two. And it's important to understand which is more important.

Focus on good SEO and your SERPs. THIS is what drives traffic to your site.

Pagerank is only a MINOR factor in how Google determines your SERPs. Google considers dozens of factors when assigning SERPs. If you have a good link building campaign focused on your SERPs, it's likely you'll help out your Pagerank anyway. Just don't waste your time focusing on Pagerank. A high Pagerank does not guarantee traffic or good SERPs.

0

the answer is a defenitely "NO"
google use pr (page rank) to rank/classify a certain site. based on its algorithm, google will determine how popular your site is by monitoring the age of your site, inbound links, traffic and content. the rankings will start from pr0 to pr10.

0

yes back links are inportant factors for getting a pr ... its one of the inportant factors of ofpage optimazation but there are also many other ways to get a pr or improve a pr

0

The simple answer is: PR is calculated on a page by page basis dependent only on the cumulative effect of the total amount of PR passed to that page by the links pointing to it. The PR shown by the tool bar (fool bar) is only an estimation and not the actual PR of a given page.

0

There are lots of factors to calculate the pagerank and one of the major factor is the backlink.

0

There are lots of factors to calculate the pagerank and one of the major factor is the backlink.

If by "pagerank" your mean how high you rank in the index for any given term, then yes you are correct.

If by "pagerank" you mean PR, then there is only one factor. Whatever PR any page has is determined by the cumulative amount of PR being passed to that page through links on other pages pointed to that page.

Just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same "page".

0

Its not just back links but the amount of Quality of back links that you are getting.. Google gives more value on the quality of back links that you are getting compared to those irrelevant sites..

0

It also depends on the life age of your website and the relavance of your content.

Sorry. That's absolutely incorrect. PR has nothing to do with the relevance of your content or the age of your domain.

0

interesting what you are saying here. i did not know that PR had nothing to do with the relevancy of your content and the age of your website. i thought it would, simply because some old websites, many of them long abandoned by their webmasters, seem to maintain high PRs. but it can be due to other factors as well.

0

The misconception that some older web sites have higher PR is simply because they have had more time to accumulate more inbound links, not because they have more relevant or better quality content. PR is all about links. That's it.

0

Sorry. That's absolutely incorrect. PR has nothing to do with the relevance of your content or the age of your domain.

You are incorrect, these do play a factor.

What's the number 1 thing that you need in order to be indexed by Google, CONTENT. If you have a site that has 100,000 backlinks but has no quality content, it will not achieve a high PR.

Also, if you have a site that is 1 month old and achieves 100,000 backlinks, You will not all the suddent have a PR 10

The reason for this is if you very quickly achieve a large amount of backlinks Google will believe that you are gaming the system and will disregard your links. Review the "manipulating links" section on Wikipedia.

This also explains why a site moves up gradulally PR 1, then PR 2, then PR 3 and doesn't jump from PR 1 to PR 8 between updates.

These things all play a factor whether or not you realize it. Believe me, I've done my homework. :)

0

Sorry. I don't know what type of homework you have done but I can assure you that content has nothing to do with PR.

If you have a site that has 100,000 backlinks but has no quality content, it will not achieve a high PR.

Wrong again. I have seen many "garbage" sites with a PR of 5 or 6. Granted they may not retain the high PR long because they were artificially attained in the first place and the high PR links that got them there were busted down. But it really is all about backlinks. Again: The PR attained by any page is the direct result of the cumulative amount of PR being passed to that page by links from other pages. Here's a link that will allow you to do some valid "homework". http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html

0

ok, maybe im wrong (but i'm not). Until you can prove me wrong, I'll believe what I have written and experienced.

When someone can set up a site with 6 or less months of life and lets say 10,000 back links and no relevant content, and still have a high PR, then I'll admit I am wrong, but that simply won't happen.

Everything goes hand in hand Quality Content = People Linking to you without you doing the work. Time of Life = longer time to create more backlinks. These things play a factor both directly and indirectly.

0

Everything goes hand in hand Quality Content = People Linking to you without you doing the work. Time of Life = longer time to create more backlinks. These things play a factor both directly and indirectly.

That I will agree with wholeheartedly. But the fact still remains that PR is a result only of the actual links.

0

once again, not entirely. Google has methods for discounting invalid or paid links, so it's quality links, and not quanity links.

Also, the PR of the incoming links play a factor. Simply saying the overall number of links is incorrect and misleading.

0

Google has methods for discounting invalid or paid links

Yes

so it's quality links, and not quanity links.

I never said it was.

Also, the PR of the incoming links play a factor.

Of course.

Simply saying the overall number of links is incorrect and misleading.

I didn't say that either.

What I did say was: The PR attained by any page is the direct result of the cumulative amount of PR being passed to that page by links from other pages. That's the simple explanation of what happens, and that's the only factor that comes into play.

0

of course not --the age of your site, inbound links, traffic and content, that's all google vaules

0

of course not --the age of your site, inbound links, traffic and content, that's all google vaules

Someone else agrees with me. Site age and content plays a factor.

0

yes, because this is the way that the google can figure out the importance of the site or page. Page or site importance can be determine by google through how many links to that page and make it as basis in Page Rank calculation.

0

the age of your site, inbound links, traffic and content, that's all google vaules

"The age of your site" in and of itself is not a factor in the calculation of PR.

Traffic is not a factor in the calculation of PR.

Content is not a factor in the calculation of PR.

Someone else agrees with me. Site age and content plays a factor.

DansMuayThaiMMA - Just because someone stated that the moon was made of green cheese and someone else agreed, would that make it true? One of the rules of debate is that if you make a statement you must back it up with hard evidence. Further, if you still believe what you say is true then go to the SEO forums at WMW, webworkshop.com or SEOMOZ and get input from those sources. They are among the top SEO forums on the web. I certainly respect your right to have an opinion but until you can back up your opinion with hard evidence, then that's all it is, an opinion.

0

I replied with a quote to Wikipedia, which is a valid information source, which provides evidence to what I was saying.

If someone could prove that the moon was made of cheese, I would believe them.

You have provided no proof that what i said is wrong. You linked me to another message board where other people post their opinion.

I posted you to an online information site that has valid sources linked to it's information. (Wikipedia) Provide me either information directly from google or another valid source, but please don't link me to alleged "SEO experts " who are also just stating their opinion.

Thank you. Good day sir.

0

Ah, Wikipedia. I would not consider all the information there to be "truth", as those are submitted postings, whereas the article I referred you to was written by Phil Craven, one of the most respected and authoritative minds in the industry and has been for over ten years. And the "message board" as you refer to it, is a web site that contains not only many of his articles but also one of the top SEO forums in the industry. If you had been a part of the SEO industry for a while you would probably know that. You can believe what you want, but because you are well spoken, when you make erroneous posts as fact, you will be misguiding people who visit this forum that don't know the difference. I might suggest that you expound your beliefs concerning content and age of a site affecting PR as a question on Matt Cutts' blog and see what answer you get. Would that be enough of an authority for you?

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.