Why people are still talking about making high PR blog comments links?

[Zwielicht]

Lol, you couldn't be further from the truth. Your false comparison is a huge strawman as well. A PR 8 backlink will be great regardless of the current internal PR. Who cares if it's still PR 8, changed to PR 7-6 or even gained to PR 9 right now? The backlink will be absolutely awesome regardless.

Sure we can find some middle ground, especially for PR <3 backlinks, because a single gain or drop of good link can make or break that PR, but for the high PR backlinks (PR>5) it's far from obsolete (it still isn't obsolete for lower PR links, but it will take a lot of due dillegence to find out). The fact that you'r putting any value in those external metrics instead of actually analyzing the site structure and the backlinks of a certain domain tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. You sir are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a very obvious case.

What are you going on about? Did you even read my original post?

Red: In order to set up a straw man, I need to misrepresent an opponent's argument. Considering that I wasn't arguing with anyone and that I was stating my observations, I cannot set up a straw man. I also didn't compare anything, I merely suggested alternative tools for bluejade to use.

Green: Even previously high PR websites can be penalised (e.g., SearchKing and Newsday), which is why it's important to take a look at other factors to determine a website's competition level (something you stated yourself when you mentioned analysing the site structure and backlinks).

Orange: Publicly obsolete. I had even highlighted the word in the original post. I had even said this does not mean that PageRank is no longer a factor.

Google actually stopped publicly updating PageRank in December of 2013, although this doesn't mean that PageRank is no longer a factor (just one that is no longer publicly updated). The reasons some people still use it (especially those who sell inbound link packages) are as follows:
They haven't heard about PR being obsolete (well, publicly obsolete).

Cyan: Again, you skimmed through my post.

I personally use the Moz Toolbar in conjunction with several other methods to determine the SEO competition for a keyword and it's been working out fine for me.

I've brought up the "other methods" in several other posts:
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...engine-optimization-competition-analysis.html
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/731024-free-keyword-tool.html#post7537178
and I've even linked to rabbitking's post on a couple of occasions.
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...rial-how-find-profitable-niches-keywords.html

Violet: Before you erroneously diagnose someone you don't know or antagonise someone over the Internet, make sure you read their entire post. If you don't like what I have to say, then go to your settings, go to "Edit Ignore List" and add my username "Zwielicht" to the list and you'll never have to see my "false comparisons" again.

By the way, like other humans, I'm prone to error. Next time you think someone is wrong, there's a better way to correct their statements that doesn't include insults.

 

[rogerke]

What are you going on about? Did you even read my original post?

Red: In order to set up a straw man, I need to misrepresent an opponent's argument. Considering that I wasn't arguing with anyone and that I was stating my observations, I cannot set up a straw man. I also didn't compare anything, I merely suggested alternative tools for bluejade to use.

Green: Even previously high PR websites can be penalised (e.g., SearchKing and Newsday), which is why it's important to take a look at other factors to determine a website's competition level (something you stated yourself when you mentioned analysing the site structure and backlinks).



Orange: Publicly obsolete. I had even highlighted the word in the original post. I had even said this does not mean that PageRank is no longer a factor.


Cyan: Again, you skimmed through my post.

I've brought up the "other methods" in several other posts:
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...engine-optimization-competition-analysis.html
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/731024-free-keyword-tool.html#post7537178
and I've even linked to rabbitking's post on a couple of occasions.
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...rial-how-find-profitable-niches-keywords.html

Violet: Before you erroneously diagnose someone you don't know or antagonise someone over the Internet, make sure you read their entire post. If you don't like what I have to say, then go to your settings, go to "Edit Ignore List" and add my username "Zwielicht" to the list and you'll never have to see my "false comparisons" again.

By the way, like other humans, I'm prone to error. Next time you think someone is wrong, there's a better way to correct their statements that doesn't include insults.

I'd love to play your coloring game, but I don't even know where the feature is in the quick reply posting panel.

RED: You did use a straw man because you were referring to "they"; i.e. people still using PR (and not realizing it's "obsolete").

GREEN: So what?! Sites with a high DA/PA/TF/CF can be penalized as well. This isn't a (very rare) specific shortcoming of using public PR, so I don't understand why you try to single it out now.

ORANGE: It isn't publically obsolete either. That's exactly what I'm trying to convey in my post. Like I said a PR 8 backlink doesn't all of a sudden drop to a PR 2 backlink and even for the lower PR backlinks it's often pretty easy to guesstimate the current PR (although it takes a lot of due diligence).

I think the problem is people NEED numbers to value the quality of a domain, but they have no clue about the analytical value of those numbers (external metrics like DA/PA/TF/CF). Everyone is parroting the guy next to them, but I bet they have absolutely no clue about the Spearman's rank correlational coefficient between these metrics and ranking and (genuine) PR. Hint: it's so rough and imprecise it basically renders these metrics worthless.

And I'm sorry if you feel offended, but you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Zwielicht]

I'd love to play your coloring game, but I don't even know where the feature is in the quick reply posting panel.

RED: You did use a straw man because you were referring to "they"; i.e. people still using PR (and not realizing it's "obsolete").

GREEN: So what?! Sites with a high DA/PA/TF/CF can be penalized as well. This isn't a (very rare) specific shortcoming of using public PR, so I don't understand why you try to single it out now.

ORANGE: It isn't publically obsolete either. That's exactly what I'm trying to convey in my post. Like I said a PR 8 backlink doesn't all of a sudden drop to a PR 2 backlink and even for the lower backlinks it's often pretty easy to guesstimate the current PR (although it takes a lot of due diligence).

I'm sorry you feel offended, but you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The feature is under "text colour". When you create a post, you'll see an "A" symbol with an arrow pointing down next to it. From there, you can change the colour of the text.

Red: In your original post, you said my "false comparison" was a straw man, yet that still wasn't a comparison nor was I able to set up a straw man since there was no misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Green: I didn't say that websites with high ratings in those metrics could not be penalised, I just didn't mention it since bluejade was asking about PageRank. Although you're right and I acknowledge that those metrics have their own flaws as well.
Orange: And that's absolutely fine if that's your method for estimating the worth of a backlink. The great thing about SEO is that we can all develop different methods.

Not once have I ever rated my skills in SEO, nor do I think I'm better at SEO than other members on this forum (I know I'm not; there are members here with much more experience than me). Yet, you keep erroneously diagnosing me with Dunning-Kruger effect.

Either way, I'm done with this argument. It's just going to be an endless cycle of assumptions, "PageRank is/isn't obsolete", needling tactics, and "You're suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect". I'm going back to work.

P.S. Arguing with someone who you claim must be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect is asinine; since they're too stupid to realise they are incompetent, there is no point in trying to reason with them. Don't waste your time, I'm clearly a lost cause.

If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent. [...] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. —David Dunning

 

[FutureProofSeo]

The odds are that a PR 8 domain from just over a year ago, will still have decent PR now, even if it hasn't been publicly updated.

Furthermore you can verify whether the PR is genuine by checking the linking domains PR, and calculating the proportion of link juice being passed to the domain, etc, etc.

The best metric you should base your links off now is domain rankings + traffic.

If it's ranking for terms and getting traffic from terms then Google thinks it's a website worth something, therefore a link from the website should be "worth something".

 

[Zwielicht]

The odds are that a PR 8 domain from just over a year ago, will still have decent PR now, even if it hasn't been publicly updated.

Furthermore you can verify whether the PR is genuine by checking the linking domains PR, and calculating the proportion of link juice being passed to the domain, etc, etc.

The best metric you should base your links off now is domain rankings + traffic.

If it's ranking for terms and getting traffic from terms then Google thinks it's a website worth something, therefore a link from the website should be "worth something".

This would be a good argument for my original post. I'm out of thanks for today, but I'll be sure to come back to thank this post.

 

[rogerke]

P.S. Arguing with someone who you claim must be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect is asinine; since they're too stupid to realise they are incompetent, there is no point in trying to reason with them. Don't waste your time, I'm clearly a lost cause.

Fine, I don't have time for this either. You actually seem like a genuine nice guy, so I feel kinda bad now for calling you out.

It's just that I get incredibly frustrated when people say PR is dead/obsolete/unimportant an at the same time put almost all their faith in external metrics Google doesn't give a damn about. I honestly shouldn't be bothered with it because it gives me a huge edge when hunting for expired domains/cheap link network links, but it still bugs me everytime I read something like that.

Regardless, let's move on and forget about this dispute.

 

[Zwielicht]

Fine, I don't have time for this either. You actually seem like a genuine nice guy, so I feel kinda bad now for calling you out.

It's just that I get incredibly frustrated when people say PR is dead/obsolete/unimportant an at the same time put almost all their faith in external metrics Google doesn't give a damn about. I honestly shouldn't be bothered with it because it gives me a huge edge when hunting for expired domains/cheap link network links, but it still bugs me everytime I read something like that.

Regardless, let's move on and forget about this dispute.

Look, I'm not mad at you, but I can see why your're mad. I've noticed in your posts on many other threads where you've been helpful with questions regarding domains and backlinks that you're just explaining PR to people, and then someone comes along saying "PR is dead/was never relevant/is obsolete". You know it's not true and you just needed to vent your frustrations, so I understand why you finally got fed up with reading "PR is obsolete" when you read my post today. Although, I agree, too many people are putting their faith in external metrics that can be easily manipulated (that's a good way of looking at everyone's misplaced faith as giving you an edge when purchasing domains).

I'll tell you what, I'll try to be more careful with the way I word things next time and I'll stop saying PageRank is "publicly obsolete".

Regardless, let's move on and forget about this dispute.

Agreed, let's move on from this and forget this incident ever happened.

 

[pxoxrxn]

Regardless, let's move on and forget about this dispute.

Agreed, let's move on from this and forget this incident ever happened.

Debates are some of the most useful content on a forum, it really is the whole point of a forum.

Let me see if I understand the gist of the resolution: PR is NOT dead but other metrics can be more useful than PR when determining the value of a link? However, a link that has a medium-high PR is likely to be of high value regardless of its other metrics?

 

[rogerke]

Debates are some of the most useful content on a forum, it really is the whole point of a forum.

Let me see if I understand the gist of the resolution: PR is NOT dead but other metrics can be more useful than PR when determining the value of a link? However, a link that has a medium-high PR is likely to be of high value regardless of its other metrics?

Partly agree with your first question (only the part about PR not being dead). You should always find out 1) wether a link/domain still has high PR backlinks and/or 2) wether the site structure hasn't changed significantly. For example if you find a PR 5 homepage link it's very likely the link still has a lot of value (obviously to be sure you have to check wether the existing backlinks to that domain/page still support the PR 5 number). But there are also cases where the site structure has changed significantly and the link may have become worthless. A blog posts which was on the homepage/a page close to the homepage, but has dropped to a back alley is a good example of this. In practice it's pretty easy if you know the technical mechanics behind PR *, but you need to do a lot of due dilligence.


*This is getting kinda technical but you need to understand how PR works if you want to apply this method. As you might know PR is logarithmic. The exact logarithmic scale is secret sauce, but experts agree it's somewhere between 6-10. This means a PR 2 backlink is 6-10 times "better" than a PR 1 backlink, while a PR 3 backlink is 36-100 times better than a PR 1 backlink etc etc. Another major factor in determining the transferred PR is the amount of links on a page (internal and external). This means you have to divide PR by the amount of links. Third, you have to understand about 15% (original number from the patent) of PR always evaporates.

If you understand this it's very easy to guesstimate the actual value of a backlink. Let's say it's a PR 5 backlink (we're assuming a logarithmic PR scale of 10) from a homepage with 100 internal and external links. This means the link will pass about PR 3 (PR 5 divided by 100, the evaporated 15% is not that important here). You might think this is way too much work and think it's way more efficient to look at other metrics (DA/PA/TF) which are updated daily/montly, but the thing is that the homepage with the PR 5 backlink might have a DA of between 20-50, a TF of 15-40 and a PA of 30-60. Now you might understand why those external metrics are basically worthless IMO. They're way too imprecise to hold any analytical value. They might indicate a PR 5 page/domain, but they might also indicate a PR 2-3 page/domain, which contains up to 1000x less link juice.

As a side note, I suspect this is the major reason why Google stopped updating public PR. And everyone is falling for it.