Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 42
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: November 17, 2007 - 8:07 pm
Posted By: fantomaster 181 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://fantomaster.com)
Category: Google SEO
5 Comments
Went Hot: November 17, 2007 - 8:07 pm
Posted By: fantomaster 181 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://fantomaster.com)
Category: Google SEO
5 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- The Social Media Trip (19)
- How You Can Use WordPress Functions... (19)
- A Letter of Apology to my Wrists (18)
- Search Industry Productivity Increa... (18)
- Search Marketing Trends - What's up... (18)
- Community: The Human Element of SEO... (17)
- The 25 Most Popular Pages on Facebo... (17)
- 9 Tips To Gain Exposure (17)
- SecondBrain - The First Complete So... (16)
- Wikipedia Traffic Grows 8,000% in 5... (14)
Latest Comments
- just saw this shari...…
- oh boy...it is a sad thing when one internet marketer's reputat…
- There are at least two approaches to learning SEO. One is the technician'…
- Good article, Duane. I suppose it can be difficult to get the point across …
- almost front page..knew u could do it!…
- http://twitpic.com/15ib
- Although our finance client would never allow this article on their site, I…
- C'Mon Jill there is enough red flags in that story to keep a dozen Spanish …
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX Madrid (in Spanish, May 20-21)
• SMX Advanced - Seattle, WA (June 3-4) Register today!
• SMX Local & Mobile - San Francisco, CA (July 24-25) See the agenda, and register now!
• SMX East - NYC - (Oct. 6-8)
• SMX London - November 4 & 5, 2008
Comments
Good stuff.
It's late and my eyes aren't focusing too well on my macbook but did it say that a page that ranks #1 in the SERPs has it's 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"
Doesn't 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 Google's 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 site's 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 you're puttin it, but essentially yes, that's what this study indicates.
@iBrian: Yes, it's 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, it's not as if paid links as such hadn't been around long before PR was invented.
As for what may or may not constitute "real PageRank", that's 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?