Published: Nov 17, 2007 - 08:07 pm
Story Found By: fantomaster 1653 Days ago
Category: SEO
5 Comments
5 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Good stuff.Its late and my eyes arent focusing too well on my macbook but did it say that a page that ranks #1 in the SERPs has its PR reduced on a monthly basis?or did I read it wrong?
"for one it would have been nice if the paper had indicated how many sites and SERPs were analyzed"Doesnt this pretty much suggest a flawed approach? After all, if you have no idea of your basic data points, how can anyone else determine mathematical significant relationships?Leaving the audience as unable to verify the statements and conclusions founding the study.
Interesting study, though its validity relies on a metric with a great margin of error. Also as Ralph points out, toolbar PageRank is not PageRank."Google may want to see a correlation between PR and SERP rank being established"Perhaps. Then again, PR obsession leads to more link swaps and link buys - in other words, more weeds in Googles backyard."Given the strong correlation Rank/Pagerank (see above), those who lost may worry. Because this Pagerank loss will surely be accompanied by a ranking loss in the Google SERP and then by a web traffic loss."Recent TBPR drops will not be accompanied by a ranking loss simply because the TBPR on penalized sites no longer even remotely reflect real internal PageRanks. If the real PageRank was exported to andybeard.eu, for example, the sites home page would likely show TBPR 6.
after careful consideration of the analytical elucidation offered by the illustrious Mr. F, I find the most logical course for myself would be to enlist the assistance of someone who could explain the explanation to me.:(
@rotatedspectrum: Not as categorically as youre puttin it, but essentially yes, thats what this study indicates.@iBrian: Yes, its more than a minor fly in the ointment. However, that is data which could easily be furnished yet by the author(s) of that paper. (In the e-mail pointing me to it, peer comments were specifically requested, so maybe our q&d analysis will help in establishing a reasonable level of verifiability.@Halfdeck: Google may quite likely see itself falling victim to the infamous Law of Unintended Consequences with their TBPR policy. And while TBPR has undoubtedly spawned the link-for-PR industry, its not as if paid links as such hadnt been around long before PR was invented.As for what may or may not constitute "real PageRank", thats only for Google (or, more probably: a tiny fraction of their specialist staff) to actually know.@massa: LOL - remember we put up a warning in that piece?