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."

Comments

What's SEO?

[ebcdic]

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

Re:What's SEO?

[truthsearch]

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)

Re:What's SEO?

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:What's SEO?

[jdavidb]

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.

Demystified?

[neonprimetime]

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;

Re:Nooooo!

[truthsearch]

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...

Of course not

[Billosaur]

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.

Re:Useless Search Engine Optimization Blather

[nadamsieee]

This guy said nothing in a long tedious way.

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

Best way to get ranked higher...

[blake213]

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.

Do I understand this argument correctly?

[Darkforge]

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!

Wow

[gumbo]

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.

It's not that simple

[Infonaut]

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.