Comments on: PageRank Superstition: 200+ Signals Are Not One Google Juice

By: anon

anon — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:06:15 +0000

hey, its not 200+, its infinate number of signals ;), any number of. its an algo. it determines what is “juicy” at a signal level and what not. and its learning all the time. an evolutionary algorithm.

By: SEO 2.0 | Top 10 SEO Myths V2

SEO 2.0 | Top 10 SEO Myths V2 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:32:48 +0000

[...] overall algorithm while devaluing PagRank more and more. Nowadays ranking is based on more than 200 so called “signals” among [...]

By: MSN password hacker v1.3

MSN password hacker v1.3 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:00:22 +0000

PageRank is not the major factor for the influence of your traffic flow. No, it is not. Websites with a higher ranking have in the most cases an high PR, but it could be that more websites the same or higher PR has as the number one ranking, but that is only on keywords with many competitors.

By: onreact

onreact — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:42:12 +0000

david: No need to apologise. It’s a difficult subject matter even for specialists so it’s easy to get things wrong as I also often have only limited time to explain.

Yeah Clement, PageRank can’t tell you much about traffic.

By: Clement

Clement — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:55:28 +0000

Tad

I hope this is the reason why I am getting some traffic to my new blog which has a PR of 0.I might be doing well on the other factors.

By: david deangelo

david deangelo — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:15:09 +0000

Tad,

Apologises I misunderstood the post. I read the referred article. It shows one thing interesting is that google is starting to tailor results to which user is doing the search (by use of their historical preferences). This means an stronger emphasis on site stickiness.

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:12:33 +0000

Search results= (200 signals) x (0.X)

X= PR

Why not?…

By: onreact

onreact — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:26:05 +0000

david: The NYT article is about ranking in the results, so make sure not to miss it. Andy Beard’s article is about the underlying Google juice or hidden Google PageRank.

Basically I do not want to concentrate on what’s wrong but rather what is right so this post is more of an exception.

It’s crucial though not to limit the current Google algo to a “juice” like term. It’s a plethora of factors whicho have to be looked at as seperate not molded into one.

The most important ones nowadays, also from a SEO 2.0 perspective are probably:

Domain popularity (how many domains link to you)
Domain age (how long is your domain online, the longer the better)
Link freshness
Content freshness
Social media saturation.

By: david deangelo

david deangelo — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:16:07 +0000

Tad, to be honest I didn’t even click on “Google disclosed to the New York Times” link. I don’t care about how to get high page rank. I care about getting high keyword ranking.

I think we should start a new acronym for those who care too much about page rank. How about PRO? Page rank optimiser. I believe those who concerns themselves too much in how to get page rank rather than the real issues of SEO should be called PRO’s rather than SEOs.

By: onreact

onreact — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:05:37 +0000

Andy, I might miss the point but you make believe it’s not complex but a matter of Google juice aka internal PageRank. Did you just unsubscribe from my blog? Yesterday I had 492 subscribers, today 491.
I hope I don’t have to agree with everything to be read ;-)

david, I’m more subjective than independent. Check the SEOmoz ranking factors for a good start, Andy has linked them too, I will add the link:
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors

Fiar: You certainly won’t make me start a feud with Andy, a (virtual) friend of mine. He’s a respected SEO expert but also prone to err it seems. This just proves that he is not a robot. You better stick with humor blogging. Btw. Google is a dangerously powerful entity so I advise you be very cautious the Internet giant.