thoughts about PR and ranking

I've been out of SEO and online stuff for about 6 years. Now I'm learning all the new stuff to get up to date. I used to have PR6 around 2005 and now I have a PR2. So I look at this PR chart every now and then and was thinking today about the plain cost to rank.

I still think that PR is the #1 thing that tells the power of a site. I know people out there look more at stuff like backlinks, authority, moz this and that, and ahrefs #'s. I still look at PR as the #1 indicator (although not fake PR.)

So here's this chart:



And putting a $10 price on a PR1 site since, so far, I've only been able to find PR1 sites on a consistent basis that can be bought for $10. I've bought some PR6, PR5, and PR4 sites but these aren't consistently available.

This tells me that to fabricate a PR4 site out of thin air with expired domains I would need 444 PR2 sites, costing about $4500.

To create a PR5 I would need to spend about $25000 to buy 2444 PR2 domains.

Are my thoughts going in the right direction? Or is there any easier way to guarantee a PR5 by creating my own web 2.0's and spamming them with thousands of spammy links using GSA or SENUKE?

PR6 would need 73,000 PR1 sites costing about $1million to buy. Or passing the link juice down from 20 free web 2.0 properties that each have 75,000 PR1 spammy links?

Looking at the chart it seems the magic sweet spot is getting 444 PR4 links, since I have been able to find these off and on. This would cost me between $5000 and $15,000 to "buy" a PR6 for myself, correct (plus hosting fees of $20,000 a year.)

Just want to get some feedback on the validity of these charts and some linking formulas to get significant PR. I'd like to get a PR6 again if that's even possible these days.

That chart is worth exactly...

netmoney1 said:

That chart is worth exactly...

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I'm here to learn.

I've seen a lot of people say that you get a -2 link juice relationship. Meaning if you get a PR5 link to your site you'll get at least a PR3 web site. So there is some kind of mathematical formula/chart for calculating PR.

I've gotta tell you matthewseo, that's way behind the times. PR is entirely and conclusively irrelevant.

Your best bet is to pay (30%) attention to DA/PA, and (50%) attention to TF and CF, and (20%) attention to the ratio between TF/CF. Do those things, and you'll be a long way developed from the old days of PR.

matthewseo said:

Why do you say that? I'm here to learn.

I've seen a lot of people say that you get a -2 link juice relationship. Meaning if you get a PR5 link to your site you'll get at least a PR3 web site. So there is some kind of mathematical formula/chart for calculating PR.

Click to expand...

Well, the *actual* PR formula is;
A pages PR divided by the total outbound links, minus 15%.

Therefore, if you have one link from a PR5 site that has 15 total outbound links, you'll have a PR value of 0.28 passed to your site.

HOWEVER - as my previous post eluded to; PR is a complete and utter waste of time now. Don't even bother learning about it.

matthewseo said:

Why do you say that? I'm here to learn.

I've seen a lot of people say that you get a -2 link juice relationship. Meaning if you get a PR5 link to your site you'll get at least a PR3 web site. So there is some kind of mathematical formula/chart for calculating PR.

Click to expand...

1. That chart is old as dirt
2. I would love to meet the person that decided that 67,651,631 PR1 links gets you a PR10 lol
3. PR doesn't automatically bring in traffic/conversions/sales
4. Focus on attracting those things in #3 - and not making your site a specific page rank. A PR6 website that makes $0 is worth the same as a PR0 site that makes $0.

I'm going to sleep - but I'm sure someone will chime in and give you some info.

You shouldn't really bother much about PR if you are building a blog network because you can get far better results if you look out for domains with better TF, DA, PA and backlink profile. PR is only helpful if you are planning to sell links on because it seems to be a great way of marketing the domains. Also, these days PR updates are quite random and you can't be sure whether the PR will stick on the PR 5 domain or not.

I had few PR 5 and 6 domains where I invested a lot and they were back to 0 to pr 3 even after doing extensive due diligence of its backlinks before buying(Checking PR of its links etc). However the lesson learnt here is to not fall for PR much if you want to have a blog network. Just try to follow the other metrics available.

PR 3 make $15.000 month
PR 6 and PR 5 makes $200 month

Now if you want to sell links that's another thing

PR still remains as in important factor while gauging a backlink. I have seen guys simply do blog commenting for a domain and find their domain become a pr4 or atleast pr3 by the next update.
Its been a while since there was a PR update.

I would suggest you give less weightage to the PR thing and move on with other factors like DA and Majestic Ranks.

Some quetions and things I've noticed:

1)

People say that PR haven't been updated, but then other people (including me) see their PR drop to 0. A site I bought dropped from PR6 to PR0 in a few months after I bought it. I also reconstructed the entire old site to save all the links. It still has these values in ahrefs:

[TABLE="class: width-100"]
[TR="class: stats-row1"]
[TD="class: border-right"]URL Rank 11
[/TD]
[TD="class: border-right"] Ahrefs Domain Rank 47
[/TD]
[TD="class: border-right"] Backlinks 2.2 K
[/TD]
[TD="class: border-right-dark"] Referring Domains 102
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


But it did drop from 10k links to 2k links after it was sold to me. It was an official site for a major sports team. They changed from .info to .com and I got the .info for about $10. It's PR was "updated" right? That's why it's no longer a PR6.

I have a link from this site but my main site has done nothing but tank since I haven't been using it. It's gone from PR6 to PR2 in the last 10 years. And the link from the former PR6 site did nothing to help it.


2)

If PR has no effect then why is it still a part of the Google's ranking algorythm (formula)? And I still see that 90% of the time or greater, the site with the higher PR always ranks higher. In fact for my niche there are no sites with less than a PR5 that are on the first 10 pages of results. Most are PR6. I think a lot of people on here work in low competition areas and shoot for long tail keywords for adsense or affiliate links. My niche is a service that is highly technical and very competitive.

I actually get more leads from my inner pages that are ranking in the top 10 pages for some long tail keywords. But being on page 5 means these come around about 1-2 times a year.

I don't fully buy that PR is obsolete, based on my observations (not a single site less than PR5 for my niche.)

3) People who have reversed engineered the rankings still say that PR is still one of the main variables that all high rankings web sites have in common


Thoughts?

SEO is everchanging, the chart is quite dated to be honest. Why don't you read through this forum so as to learn as much information as possible.

Don't be disheartened or get daunted by such a chart, actions proved otherwise.

tony_d said:

I've gotta tell you matthewseo, that's way behind the times. PR is entirely and conclusively irrelevant.

Your best bet is to pay (30%) attention to DA/PA, and (50%) attention to TF and CF, and (20%) attention to the ratio between TF/CF. Do those things, and you'll be a long way developed from the old days of PR.

Click to expand...

what's TF and CF?

how often do you get a low PR site with a high DA/PA? I would guess not very often, am I right? any examples?

Commoner said:

SEO is everchanging, the chart is quite dated to be honest. Why don't you read through this forum so as to learn as much information as possible.

Don't be disheartened or get daunted by such a chart, actions proved otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'm up to date on all the tactics, but what I'm noticing is that the people who know, don't tell. And the people who tell (and say they know) don't really know and are selling affiliate links to SEO software that doesn't work without the "know" that people don't tell.



For example: Seems like the latest trend is to build a high PR network of private (your own) web sites that link back to you. However, it's almost impossible to find high PR expired domains, so this doesn't really work. The people who recommend this tactic are the main "movers and shakers" or "influencers" who have a slick youtube video and a big fancy blog (yes Google will reward you if you have a lof of content)... (even Matthew Woodward says he works all day long 12 hours a day every day just to make $15k a month, I make $15k a sale! So anything under $150k a month for me is failure. Why should I listen to someone who's work to profit ratio is lower than mine? btw his PR is only PR3 for matthewwoodward.co.uk) it's the trickle down effect from the influencers who don't work in high competition niche (like Source Wave SEO with their fancy software, SEO courses and videos) they owner of that makes his money in selling SEO software to idiots and doing SEO in a relatively non-competitive niche (medical) where the doctors are SEO dummies and have to pay him or they loose big time money. He himself (source wave seo guy) says that his key skill is that he can sell a blind man reading glasses. Medical, lawyer, plumbing non-technical areas are very easy compared to my niche which is a competitive niche. I'm yet to find (in 15 years of Google existance and the years when it was Lycos and Altavista) an SEO person who can rank for keywords that are super competitive PR5 and above sites.

Thoughts?

Ref the above its not the case people won't tell you they already have honestly it's simple, Tony d nailed it on the head it's all about the other metrics. You can easily find loads of pr3/4 available sites which would have been great back in the day but things have changed and moved on.

I use a pbn to rank all my sites and don't look at pr I use PA DA TF to gauge if it's going to be a decent link.

If you think logically the above factors tell you if the site has decent links so passing decent juice, a high pr site can have only one link to get its high pr so pretty much be useless.

Hope the above sheds some light on it.

matthewseo said:

says that his key skill is that he can sell a blind man reading glasses.
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think that sounds pretty easy. You see, the blind man needs reading glasses. Try selling ice to an eskimo!

tony_d said:

I think that sounds pretty easy. You see, the blind man needs reading glasses. Try selling ice to an eskimo!

Click to expand...

i didn't say partially blind man... a blind man doesnt read but an eskimo still needs ice to build an igloo

Wells1985 said:

Ref the above its not the case people won't tell you they already have honestly it's simple, Tony d nailed it on the head it's all about the other metrics. You can easily find loads of pr3/4 available sites which would have been great back in the day but things have changed and moved on.

I use a pbn to rank all my sites and don't look at pr I use PA DA TF to gauge if it's going to be a decent link.

If you think logically the above factors tell you if the site has decent links so passing decent juice, a high pr site can have only one link to get its high pr so pretty much be useless.

Hope the above sheds some light on it.

Click to expand...

makes sense except that when i look at rankings, i see that the site with the best combination of PR + onsite optimization always wins

a site with 1 link that is PR8 is going to be PR6 which is going to make your site PR4, which means you are 3 steps away from a site like amazon, that's huge trust.

i'd like to see some examples of high competition searches where a pr1 outranks a PR6 when both have equal quality onsite optimization... this would convince me that PR isn't important.

what's CF/TF? contant factor/trust factor?

I know a lot of people who own a PR5, the links to there website are less than 1000 overall. I'm not sure how valid is your chart and anyways PR is not much relevant now, don't waste your time with it

matthewseo said:

makes sense except that when i look at rankings, i see that the site with the best combination of PR + onsite optimization always wins

a site with 1 link that is PR8 is going to be PR6 which is going to make your site PR4, which means you are 3 steps away from a site like amazon, that's huge trust.

i'd like to see some examples of high competition searches where a pr1 outranks a PR6 when both have equal quality onsite optimization... this would convince me that PR isn't important.

what's CF/TF? contant factor/trust factor?

Click to expand...

I do see your point but maybe your not looking at a niche where someone with a pbn works in?

When i target a niche my site will rank but stick out as it will be a pr 1 or something and everything around it is pr 6 etc ie a natural looking serp result built up over time with aged sites.

I think you need to jump in and make a small one and test both options. My monies on the high pa and da sites doing better.

Best of luck

It really doesn't matter anymore. The concept is still the foundation, but only in the sense that other metrics flow the same way PR does. The sites that dominate are strong in all the right metrics, and naturally PR follows, but that's correlation and not in any way causation. If you don't just look at SERPs and look at all the sites, you'll find 100 PR6's that don't even show up in the top 50 for every one you see in the top 10.

I know where you're coming from, I'm from the era before there was a thing called blackhat where you could guarantee a ranking by throwing the right copy on a high PR page. '05-'06 was really the end of that. At this point it's completely irrelevant