Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4.
Maybe someone can shed some light on it.

To summarise, I see the positives and negatives of our site as follows :

Positives
- site has good content. We could be classed as an authority on some communication protocols (40,000 hits per day).
- no 'link farm' links.
content updated regularly.
- successful Google Adwords program (substantial investment).

Negatives
- no site map.
- same Description Tag in several hundred pages.
- backlinks have dropped from 5000 to 860 over past months. 650 of those backlinks are internal.
- backlinks to homepage are www.mysite.com/index.html (through image files). We have some text links to homepage (www.mysite.com), but they are at the very bottom of each page.
- some management think it is unethical to swap links with sites we do not know (so, no backlink program planned).

Could we have been penalised for the repetitive Description Tag.?
From PR6 to PR4 seem like one big drop.

My main concern is that when thee SERPS are updated, we could loose a lot of traffic.???

It sounds to me more like a case of your company not developing you optimization as "aggressivly" as the rest of your market. It's a reletive game. You may feel you are as strong now as you where 6 month ago, but if the rest of the market is stronger you are relatively less competitive.


some management think it is unethical to swap links with sites we do not know (so, no backlink program planned).

There are many ways to build links - and link swapping is only one (the least effective in my mind) but I do think you need to have aserious talk with that management about the market they play in. There is, in my mind, no reason to play the game if you don't want to accept the terms and for most vertical markets links count heavily. If your management don't "believe" in links you should make a calculation for them that illustrate how much it will cost them in additional P4P budgets if they loose the organic part and want to stay visible in search engines. Money talks :)

If you were going to drop/raise in the SERP's it likely would have happened before the Toolbar PR (which is apparently months old and not accurate) went down.

PR is likely based solely on incoming links, so that is really the only area you need to look into.

Don't rely on the Google Link: command as it only ever shows a sample and nobody (outside Google) knows what this sample is based on. Try msn beta as they seem to be showing the most backlinks.

Could we have been penalised for the repetitive Description Tag.? I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a penalty. IMO you are either in or out. If you use spammy methods these are either ignored (thus no rank boost from them) or, when/if they get bad enough (very rare), you are dropped completely. Or, their algo, as yet, does not know about the spammy method, which is less likely.

I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a penalty. IMO you are either in or out.
That is your opinion and you're entitled to have it, but events of the past few years certainly don't validate or confirm the theory. Quite the contrary.

Sites are NOT *in* the index and doing OK as normal or *out* of the index completely. No - spammy methods are not ignored, nor are things that are inadvertantly spammy.

Ask some of the people who experienced the +20 penalty of a few years ago. Or the PR0 disaster, where sites merely got stripped of their Page Rank. Running into filters does not take sites out of the index altogether.

If you use spammy methods these are either ignored (thus no rank boost from them)
For the entire site, or do the spammy methods being ignored only apply to some of the search terms for a site?

I'm afraid you'll have to substantiate that with detailed reasoning for it to be accepted as reasonable logic.

No - spammy methods are not ignored, nor are things that are inadvertantly spammy As I said, IMO, they are only ingnored by Google in such a way that no credit is given for the spammy method. I believe the Google does NOT wish to ban a site until it can no longer control it via its algo.

Ask some of the people who experienced the +20 penalty of a few years ago. Or the PR0 disaster, where sites merely got stripped of their Page Rank. Running into filters does not take sites out of the index altogether You have proof that these were the effect of a "Filter" and not a change in the algo? Remember, we are talking today, not years ago.

To me, it makes no sense for Google to "Filter" out pages they have added to their database already. It makes more sense to add them and ignore the spammy method via their algo so as no boost is given for the spammy method.

One only has to see the millions of spammy pages in the SERP's to see they are likely not filtering. In these cases, these same pages would likely be in the same SERP position if they dropped the spam anyway. If there was a "filter" these pages would get nowhere near page 1. Ignoring is likely far easier than filtering.

Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4.

My main concern is that when thee SERPS are updated, we could loose a lot of traffic.???
So you haven't lost any major rankings, nor has your traffic dropped, but you're worried about the meter and want to take preemptive action in case of something that hasn't yet happened and might not at all.

My advice? Stop looking at the meter. Until you know something's definitely wrong, mess with stuff. IE, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Broke means you see a drop in TRAFFIC from Google overall, not a PR meter drop or a drop for a particular term (since overall, other terms might be doing better for you).

There's a chance something is going to happen, so you should act now. But there's also a chance your actions might just mess something up.

same Description Tag in several hundred pages.
Google does index this text and sometimes uses it for description display. The descriptions should be unique to each particular page simply because that's best for the user. Having them unique to the page, with the key terms you want the page to be found for, might also a very tiny, tiny bit help with rankings. Sure, make that change.

some management think it is unethical to swap links with sites we do not know (so, no backlink program planned).
Management should be told that you should link to any site that you think will help your users. And if that helps you get links back from those sites, so much the better.

I doubt your similar description tags are the cause of your PR fall, much more likely to be linkage based, IMO.

You might also consider pointing the www.mysite.com/index.html links to the .com, and perhaps start working on descriptions ;-)

BTW, has there been a concurrent fall in rankings?

Just as a reference, there was a discussion just a short while back on PR

Examining Reasons Why Page Rank Can Drop or Change (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?threadid=2507)

Has the number of pages fully indexed on the site changed with the site: query?

Added:

- backlinks to homepage are www.mysite.com/index.html (through image files). We have some text links to homepage (www.mysite.com), but they are at the very bottom of each page.
Backlinks from within the site should always be consistent. I've seen several sites with problems that had to change that inconsistency.

Incidentally, is the alt attribute in those images linked to the homepage all the same throughout the site? I've personally experienced a problem with that. I've not noticed all sites experiencing it, but a couple of mine have as well as others I've noticed.

imho, glengara is on to somthing with the description, each page should have a unique title, meta description, meta keywords, etc. And other elements toward the page top also have to be looked at. Not for necessarily for PR reasons - but they should be, nevertheless.

Dave Hawley Said :
I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a penalty. IMO you are either in or out.

That is total rubbish , google have many different penalties and it's never your in or out ..... thats would make life so much easier...

and i would never have to ask an SE rep if this site has a Penalty... and the answer is usally YES ! FYI

DaveN

my favorite SE rep response was you are pr0 because of your excessive cross linking ... ok fair cop :)

DaveN

That is total rubbish No honestly, I'm really not convinced. I'm willing to be convinced though. Something a little more concrete than "rubbish" would be nice. :rolleyes:

IMO, Google's not passing a reward (PR etc) is not a penalty. All pages start from the same starting line and as time goes by some get bigger rewards than others, some get no/little rewards. A penalty would imply that some are sent back before the original start line, to me this is rare and is when the site/page is out of the index.

>>I'm willing to be convinced though

Fact 1:
It was publicly posted about that PR0 was a penalty, that was rolled back gradually over a period of several months time - also publicly posted.

Fact 2:
There were hundreds of people who heard a Google rep publicly - from a speakers platform - talking about a duplicate content penalty being rolled out last year that would automatically be lifted if the condition had been cleared up when the bot returned after 30 days.

It was publicly posted about that PR0 was a penalty, that was rolled back gradually over a period of several months time - also publicly posted Yes, that it was publicly posted is undoubtedly a fact. No disagreement there.

There were hundreds of people who heard a Google rep publicly - from a speakers platform - talking about a duplicate content penalty being rolled out last year that would automatically be lifted if the condition had been cleared up when the bot returned after 30 days. So the duplicate page was dropped/filtered (out)?

Any filter, by definition, whether it's an Child filter, Penalty filter, Duplicate filter etc, is an attempt by Google to omit those that don't meet the criterion, or to only shown those that do meet the criterion. This is what filters do.

Filter (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filter&r=67)Computer Science. A program or routine that blocks access to data that meet a particular criterion: a Web filter that screens out vulgar sites.

That is total rubbish ok maybe slightly harsh but i say what I feel and think.

apart from betraying the trust of SE reps which I have gain for the years it's hard to really prove. so I have been in the SEO industry since 1998, I think that people that know me it's true to said I'm a no holds barred type of guy ..

I talk to Googleguy and TIM (theothertim) over here quite regularly and have many other SE friends ... but hey by day I'm a whitehat SEO and at night I'm a Blackhat Spammer ...

so i have had sites rank of months #1 #2 with guest book links alone, then Google brought out the guest book penalty so to combat that I linked from 3 pr8 sites which i owned didn't make a difference still sat at #51 never move

so I built new site and and got links from Bloggs which ranked, but google as started adding a penalty for that (more dampening then a penalty)

I have seen the pass no Pagerank penalty

I used to have all the top 10 slots in google for a single keyword I now have 2, the other 8 picked up penalties

my Favorite was i got two sites hand removed in the days you could tell it was a hand job and the site that they where linking to picked up a penalty TOO ...pffft

so I 301ed the hand banned sites and yep they passed the penalty on

DaveN

so i have had sites rank of months #1 #2 with guest book links alone, then Google brought out the guest book penalty It's more a case of they started not passing rewards (not penalize) for self-promotion links.


more dampening then a penalty Yes.


my Favorite was i got two sites hand removed in the days you could tell it was a hand job and the site that they where linking to picked up a penalty TOO ...pffft But you orginally said "different penalties and it's never your in or out"

Dave : of course you can be out, i ment it's never just in or out


not passing rewards ... that would be the same as "having a harmful effect" like a penalty

DaveN

Hi guys,
great discussion, but do you have any input on the original question....

hinote, first let me say sorry !!

just my thoughts

site has good content. We could be classed as an authority on some Communication protocols (40,000 hits per day).

Has the traffic stayed the same or have you seen a drop

successful Google Adwords program (substantial investment).

have you ever asked a your adwords rep to speak to an engineer to help you out... it may be worth a shot


no site map.

Question you have to ask yourself is do you need one how ?? how many page in your site how many indexed.. I have a site with around 750,000 page indexed without a site map .. but the site has over 2 million pages in total but there are other ways to get a full index ... deep links etc

Same Description Tag in several hundred pages.

Never a good thing if the site is database driven then it easy to change the tag on the fly, but would not effect pagerank

backlinks have dropped from 5000 to 860 over past months. 650 of those backlinks are internal.

thats you PR drop right there the questioned i would ask is the 4000+ links where they externals or internals

some management think it is unethical to swap links with sites we do not know (so, no backlink program planned).

Big mistake, try building another site and go three way linking

hinote: "Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4." Either the toolbar PR value is broken or you got a hand penalty. If you got a hand penalty I would think it would have to be some thing pretty serious and not just a little keyword stuffing.

As a rule Google in the past has tried to not get into a lot of hand penalties (according to GoogleGuy). They note the offending sites and put them in a db, tweak their filters and check the db to see how the changes worked.

Even if you did get a PR hand penalty, PR has been devalued in its Ranking weight and it shouldn't change you Rankings much. But having said that you need to find out if you have a hand penalty and if you do why and fix what Google does link.

Of course it is possible that Google has made changes to the filters so that when they find "bad pratices" that it automatically dings you a couple of units on the PR scale. I kind of doubt it though.

If you are not all ready in DMOZ and Yahoo you need to get into those and there are about 100 to 150 good directories out there that I suggest you get into. Your looking at spending $1500 to $2000 on that.

I can't imagine someone thinking its unethical to swap links unless they were a brainwashed Google employee : )

Check out Link Building 101 Link Building 101 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2616) and Directory Submissions 101 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2783)

DaveN: "...thats you PR drop right there..." The last toolbar PR update was on Oct 5th which was 58 days ago so he wouldn't see any movement in the toolbar PR because of a drop in links until a toolbar PR update.

Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4...

Positives
- site has good content. We could be classed as an authority on some communication protocols (40,000 hits per day).
- no 'link farm' links.
content updated regularly.
- successful Google Adwords program (substantial investment).

None of the above factors have any bearing on PR

Negatives
- no site map.
- same Description Tag in several hundred pages.
- backlinks have dropped from 5000 to 860 over past months. 650 of those backlinks are internal.
- backlinks to homepage are www.mysite.com/index.html (through image files). We have some text links to homepage (www.mysite.com), but they are at the very bottom of each page.
- some management think it is unethical to swap links with sites we do not know (so, no backlink program planned).


The sitemap and the description tag have no bearing on your PR.

How are your determining how many backlinks you have? If you are using the Google link command, you should be aware that it is only showing perhaps 10% or so of the links it knows about, and is showing them in a random fashion.

Pointing links to both the generic site root and index.htm will split your PR between those pages, better to change those links if possible.

Unless the page is very large (>100kbytes) the location of your text links has only a small factor in ranking and none at all in PR.

Could we have been penalised for the repetitive Description Tag.?
From PR6 to PR4 seem like one big drop.

My main concern is that when thee SERPS are updated, we could loose a lot of traffic.???

The repetitive description tag has no bearing on PR, but any or all of the following might have"

Have you had a decrease in the number of pages Google reports with the site:URL search?

Have any of the sites linking to you had pages drop from google or have your links on those pages been dropped?

Google has recently increased its number of indexed pages by almost 40% and that may be be reflected in the PR that is reported in the Toolbar.

In general don't worry about PR so long as your rankings and traffic are still good.

Hi Mel,
thank you for the input.

I find it strange that none of the positives or negatives listed have any bearing on PR.
What does have a bearing.?

We use the Yahoo link command to count the backlinks.
We have approx 2000 pages in the site.
The robots file allows about 700 to be indexed.

Before Google started to sample the links, we could see 4000+ links.
Could it have been counting multiple links from internal pages.?

Now, when I report backlinks with Yahoo :
www.mysite.com/index.html shows 732 backlinks.
www.mysite.com shows 754 backlinks

Links from other pages/sites are what have a bearing on PR.
The robots file allows about 700 to be indexed.If this is recent, it could explain the drop in Toolbar PR.

Now, when I report backlinks with Yahoo :
www.mysite.com/index.html shows 732 backlinks.
www.mysite.com shows 754 backlinksIt is best to only have links to you, use one or the other.

You have proof that these were the effect of a "Filter" and not a change in the algo? Remember, we are talking today, not years ago.

The proof is in the pudding. Sites that were filtered dropped by 20+ points. Those weren't interested in any kind of semantic nit-picking, so convince them that it wasn't filters.

To me, it makes no sense for Google to "Filter" out pages they have added to their database already. It makes more sense to add them and ignore the spammy method via their algo so as no boost is given for the spammy method.
Please, PLEASE understand that it does not matter what makes sense to you or what makes sense to me or anyone else. What makes sense to us does not constitute factual information, so what makes sense in anyone's estimation doesn't contravent empirical reality.

They do not "filter" them out of the database entirely, they just lose points so to speak. If they "ignore" certain things that add points to ranking scores, what in Heaven's name is the difference between that - demoting a site, based on matching some criteria for lowering scores - and penalizing a site? NONE!!

What in the world is the difference between dropping from one to thirty for one reason or another? If you drop because of something, is a rose any less a rose if you choose not to call it a rose, but choose to give it another name?

Sites that were filtered dropped by 20+ pointsThat would not be the effect of a filter.


They do not "filter" them out of the database entirely, they just lose points so to speakNo, a filter does not 'normally' take them out of the database entirely (although it likely does in the case of dulplicate content), but is does stop them from being shown. A filter does not make a page/site "lose points so to speak".



If they "ignore" certain things that add points to ranking scores, what in Heaven's name is the difference between that - demoting a site, based on matching some criteria for lowering scores - and penalizing a site? NONE!!I really don't think you understand the true meaning of the word "filter". I posted a unbias reference to it's true meaning so like you say, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. You are using the term incorrectly.

Think about it like this (nothing to do with filters though). Googles ultimate aim is to deliver its searchers the most relevant results possible based on the search term used, no secret there. Now, if the most relevant page happens to also use some 'spammy' methods (it is not the most relevant because of any spammy methods though) then it is not likely to drop the page to page x as it would no longer be serving it's searchers the most relevant results would it? If Google did do, as you are suggesting, it would be a clear case of biting of its own nose to spite its face. Who would benefit from that? (rhetorical).

Every now and again, Google will tweak the algo used to rank pages. When this happens, those that were considered the most relevant may no longer be. No penalty is being given, although those that suffer will scream it is.

If you drop because of something, is a rose any less a rose if you choose not to call it a rose, but choose to give it another name?A rose is rose, It does not become a daffodil because a lot of people start calling it by the wrong name.

That would not be the effect of a filter.
Then what was it? What would it be called?

Quote:
>>They do not "filter" them out of the database entirely, they just lose points so to speak

>>No, a filter does not take them out of the database entirely, but is does stop them from being shown. A filter does not make a page/site "lose points so to speak".
If it stops them from being shown, then why were they still being shown?

I really don't think you understand the true meaning of the word "filter".
So then, you need to explain to us exactly what a filter is and how it works.

Marcia, I have explained all this and supplied a link and the meaning of the word "filter".

Hi Mel,
thank you for the input.

I find it strange that none of the positives or negatives listed have any bearing on PR.
What does have a bearing.?

The only factors that have bearing on the True PR which Google uses to some degree in its ranking algo are the number of links, the PR of the page they comes from and how many outbound links there are sharing the linking page.

Now if you start talking about the PR which is indicated on the Toolbar then you may have to include other factors such as how many pages Google is currently indexing, what conventions they are using to convert True Pagerank to toolbar PR, etc, but these are merely display conventions chosen by Google and have no effect on your rankings.

We use the Yahoo link command to count the backlinks.
We have approx 2000 pages in the site.
The robots file allows about 700 to be indexed.

Before Google started to sample the links, we could see 4000+ links.
Could it have been counting multiple links from internal pages.?

Now, when I report backlinks with Yahoo :
www.mysite.com/index.html shows 732 backlinks.
www.mysite.com shows 754 backlinks

if your backlinks are dropping in both Yahoo and Google it would seem that you must be actually losing links somehow, not just a Google glitch.

Dave Hawley: "If this is recent, it could explain the drop in Toolbar PR." A drop in links will not change your toolbar PR untill a toolbar PR update. The toolbar PR is only as up to date as the last toolbar PR update. What can explain a toolbar PR drop is a glitch for your toolbar PR values or a hand penalty.

bobmutch: drop in links will not change your toolbar PR untill a toolbar PR update. The toolbar PR is only as up to date as the last toolbar PR update Yes, so why can't an inclusion of a robots.txt file (which was telling googlebot to exclude x pages) be the cause of a toolbar PR drop? Unless you know the date the robots.txt file was added (and it was after the last update), I cannot see what your point is?

Dave Hawley: My point is very clear. You said "If this is recent, it could explain the drop in Toolbar PR" I noted that a drop in links doesn't give you a drop in toolbar PR - not untill the toolbar PR is updated! There are a number of ways that you can get a drop in toolbar PR on a page inbetween PR updates and one of them ISN'T a change in the number of IBLs.

Far as I know the only ways the Toolbar PR value can change inbetween toolbar PR updates is that the toolbar PR value goes wacked in Google db, you get a penalty, page goes offline or is not accessable by Google.

The toolbar isn't an accurate gauge of what the real PR is, as Google has it calculated. We don't see what they see, so for the most part the toolbar is relatively worthless but all that is really beside the point.

The main thing is that it isn't the PR that's the most important factor anyway, it's how the site is ranking for the chosen keyword phrases and that doesn't necessarily depend on the number of pages indexed. Whether there are 700 or 7,000 site pages indexed, or 700 or 7,000 inbound links, aside from PR there's also the quanity of IBLs, anchor text being used and which pages are being linked to - and looking at how the IBLs are being done, and how the internal site navigation is being done.

Novel idea that came from a reliable source and is worth holding on to, especially in tough times: sometimes there are things that just aren't working any more like they used to. It can be that what worked at one time for a site isn't working any more.

Taking the logic a step further, it can be that there are links that were giving the site PR that aren't working any more for one reason or another. That could account for a PR drop, though again - PR isnt' the most important thing. It's all about getting targeted traffic and the bottom line - conversions.

Sorry Bob, but your point is very unclear to me. How do you know the robots.txt file was added after the last update? In other words, unless you know when it (robots.txt) was added you are guessing.

Rather than getting into bickering over details that go off on tangents - the topic here isn't TBPR, not as the end concern of the member - how about let's look, instead, at what the member's actual concern is

My main concern is that when thee SERPS are updated, we could loose a lot of traffic.???
The SERPs are updated on a continuous basis, and no doubt reflect scoring factors known to Google internally on a "current" basis, including the actual PR of sites. So a toolbar update doesn't necessarily mean what it used to in the days of the monthly updates as we used to know them.

Marcia, you seem to dislike debate, difference of opinion and anyone that dares to question any firmly held beliefs. That is not a good thing at all.

The very title of this post is PR considerations and the fact that toolbar PR has dropped. My statement about the inclusion of robot.txt file, that has told googlebot to not spider x pages could be a reason, if it was added added recently (very loose term).

Dave Hawley: "My statement about the inclusion of robot.txt file, that has told googlebot to not spider x pages could be a reason, if it was added added recently (very loose term)." What we are dealing here is a drop from a PR6 to a PR4 As I have already noted toolbar PR doesn't go up and down with the addition and removable of links inbetween toolbar PR updates. I have noted the reasons that toolbar PR can drop.

If a file is not available either because it is deleted, the site is down OR the robots.txt file forbids the Googlebot to read the file the toolbar PR will drop from what ever it is to PR0, not PR6 to PR4. Having said that, when you get a particial drop in between toolbar PR updates it is either the Google value is gone wacky or you have received a hand penalty.

"How do you know the robots.txt file was added after the last update? In other words, unless you know when it (robots.txt) was added you are guessing." Dave what bearing do you think that the time frame of the robots.txt be added has to do with a page dropping from PR6 to PR4. I am not quite understand you on this one.

Dave my other point that you are not understand the context of was in reference to you stating the the change in IBL could change the toolbar PR. I was just stating that a decrease or increase in IBL inbetween a toolbar PR update will not effect the toolbar PR value. So that would not be a consideration as to why the PR changed.

hitote: "Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4. Maybe someone can shed some light on it." You say your site was downgraded. How many pages is your site and did all the pages drop in PR? Also it would help abit if you want, to pm me the site URL.

Marcia: "Taking the logic a step further, it can be that there are links that were giving the site PR that aren't working any more for one reason or another. That could account for a PR drop," That is not a factor. A drop or an increase in IBLs inbetween toolbar PR updates will not change the toolbar PR value.

I agree we don't want to bicker and we don't want to go off topic : ) I guess it seems to me that Dave was saying that a change in IBL could be the reason that the PR changed, the same as you seem to state also, and I am just pointing out very clearly that that is not the came. Ask anyone in the know on PR and they will tell you changes in IBLs inbetween a TBPR update will not change the value of the TBPR value.

What we are dealing here is a drop from a PR6 to a PR4 AND a drop in Rankings for keywordsNo Bob, what we are dealing with is drop in toolbar PR only.

If a file is not available either because it is deleted, the site is down OR the robots.txt file forbids the Googlebot to read the file the toolbar PR will drop from what ever it is to PR0, not PR6 to PR4. No, it's a case of the robots.txt file telling Google to not spider some pages on the site in question. These pages, now being exluded, could be the reason for a drop in toolbar PR from 6 to 4 if they were linking back to home page, which I'm assume is the page the question is referring to.

Dave what bearing do you think that the time frame of the robots.txt be added has to do with the Rankings falling and a page dropping from PR6 to PR4. See above.

Dave: Ok my mistake I just read the thread over again I though there was a drop in Rankings also. Thanks for pointing that out : )

"[i]These pages, now being exluded, could be the reason for a drop in toolbar PR from 6 to 4 if they were linking back to home page, which I'm assume is the page the question is referring to." How can pages being excluded cause the drop in toolbar PR from PR6 to PR4. I have stated now about 4 times that this is not possible. Could you explain the proceed of how that happens?

Ask anyone in the know on PR and they will tell you changes in IBLs inbetween a TBPR update will not change the value of the TBPR value. No of course not. But why are you insiting this change/drop in IBLs happened in between a TBPR update? In other words, how do you know when the robots.txt file was added?

Just answer me this one question Bob, then I'm giving up. Do you know when the robots.txt file was added?

How can pages being excluded cause the drop in toolbar PR from PR6 to PR4. I have stated now about 4 times that this is not possible. Could you explain the proceed of how that happens?Because the pages which have now been excluded will no longer be spidered by Google and there is a real chance that if these pages (the ones no longer being spidered) were linking back to the page that has dropped in toolbar PR. So, they would no longer be passing any PR when previously they may have been.

"No of course not. But why are you insiting this change/drop in IBLs happened in between a TBPR update? In other words, how do you know when the robots.txt file was added?" It doesn't matter to me when teh change/drop in the IBLs happened nor does it matter when the robots.txt was added. The issue here is the PR dropped from PR6 to a PR4. This has happened inbetween toolbar PR updates. The last update was 60 days ago and we have not had one in the last few days. So we are discussing a toolbar drop inbetween a toolbar PR update. Of couse I don't know when the robots.txt was add. But what does that go to do with toolbar PR dropping inbetween toolbar PR uddates? Nothing!

"Because the pages which have now been excluded will no longer be spidered by Google and there is a real chance that if these pages (the ones no longer being spidered) were linking back to the page that has dropped in toolbar PR. So, they would no longer be passing any PR when previously they may have been."

So you think between toolbar PR updates (that is where we are now) that if some pages that were linking to the pageA are not longer linked to pageA this could cause pageA to dropped in toolbar PR? If you hold to this could you explain the process of how this happens.

So you think between toolbar PR updates (that is where we are now) that if some pages that were linking to the pageA are not longer linked to pageA this could cause pageA to dropped in toolbar PR? Other than the very time it occurs, what other time is there other than between a Toolbar PR update?. In other words, we are between toolbar PR updates nearly all the time. Just like we are always, between 2003 and 2005 during the entire year of 2004.

So you think between toolbar PR updates (that is where we are now) that if some pages that were linking to the pageA are not longer linked to pageA this could cause pageA to dropped in toolbar PR? If you hold to this could you explain the process of how this happensI say it could be the reason. The pages are likely still linked to the PR drop page, but as Google no longer spiders them (as per the robots.txt file instructions), any (if any) PR that was being passed is no longer being passed. This is the very basics of PR. That is, Page A linking to Page B is seen as a vote for Page B from Page A.

The robots.txt file has been in place for years and has not been updated recently.

I'm soooo glad we have that cleared up :D

Give us the freaking Url Hinote, so at least these Jesuitical arguments can be relevant!

Dave Hawley: "say it could be the reason. The pages are likely still linked to the PR drop page, but as Google no longer spiders them (as per the robots.txt file instructions), any (if any) PR that was being passed is no longer being passed. This is the very basics of PR. That is, Page A linking to Page B is seen as a vote for Page B from Page A." The toolbar PR is static and is not updated except on toolbar PR update day. You could remove all links to a site and the toolbar PR will stay the same till there is another toolbar PR update. You need to go and read about how a toolbar PR update takes place! Removed links is not the answer for movement in between toolbar PR updates. You need to go and do abit of research on this.

hinote: Thanks for the URL. Look like you got a ding on your home page from a PR6 to a PR4 and it very well may be a hand penalty. I see all your subpages are PR5s and they didn't change. Do you have any duplicate pages between your EU and US sites? Have you made any major changes in the site in the last 3 months. Do you have any retail outlets you are letting use copies of your product pages? Are you involved in any black hat practices at all that you know of? I will take some time Monday and take a good look at the site and see what I can find.

The toolbar PR is static and is not updated except on toolbar PR update day. You could remove all links to a site and the toolbar PR will stay the same till there is another toolbar PR update. You need to go and read about how a toolbar PR update takes place! Removed links is not the answer for movement in between toolbar PR updates. You need to go and do abit of research on this For goodness sake Bob. You yourself are even saying "toolbar PR will stay the same till there is another toolbar PR update" (which is again stating the obvious). Please work it out from there will you, it's not that hard.

hinote: Thanks for the URL. Look like you got a ding on your home page from a PR6 to a PR4 and it very well may be a hand penalty. I disagree bob, I think it will be good if you stop spreading imaginary stories, There is rarely a manual penalty and if there is one it usually results in a PR0,

I feel googleguys have more important work than adjusting ones site from PR6 to PR4,

Reasons for a PR drop might be a glitch in the toolbar or the recent occurrence in toolbar change where the homepage Pagerank is 1 point lesser than the next level pages for new sites, Seen this across many sites we monitor, so this is just automated and never hand penalty or what so ever you call it,

ill be happy to see evidence the other way,

Agree, a "hand penalty" is extremely unlikely as apposed to "very well may be".

powerofeyes: "I disagree bob, I think it will be good if you stop spreading imaginary stories" I don't think that is what I would call spreading imaginary stories. A hand penalty may be one of the things it could be. All I stated is it "very well may be a hand penalty." No story, no spreading, just a suggest and I added that I would look at the site for him next week.

Dave Hawley: You tell me that a drop in IBL to a page could be the reason that the toolbar PR dropped. Its just not possible (except at the time of a toolbar PR update of course). Its not me that needs to work it out. But having said that I am going to bow out of this back and forth going no ware but off topic discuss where it seems no one is benifiting or learning. If you want to believe that I guess I will just have to leave you with that view.

except at the time of a toolbar PR update of courseYou are getting warmer Bob :)

You tell me that a drop in IBL to a page could be the reason that the toolbar PR dropped No Bob, they are you words not mine. IBL's do not come into it and I have not mentioned them in any attempt to suggest why the Toolbar PR dropped.

Perhaps you should read the thread from the start slowly, it's at least twice now you have made glaring mistakes.

Dave: I see 3 posts where it seem to be saying that the PR could have dropped because the page no longer has as many links. Where you seem to be saying that the clearest is in message #42 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=25733&postcount=42). Perhaps I am misunderstanding you then.

What did you mean when I ask you "So you think between toolbar PR updates (that is where we are now) that if some pages that were linking to the pageA are not longer linked to pageA this could cause pageA to dropped in toolbar PR? If you hold to this could you explain the process of how this happens" and you answered "I say it could be the reason."

If I have misunderstood you I am sorry. To me it seems that you have been saying that one of the reasons that the PR dropped from PR6 to PR4 could be the loss of links. Of course this is impossible as the toolbar PR is static and you can remove 95% of you inbound links and the toolbar PR will not move until there is a toolbar PR update.

To me it seems that you have been saying that one of the reasons that the PR dropped from PR6 to PR4 could be the loss of links. Of course this is impossible as the toolbar PR is static and you can remove 95% of you inbound links and the toolbar PR will not move until there is a toolbar PR update.
I agree with you on this, Toolbar PR is more static, 2 occasions it moves is One where there is a visible toolbar pagerank update,

second if a site suffers automated or manual penalty the toolbar Pagerank is set to zero even if there is no visible pagerank update for other sites,

Movement in inbound links will never affect the toolbar pagerank unless google does a pagerank update,

powerofeyes: Yes that is kind of the abc's of understanding toolbar PR. I may of course misunderstood Dave on this one or he may have not been explaining himself very well. It does how ever seem that he was orgainlly stating that a change in inbound links could effect toolbar PR at any time.

Have you ever or heard of a penalty where PR is not dropped all the way to PR0 in between toolbar PR updates?

Bob, it is me that owes you an apology. Despite telling you to re-read the posts etc and that I had re-read the OP 3 times I somehow did not acknowledge the very first line, that is "Our business site was downgraded on Thanksgiving Day from PR6 to PR4"

So, I aplogise earnestly. :o

Dave: Ok great I am glad I stuck with you. So needless to say you are clear that toolbar PR doesn't move up and down in between toolbar PR updates when IBLs are changed?

I will push my barrow the full mile, but when/if I'm wrong I will say so.

Just for the record though, it is not IBL (in-bound links) that I refer to, it's internal links that were excluded via the robots.txt file.

Dave: Ok great I am glad I stuck with you. So needless to say you are clear that toolbar PR doesn't move up and down in between toolbar PR updates when internal links are excluded via the robots.txt file?

Have you ever or heard of a penalty where PR is not dropped all the way to PR0 in between toolbar PR updates?
Not just heard, Have seen it many times, Tool bar has been zeroed for sites even without a toolbar pagerank update for other sites, Probably a manual penalty,

Also I have seen automated PR0's affecting some links pages before some months, Some people suffered a sudden PR0 for pages that has too much irrelavant links on it or pages that link to bad neighbourhood, The whole site didnt get affected but only the links page got affected,

So yes PR0's always happen without visible pagerank update for all sites,

powerofeyes: What about penalties where the PR doesn't drop to PR0 but where it drops form somethink like from a PR5 to a PR3? Which was my questions by the way.

powerofeyes: What about penalties where the PR doesn't drop to PR0 but where it drops form somethink like from a PR5 to a PR3? Which was my questions by the way.


Why do you call that a penalty, Those are not usually penalties, Most of them are natural for all sites,

There are some new sites which seem to suffer some sort of automated Pagerank penalty like forums.searchenginewatch.com which should be PR7 or PR8 but became only PR3 in the pagerank update,

This penalty seem to apply only to the homepage and for new sites only,


Any these type of penalties doesnt show changes between toolbar pagerank updates, They only move on the day when all the sites toolbar pagerank becomes live,

powerofeyes: "Why do you call that a penalty" I didn't call drops from PR5 to PR3 a penalty. I asked if you ever saw a penalty were a page dropped from a PR5 to a PR3. I didn't say that any drops like that were penalties. Any way I get the idea I am asking the wrong person.

Any way I get the idea I am asking the wrong person

I think you should get an idea you framed your questions in a wrong way,


I didn't wall drops from PR5 to PR3 a penalty. I asked if you ever saw a penalty were a page dropped from a PR5 to a PR3. I didn't say that any drops like that were penalties.

This question looks much better and the answer is NO I have not seen any toolbar pagerank movement inbetween pagerank updates,