Slashdot Mirror


The Google Toolbar PageRank Demystified

nywanna writes "SEO is an extremely unpredictable aspect of running an online business. Every month the rules change slightly, and with every rule change we receive new bad information from speculators and those who spew nothing but conjecture. David Harry looks at one of the greatest Google misconceptions and bits of misinformation that exists right now: This brings me to the greatest mythological creature to roam the Google landscape since 'the sandbox'; The Google Toolbar PageRank (TBPR) system. While the jury may still be out on the 'sandbox,' I am here to slay the beast that is the TBPR, right here, right now."

42 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. What's SEO? by ebcdic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Evidently readers of the referenced article are expected to be familiar with this acronym, but why is Slashdot assuming that its readers are?

    1. Re:What's SEO? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Geeks are expected to inherently know the definition of all technology-related acronyms.

      Search Engine Optimization

      Basically it means trying to get your web pages listed as highly as possible on search engine result pages (a.k.a. SERPs)

    2. Re:What's SEO? by Jaffa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Search Engine Optimisation.

      The alchemy-like "science" which believes you can magic traffic to your website, rather than providing content which people want.

    3. Re:What's SEO? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not exactly true. While many SEOs claim special knowledge which they don't have, a good SEO can tell you how to modify your page containing real content to rank better. Meta tags, bolding keywords, proper titles, etc. can help a page appear higher in search engine results. It's not magic from no content. It's presentation of the same content in a way search engines would prefer.

    4. Re:What's SEO? by chris_mahan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but that would not work.

      You see, most sites that care about SOE do so because they are a business entity, and want to drive eyeballs, ahem, customers, to their web sites so that they will buy products and make the company founders rich beyond their wildest dreams.

      Of course, most of those sites add absolutely no value to the customer.

      So, SOE is something that the marketing firms latch on because site/business owners think (rightly so because their site is crap) they need to spend money on to attract customers.

      These people of course do not realize that google does not want that to happen so that they keep tweaking the search engine to drop the crap sites.

      This is the perfect "nerd revenge" if you ask me.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:What's SEO? by gumbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I think part of the problem with the whole SEO field is that there are several sides. There's the white hat stuff where you make sure you're not limiting the spiders from getting to your content, making sure your titles and markup is all good, etc. Then there's the blacker hat stuff like splogs, spamming, cloaking, etc. If you just say "SEO", some people will automatically assume the latter.

    6. Re:What's SEO? by fossa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can the savvy author not be expected to have the wit to know that simply expanding the acronym would reduce needless reduncancy and eliminate the waste of time and bandwidth of asking thousands of slashdotters to search Google or Wikipedia? My sense of thoughtfulness (ST) suggests that a foremost unfolding of acronyms (FUA) leads to a more sage sophistry (SS). In other words, STFUASS.

    7. Re:What's SEO? by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geeks are expected to inherently know the definition of all technology-related acronyms.

      POS.

      KFG

    8. Re:What's SEO? by emurphy42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I call shenanigans! Give us some specific examples of searches that are 99% spam. Not to be hypocritical, here are some searches that I believe are way the hell less than 99% spam:
    9. Re:What's SEO? by jdavidb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the problem is that the results returned by Goolge are 99% spam and you have to wade through dozens of pages with results to find one or more that may be of interest.

      Maybe you should search for something besides Viagra.

    10. Re:What's SEO? by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      This doesn't necessarily work for all sites. Some sites are a great benefit to their target audience, but may not return well in search engines because they're flash, or image-heavy, or have a lot of dynamic content that search engines can't find well. For instance, I'm a photographer. I have a lot of good samples of my work on my website, and people searching for a photographer in a particular market or of a particular style would do well to find my site. However, images are not easily categorized by google. Google doesn't necessarily know if an image is of an infant, a commercial project, a wedding, or anything else. Therefore, one must add content specifically targeted at search engines so the people who would benefit from the site can find it in the first place. If you're designing a site, you best know what helps and what hurts you in search engine rankings, so you can incorporate those features.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:What's SEO? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you see, it's not quite that simple. Once you work with an honest SEO professional for a while, you realize that there are two different kinds of SEO: honest and dishonest.

      Honest SEO means recommending changes that improve the indexability and content of the page: changing URLs to make them more concise and descriptive, adding proper keywords (not "stuffed" lists), adding a decent description, removing Flash and/or providing alternate content, adding alternate text for images, adding sitemaps, and a lot more. Basically, the idea in honest SEO is to make sure that the page design makes it easy for the search engine to index (and make sure that the crawler can find every page) and make sure that the page copy is well-written and descriptive. Honest SEO professionals also do a lot of consulting regarding advertising - such as what keywords to buy and what text to use for the ad.

      I see nothing wrong with this approach. What I do have a problem with is dishonest SEO - the so-called "black hat" firms. Dishonest SEO involves anything that tries to misrepresnt the contents of a page to the engine, including things like screwing with the alt text on images (e.g. making it something completely bogus that doesn't match the image at all), hidden links, false keywords / titles, linkspamming, and a whole host of other techniques.

    12. Re:What's SEO? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, of course! But that's what an SEO expert really accomplishes - if you tell management, "We should rewrite our copy and redesign our link structure to improve usability", you probably won't get much of a response. If, on the other hand, you tell management, "We should rewrite our copy and redesign our link structure to improve our ranking and get more hits", then you're talking.

      Of course, SEO goes beyond that - things like code quality can have a major impact as well.

  2. Search Engine Optimisation by MarkByers · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  3. Demystified? by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Google Toolbar PageRank Demystified ?????

    There was no demystification here, just a call to kill / ignore it. I like the summary though at the end of the article : Make your own conclusions;

    1. Re:Demystified? by thsths · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I like the summary though at the end of the article : Make your own conclusions;

      My conclusion is that the author of the article is clueless. He doesn't like Google PageRank, but he can't even clearly state why.

  4. Nooooo! by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pagerank is useless? Don't tell me that when I just got my pagerank up to 6!

    1. Re:Nooooo! by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Half the internet got their PR up to 5. Half of those who were already at 5 got bumped up to 6. To me 5 is the new 4 and 6 is the new 5. 9 is reserved for Slashdot, 8 for Wikipedia, and 7 for lots of useless but popular blogs.

      But in the end it doesn't really matter except for bragging rights. Although those bragging rights can help raise sponsors...

    2. Re:Nooooo! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pagerank became useless a long time ago, after spammers began their largely successful war of attrition against the Google Pagerank engineers. Google is not the tool it was.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Google toolbar? by baomike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's this? Maybe this only concerns people who have or are infected with a "google tool bar".

  6. Google PR by hauntingthunder · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some people may not know what this is about

    Its the Google PR displayed if you have the google tool bar installed

    This is old news - the pr that it displays is almost worthless and I bloged about this ages back here Back in April. We did some tests and created a stand alone page on a brand new domain that we got a displayd PR of 5 in a couple of weeks.

    --
    You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
  7. Re:Was it just me? by deprecated · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was just you.

  8. Useless Search Engine Optimization Blather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy said nothing in a long tedious way.

    1. Re:Useless Search Engine Optimization Blather by nadamsieee · · Score: 5, Funny
      This guy said nothing in a long tedious way.

      He should be in marketing... oh, wait... nevermind.

  9. Demystified, more like Demoralized by PhantomRogue · · Score: 2, Informative

    So here I go into that article thinking that PageRank and its algorithms will be talked about, and all the author does, is go on a rant about how he gets more 'targetted traffic' on a low rank site versus a high rank site...

    Was there anything useful in that article?

    I think there were more Acronyms used in that article than ive ever seen before. Looks like the Author just wanted to sound like he knew what he was talking about by throwing out every acronym known to his little clique of developers. (im guessing SOE's or whatever)

    Now, had he gone into detail about getting 'targetted traffic' and not just spouting off that he knows how to, but just seemed like it was a 2 page rant on why Google isnt as good as it claims to be. Also note the Pro-MSN search tidbit thrown in there too.

    1. Re:Demystified, more like Demoralized by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      My summary of the article follow:

      Many people put too much emphasis on Page Rank, but they shouldn't. Page Rank is not very helpful.

      A lot of people depend too much on Page Rank, and this is not good. The results of Page Rank do not give too much information.

      Many marketers would do good to not put too much emphasis on Page Rank, as I believe it has little to do with actual results ranking.

      Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Page Rank has nothing to do with Google's actual results? At least that's what I think. I mean, I know.

      Lets see why Page Rank is not good: Because it doesn't represent actual result ranking. Ergo, people shouldn't really rely on it (although many do, by the by). QED.

      And just in case I haven't gotten through yet, I'll repeat: Page Rank is teh s0x0rz.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  10. Of course not by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As penned by SE Guru Mike Grehan,

    "Can you imagine some surfer finding the digital camera of his dreams at a knock-down bargain price but refusing to buy it because the page it's on only has a PR of one? I don't think so."

    No, but I can imagine a surfer finding the camera of his dreams and buying it from some schlock electronics outfit with an artificially high page rank.

    Page Rank seems to work on the premise that the more a site is linked to, the more valuable it is. So if five million people link to a white supremacist site, that means there's valuable content there, right?

    This is where Google's power is diluted and why a lot of the searches I do seem to come up with pretty crappy results. PageRank is pointless, if only because a) actually useful sites may very well not get linked to very much, as no one wants the sites overrun by the whole Internet or b) uselss sites with drivel for content may be over-linked because a few million idiots think that the content is the word-of-the-lord.

    What is needed is a personal page-ranking system -- a central repository where people can rate websites based on factors that matter (ease of use, content, etc.), kind of like the Zagat guide to web sites. It's not enough to blindly search for any site that links to the data I want; I need it to link to site that have the data I want and have it a useful/easy-to-find format.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Of course not by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well one thing that Google can do is to watch the internet marketers forums for the common advice on how to optimise for search engines, and then add a check for those tricks to their algorithms and punish those sites that try them. I suspect that they have been doing that for a long time. Which is another reason to just try to produce the best possible site without trying to game Google rankings.

    2. Re:Of course not by raoul666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Page Rank seems to work on the premise that the more a site is linked to, the more valuable it is. So if five million people link to a white supremacist site, that means there's valuable content there, right?

      It means there's popular content there, which is often what people are looking for. The white supremacist site with a pagerank of 6 is probably better (by whatever criteria one uses to judge white supremacist sites) then the one with a pagerank of 3.

      Is it valuable content? Most people would say no. White supremacists would say yes.

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    3. Re:Of course not by nuckfuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Page Rank seems to work on the premise that the more a site is linked to, the more valuable it is.

      Exactly! That's why Google became the number one search engine on the planet. In the early days of search engines (when sites like Altavista and HotBot were king) pages were ranked soley on their own content. The idea of analyzing the links between pages was absolutely revolutionary. Prior to that the best measure of a search engine was the number of pages it indexed - a number that was proudly displayed on the front page of most search engines of that time.

      Lots of pages indexed meant lots of results. You often had to wade through up to 10 pages of results to find what you were looking for. Although all the results contained the correct keywords the actual content was often wildly irrelevant. Relevance was gauged by factors like the number of times a keyword appeared on the page, encouraging the creation of pages full of crap (such as tiny white text on white background repeating popular search phrases tens or hundreds of times).

      Enter Google. The relevance of results increased dramatically. It became common to find what you were looking for on the first page of results. Hell, the results were so good they introduced the I'm Feeling Lucky button to take you immediately to the first result. That's why today most people don't search for information anymore, they google for it.

      It's true that PageRank has it's own problems, and that content spamming has been largely replaced by link spamming. Still, things are much better these days than before Google came around.

  11. Sandbox? by OverDrive33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know this is slightly offtopic - but what info does he have for or against sandboxed sites? If you're actually active in the SEO community this article will be old news to you (as opposed to having only a passing interest in SEO, resulting in over emphasis on PR -- lots of SEO clients have this problem).
    The sandbox however is a problem many of us are still grappling with. Do any slashdotter's have any insights into Google's sandbox?

  12. Best way to get ranked higher... by blake213 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Create a useful and unique web page/business, and you will appear at the top of the list. Anything else is just cheating, and it's exactly what Google is trying to prevent.

    --
    mund freud.
  13. Do I understand this argument correctly? by Darkforge · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The gist of this article seems to be:

    Hello, I'm a sleazy SEO with poor grammar and spelling. It's my job to trick Google (using link spam) into thinking that a web site is more important than it actually is.

    Now, many of my customers think that the Google Toolbar will tell them their PageRank, and that this will tell them how good a job I'm doing. I wish they would stop looking at this number, because using that they can see how useless my services are and how effectively Google is combatting my tactics.

    Here, let me quote a few irrelevant remarks out of context: "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit."

    In short, don't pay me to raise your PageRank, [because only improving site quality can do that,] but instead pay me for "targetted traffic", which you can't measure, but is really much more important! Yuk yuk yuk!
    --

    When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!

  14. PR to guide purchases by Sam3.14 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Can you imagine some surfer finding the digital camera of his dreams at a knock-down bargain price but refusing to buy it because the page it's on only has a PR of one? I don't think so."

    Actually, I've done exactly that. After dismissing it based on the pagerank I read up on the site and found that it was in fact crooked. The author shouldn't take things for granted just because he doesn't trust pagerank...
  15. Wow by gumbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you've looked at the SEO world at all, you know that there are lots of people who write half-assed articles so they can have more unique content on their web site. Or, they offer those articles up to other sites to get links back to their site. The articles never really say anything, and are just an attempt to build up traffic.

    And then once in a while Slashdot goes and links to one of those useless articles on one of those web sites. Imagine how much money that guy just made from all the Slashdot visitors, not to mention the pagerank boost from a Slashdot link. And for an article that bad that he knocked out without really putting any effort into it?

    Wow.

  16. It's not that simple by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you aren't into cheating with cloaked pages and doorway pages, the best way to get targeted traffic is to add value to visitors' experience. They come to your site, find its a good site, and spread the word. The more useful and relevant your site, the more visitors will return. In a nutshell, make a good site. Simple, really. I wouldn't be surprised to find that pagerank was a decoy set up to distract search engine marketers and let google go about its business.

    I'm in full agreement that creating useful, relevant content is the cornerstone of website success. But it's not as easy as that. Pagerank is not a decoy - it is what allowed Google to take over as top dog in the search world. The core concept behind PageRank is that if a site is linked to by other sites, this must be for good reason. It is an indirect method of determining relevance. Of course it has been gamed over the years, but PageRank still matters. If it didn't, we'd all still be using AltaVista.

    The trickiest part of getting noticed by engines is obtaining useful inbound links. If people can't see your site, they won't be able to evaluate it and (hopefully) link to it. It's the old marketing conundrum. How do I get the word out about this great thing I've created, when I'm just one fish in a giant ocean? Some people go the quick and dirty route, using search engine spamming techniques, which are akin to the scummy marketing tactics of snail mail advertisers (ever received a piece of mail seemingly related to your home mortgage, and found it was actually an ad from a competing lender?).

    Just as with traditional offline marketing and advertising, there are legitimate ways to put the word out. They're slower and more labor intensive than fast buck methods, but they can help. Inbound links from well-respected sites, proper use of markup, clearly-written listings in directories, and keyword targeting can help your site gain visibility while helping searchers at the same time. Sites that ignore SEO can succeed, but most that do succeed rely on SEO to at least some degree.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:It's not that simple by Kent+Recal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      when I'm just one fish in a giant ocean?

      be the best fish. the only fish that one will ever need.
      it's as easy as that, nemo.
  17. google sitemaps is more useful by micheas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MURL:http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/> shows you which words are associated with your site. This gives a much clearer idea of how google views your site than pagerank alone, as your pagerank can be fixed by posting links to your site all over the place.

    This is also usefull if you are thinking of running adwords on your site, as it gives you an idea of what types of ads will appear on your site.

  18. You're Missing the Point of PR by writerjosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're missing the point of the Google toolbar in the first place: it's not to help out SEO guys, it's to help out average-joe surfers. Think about it, the LGB is a graphic representation that is meant to be easily understood at a quick glance: user sees high PR, user clicks/buys product on page. Voila! High PR does work after all! PR may not mean that much in the big picture of SEO from the SEO guys' perspective, but it means a whole lot from the user perspective. And isn't that what we're all trying to do in the first place; get the user to click? LGB still has LOTS of value.

  19. SEO = BS by rakerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: SEO is bullshit.
    You want good rank and good hits? Write good content.

  20. I call goofiness! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try to search for information on a specific product, esp. a piece of hardware. In a lot of cases you have to get tricky to see anything in the first page or two (I get 50 results per page) besides lots of sites claiming the lowest price on whatever you're looking for. I love it (NOT) when I see something like "Lowest prices... comparison of ..."; I go there, and there's not even a useful *link* to a comparison.

    I'd be *much* happier with google if they gave me a box to click to "turn off shopping sites".

    1. Re:I call goofiness! by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Informative

      I always throw in the word "review" when looking for product information. As for finding actual prices, it helps if you know the manufacturer model number (which is usually NOT the same as model printed on the front, even if that happens to be a number). If you can find just one site that sells the product, they usually have the MFR Model number, and you can go from there. Also starting points like Amazon or CNet will often have information, as well as links to other information.