<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Warning; SEO confusion spreads PageRank madness</title>
		<description>Discuss Warning; SEO confusion spreads PageRank madness</description>
		<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:26:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.huomah.com/feed/com_content/455/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>PageRank Considerations</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2145</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hope this article released some of your unexpressed SEO emotions you've been accumulating for a while now =) Now reallly... Great post Dave! And thanks for making a serious stand on the topic. Here what I've learned about PageRank: > every webpage is launched with a certain amount of its own PR; when it was first established, back in the '90, this initial -real- PR equaled (1-d) where d is the "damping factor" and = 0.85, thus making the initial PR of any webpage 0.15; > the Real PR has the same building principles as the TBPR but is much higher as a numerical figure (going up to milions) as compared with the 11 levels PR Toolbar; > Basically, Google takes all those real values and separates them into these 11 different ranges. > Although a webpage has a toolbar PageRank of 2 it doesn’t mean that it has twice as less real PageRank compared to a webpage with toolbar PageRank of 4. In reality the difference in PageRank between the two webpages is much higher. Nobody knows the actual real PageRank base that Google uses to express the values in its PR Toolbar. Hope you find this extra info useful! Thanks for the revigorating post, once again! Cristian]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Cristian</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2145</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Google Toolbar</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2118</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nice blog post,i think you want any website google page rank,you just download Google Toolbar and any other help this toolbar.You want back link,cached snapshot of page in your web site this google toolbar.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Hampry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2118</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dj says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2005</link>
			<description><![CDATA["...However, it is only one piece of the puzzle, as one must consider the subject page's target keywords and other non-PR calculation factors (such as? Some feedback on this would be great too)." see http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors Very confusing 'industry' this. Lots of cowboys out there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dj</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2005</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Toolbar PageRank is a joke</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1975</link>
			<description><![CDATA[People still care about TBPR as they used to do, despite most of the top search results are not from sites which have TBPR 8 or 9.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Frank Jiang</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1975</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>alternatives??</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1974</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You say the actual PR is not readily available. I am assuming you mean it can be inferred somehow using a combination of other metrics. Is this the case? If so what kind of metrics? If not how do you guage the quality of a site in terms of its value as a backlink source? Thanks J]]></description>
			<dc:creator>JamesT</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1974</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1907</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rob I doubt there is really a way to muck with the TB data without hacking into Google. It may be that they've recently received a manual adjustment on the home page? Hard to say really.. @Ian ok, well we have no really way to know the actual PR of a given page (at the time of viewing) the closest we can get are the metrics from places such as MozRank or Majestic's A/C Rank... although both are problematic. While they can analyze the link data, none of us know the actually weighting that Google gives to the links at the end of the day... @Ian - you've pretty much nailed it. It is a defined numbers, as oposed to the flaoting point one (actual PR), it's only updated 3-4 times per year and when the data is exported, it is usually 2-3 months old...sooooo... therein lies our problem with it as a strong metric. @Jignesh - your first problem is that link data from Google is generally just a snapshot, not ALL the links they've found. I would use Yahoo, LinkScape or Majestic to get link data. And really, TBPR should never be a metric/benchmark for a SEO campaign. Targeted rankings and traffic (referrer data) is far more important.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1907</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>TBPR and back links | one more confusion</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I would like to rise one more point about TBPR and back links. So far we all have conception that if we want to improve TBPR, we should get back links from higher pr pages. I had seen one website having PR-5, and Google shows no backlinks when i checked with link:domainname . You will think that domain may have fake pr but i am sure that PR is not fake for this website. here is the status of website: - it is 2 years old domain (active blog working since two year) - It was pr-4 previously (before 4 months) and also had few backlinks. - in recent pr updates, home page pr improved to 5 and internal pages also got pr to 3 and 4. Now my question is, when you check back links in Google, it shows zero. why? This is what i am thinking about PR updates: - Only back links is not important - Google may not display backlinks which actually works for that site. - it may happen that the website may have quality content which leads to improve the pr. Kindly share your thought on given point. thanks Jignesh]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jignesh</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-2002</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Confused Even More Now</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1969</link>
			<description><![CDATA[First off, my WebMasterTools PR almost always differed from the TBPR. Does anyone actually know how WMT PR differed from TBPR? My sense is that it reflected a snapshot of Google's internal PR calculation as of the beginning of the reported month. We can also surmise that Google's PR calculation is a reflection of a webpage's relative authority (as dictated by Google's internal calculation). However, it is only one piece of the puzzle, as one must consider the subject page's target keywords and other non-PR calculation factors (such as? Some feedback on this would be great too). So, TBPR is only helpful in the sense that it reflects a snapshot of Google's historic (2 to 3 mos. prior) internal PR (rounded to an integer). Correct? Finally, TBPR can be gamed, so any reliance on it should be accompanied by analysis of external factors (as noted earlier). Is this an accurate description? Thanks in advance for any feedback.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1969</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Can we check the actual PR?</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1971</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree that TBPR does not equal the actual PR and should not be treated as such. But since we can't check the real PR (or can we?) we're left with just two choices: either we use the TBPR as a relative metric or indication of the real PageRank or we dump PR as a factor in our link analysis and other SEO activities altogether. Any thoughts on this? I've never been obsessed with PR. When checking a sites authority I mostly rely on the traffic, the sites rankings for relative keywords and other metrics. After reading your article I searched a bit for tools that claim to check the 'real' PR. The 'real' PR value they show is the same as TBPR which further spreads this misconception.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1971</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Toolbar PageRank Spoofing</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1973</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Has anyone ever heard of the ability to spoof the toolbar pagerank? I was sent a link exchange request from a dodgy looking site the other day. The page that my link would supposedly have been on showed a PR of 5. This was a deep page on the site, showed no backlinks in any link tool that I could find, the home page had a 0 pagerank and also had 0 in links. Is it possible to send a false signal to the browser toolbar as to the PR of a page?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rob Woods</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Warning-SEO-confusion-spreads-PageRank-madness.html#comment-1973</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
