Gloveybaby
Newbie
- Mar 1, 2015
- 39
- 4
DYK - PageRank is not dead... :)
- Thread starter Gloveybaby
- Start date
rob1977
Power Member
- Mar 25, 2013
- 781
- 694
Dear me, PR might still be alive in the bowels of google, in the same way as my 20 year old hunting dog sits by the fireplace but only goes outside for a shit.
The various conditions which google applies be they an animal variety or otherwise superscede whatever the old dog sitting licking its balls stood for. Therefore in the context of a useable paradigm, it's dead.
The various conditions which google applies be they an animal variety or otherwise superscede whatever the old dog sitting licking its balls stood for. Therefore in the context of a useable paradigm, it's dead.
Gloveybaby
Newbie
- Mar 1, 2015
- 39
- 4
conrulez
Power Member
- Dec 29, 2009
- 539
- 434
Create a discussion about what? You're wasting your time and other's too with a bullshit headline.
If it's dead as a viable metric, then it's dead for discussion unless you feel like strolling down memory lane in which case you shouldn't post BS headlines.
As for the other metrics you mentioned, THEY ALL SUCK...EXCEPT for TF. It's the only one that can not be manipulated easily. Everything else can not be fully trusted. They serve a small purpose for filtering out massive lists of urls but other than that, useless.
What are you going to post a thread about next, Altavista? Stop with the bullshit. Go take the wife on a shopping spree.
If it's dead as a viable metric, then it's dead for discussion unless you feel like strolling down memory lane in which case you shouldn't post BS headlines.
As for the other metrics you mentioned, THEY ALL SUCK...EXCEPT for TF. It's the only one that can not be manipulated easily. Everything else can not be fully trusted. They serve a small purpose for filtering out massive lists of urls but other than that, useless.
What are you going to post a thread about next, Altavista? Stop with the bullshit. Go take the wife on a shopping spree.
JuggernautJukey
BANNED
- Dec 10, 2013
- 528
- 227
It doesn't matter if it's dead or not .. If you are just using PR as a means of judging a link, you doin' it wrong bro!
Kralj187
Senior Member
- Jul 9, 2012
- 1,098
- 244
But dude number one rule in online marketing. People buy every shit, how would we make money otherwise lol
Gloveybaby
Newbie
- Mar 1, 2015
- 39
- 4
Ouch - must've tweaked a nerve. I guess your from Bing?
Altavista - now that's an interesting topic.
Who's up for discussing ranking factors for Altavista back in the day?
Last edited:
cruiseplannerskc
Junior Member
- Jan 20, 2013
- 112
- 35
Pagerank has never been "dead" just updating has been so long and far spaced out, it was not a reliable method for actually finding out ranking factors for a page.. Which is why places like MOZ and it's toolbar has become much more acceptable as the old pagerank system was so filled with fraud.. from 301 redirects and such..
Well, I'm sure this is certainly going to cause a stir up! BTW - I really have nothing to prove but share this information, so don't hate the messenger!
So PageRank. It's still alive and its heart still beats. BUT BUT BUT - Yes, type in pagerank into Google and see the masses of results of SEO blogs saying it's DEAD / DESTORYED / BLASTED INTO OBLIVION etc etc
No. Fortunately it's not dead. It's just Google has decided NOT to update it's toolbar or figure for front end users (that's us)
Pagerank is still a fundamental and core part of Google's organic search algorithm. It was what they created (many moons ago) to give an SSF (simple statistical figure) on a websites authority online by collating information from IBL's, OBL's, content and relevancy and pushing it through a calculation to give a number between 0 and 10. So I'll mention it again;
Google still use PageRank. They just don't update their toolbar to give you the updated figure. Front-end page rank updates isn't an automated process. Hence why, 2-3 years ago, we only saw 1-2 page rank updates a year! (It's manually processed).
Technically therefore you can argue PageRank is dead ONLY if you using it in the context from acheiving an advantage from an SEO point of view. This is because the figure of PR you see today on a website (if historical) is based on 2013 results.
Let's get the discussion going.
Reaver
Elite Member
- Aug 6, 2015
- 1,898
- 5,794
I read this as "for the moob coming into SEO..." I was like "Wtf is a moob??"
ChanzGrande
Elite Member
- Feb 16, 2008
- 2,482
- 1,221
What did I just read? Thanks for the update there Gloveybaby. Now if only there was a way to put your information to practical use - we'd all be ranking and banking.
It is a mans tit.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
Reaver
Elite Member
- Aug 6, 2015
- 1,898
- 5,794
So it should read "for the man's tit coming into SEO PR is dead as a metric." OK. Now it makes sense.
Now let's replace "PR" with "nipple."
lightningblitz
Elite Member
- Nov 30, 2014
- 1,920
- 4,714
Ahh - I wish you were right! It would save me having to post this
If I am reading correctly, you stated, "Wrong as in 'We all know this'." when replying to W130SN. That is telling another member they are wrong. You did not back up your claim. You made an outlandish claim in your thread title (To get views) and when someone disagreed with your belief, you did not refute it with evidence. You can do that if you want, or assume I am attacking you. You are entitled to your opinion.
I did not call you out. I refuted your point for a lack of evidence, or lack of a clear point. I also defended the position of another member who answered your thread and you decided to nitpick his post.
I am all for a logical discussion of PR. But what are you trying to discuss? That PR is 'alive'? Well, for the sake of using it as a metric, no it is not alive. It is dead from not being updated. One of the most common misconceptions in SEO is that PR is a viable metric to judge sites off of now. It is used to con newbies.
I am pretty sure my post was clear and concise, plus defended the position of those who say 'PR is dead'. I believe that is adding to your 'discussion'.
I am ready for your counter point to what I outlined above. What is the value of PR to SEOs? What is the point of this thread? What do you not refute my point of: "The question is:
What use is Google's internal Page Rank to us SEO's?
The answer is:
It is not of any use since we do not know what it is.
Hence, people call it dead."
That is my point. That is what I 'add' to this discussion. Now please prove your claim PR is alive and kicking for SEOs. You blasted every SEO who has a blog or has posted that PR is dead by stating, "So PageRank. It's still alive and its heart still beats. BUT BUT BUT - Yes, type in pagerank into Google and see the masses of results of SEO blogs saying it's DEAD / DESTORYED / BLASTED INTO OBLIVION etc etc
No. Fortunately it's not dead. It's just Google has decided NOT to update it's toolbar or figure for front end users (that's us)."
I am pretty sure what I quoted is the basis for me stating, "Rather than calling other experienced SEO's wrong, maybe back what ever point you have up with something?"
I am asking that you, rather than tell us we are wrong, prove we are wrong. That is how debate works. I am not the one going against status quo. You are arguing that others are wrong for calling PR a dead metric. You also told W130SN he was 'wrong'.
This is not an attack on you. You clearly stated, "So PageRank. It's still alive and its heart still beats. BUT BUT BUT - Yes, type in pagerank into Google and see the masses of results of SEO blogs saying it's DEAD / DESTORYED / BLASTED INTO OBLIVION etc etc
No. Fortunately it's not dead. It's just Google has decided NOT to update it's toolbar or figure for front end users (that's us)."
That is your claim that those who have stated 'PR is dead' are wrong. If I should read your post a different way, please clarify. I read it as a fairly black and white 'PR is not dead, those who said it is dead are wrong.' So, if that is not what you want to claim go ahead and change your stance. But it is what you typed and that is why I stated you called others wrong. I stated that because you did.
