What Links Does Google Count?

[Dave Hawley]

Moderator Note: This thread has been split from Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=23689#post23689). In addition, other related threads on this topic worth reviewing are:


What Does allinanchor Really Show? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1960)
10,000 Links or 100 Links... (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1556)
Can google stop link buying? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=101)
How Fair is the Link Popularity Algorithm? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1779)
Sig Link - Myth or Magic for Link Development (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2061)
Change To Link Bomb Sign Of New Link Analysis Shift? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=700)
Link Building 101 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2616)



It was really frustrating to real quality SEOs because they know all links are counted by google
If you mean counted toward PageRank they aren't.

[powerofeyes]

If you mean counted toward PageRank they aren't.

What do you mean??, Ofcourse all links are counted for Pagerank calculation, A pagerank 0 cannot transfer any pagerank but that doesnt mean it is not counted,

Do you have any proof for those words???

[Dave Hawley]

You can have 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) on the one site all pointing to the Home page of that site and you will only get PR passed from one of those pages. In other words, 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) coming from 10,000 different sites is worth much more toward PR than 10,000 from the same site.

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.

[powerofeyes]

Ok I just ignored those links when i replied, I should have said all links google knows about and values will pass pagerank,

we should exclude comment spam, guestbook links etc in that, Google had long back figured ways to ignore them,

Same sitewide links do pass pagerank but only a very little amount of PR which is negligible,

I am not sure about forums though i do see some forum signature links work still,

[Marcia]

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.
And blogs. :)

PR0 means less than PR1 if we're going by Toolbar PR, but 95 cents isn't all that much less than a dollar. If you save all your pennies and nickels in a big jug for a year, it may not add up to a fortune, but it's still a few dollars more when it's added up than when the jug was empty.

But it isn't all about PR, that's only portion of it; it's about anchor text. I've seen blog and forum spam where people posted links to their whole network of sites, including interior pages - all with the appropriate anchor text.

I've found a bunch of those links just recently checking sites' backlinks at Yahoo; the forum page itself had been pulled already so it was a 404, but the cached copy was still there and you could see the URLs when mousing over the anchor text links. Easy to see at Yahoo, they're relatively slow to update compared to MSN and even slower with purging pages that are gone.

Then there was the three-day wonder that did the quick Houdini disappearing act, with the PPC affiliate links and the blog links at the bottom that led to a whole network of blogs. There was a huge trail of anchor text, a whole network's worth, even with a smidgen of PR, or none that showed - which is another nifty tool for gaslighting SEOs. ;)

[Dave Hawley]

I've seen blog and forum spam where people posted links to their whole network of sites, including interior pages - all with the appropriate anchor text.
Certainly no harm is doing that, but don't expect a boost in the SERP's from Google. Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.

Foum sigs and alike are totally self-serving and as such mean nothing for the SERP's. But hey, like I said, it's unlikely to do any harm and you may just get a customer to folllow the link.

[Chris_D]

Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.

Sorry Dave - could you clarify this for me? How do you actually KNOW that "the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text"? How can that relate to 'value'?

- If you buy a text link - then you usually get to specify the anchor text as part of the financial arrangement. Its usually a contract. Thats as direct as the site owner influence gets.

- If some one just gives you an inbound link for free without telling you - in my experience - they put your site name in the link anchor text (best case scenario) - or your URL - or worst case the anchor text is 'click here'. Value = Its free. Real value of inbound anchor text 'click here' ......

- If a personal friend puts a free link ftom his company's website to your company website - after calling you and asking you if its ok, and what you'd like the link to say.... then its also free = but it could also be valuable.

How does 'true value' come into this scenario Dave? What did you mean by "true value"?

[AussieWebmaster]

You can have 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) on the one site all pointing to the Home page of that site and you will only get PR passed from one of those pages. In other words, 10,000 pages (all PR5 or higher) coming from 10,000 different sites is worth much more toward PR than 10,000 from the same site.

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same. PR may not be passed but backlinks sure are counted. Not all but some... have it happening to me from numerous places.

[Dave Hawley]

I said: Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text

Sorry Danny, if you please allow me to clarify this one point then I will drop it.

I'm am speaking in the context of forum signatures, Guest books, FFA site etc and any site where you can directly control your anchor text. These site will give little (more likely zero) PR and the anchor text will likely not help you in any Google SERP boost.

Now, for bought links etc, Google would undoubtedly have a job on it's hands trying to differentiate between natural links and those that have been bought for the sole purpose of PR and/or rank boosting. However, just because something is hard to do, one should never assume that Google do not try. As we are all aware now, Google is about the only SE that can/does freely deep crawl the web to the extent it does. It has pages in its database that other SE's simply cannot spider (for a number of reasons).

Google have (likely still do) invested BIG $$'s in PageRank and I highly doubt that they would simply throw their hands in the air over those that are buying links for PR and/or SERP boosting. I would hazard a guess that they have a small army of geeks working full-time plugging any holes that can cause the SERP's to become less relevant. SERP relevancy is the very backbone of Google.

PR may not be passed but backlinks sure are counted. Not all but some... have it happening to me from numerous places. Yes, but counting backlinks alone does nothing toward SEO if the PR does not go with it. 1 million * 0 = 0

[Mel]

In my opinion I do not see PR as a necessary component of ranking in Google, sure it helps a miniscule amount, but I see no evidence whatever that the anchor text from a PR 8 page is ranked substantially different than the anchor text from a PR1 page. If anyone has some example that substatiates this suggestion I would be very interested in seeing it.

[I, Brian]

any site where you can directly control your anchor text. Dave, you may want to be careful making such broad unsupportable statements. Anchor text counts - the big issue is *how much* does it count. There are various apparent criteria in Google for evaluating the actual worth of any particular link - but claiming that such links have absolutely no impact on SERPs is a statement I believe many experienced SEO's here will flatly disagree with.

[Dave Hawley]

but claiming that such links have absolutely no impact on SERPs is a statement I believe many experienced SEO's here will flatly disagree with.
Yes I know that most SEO's will disagree (but not the wise ones), but I have proven it to myself many times over. Whether anyone else here agrees or not, is no skin off my nose. Besides, there is no proof being offered for most of what is posted here and other forums. Most statements (in regards to Google) come about as they have been said over and over so many times, those (that do not prove to themselves) start to think it's fact.

Believe or disbelieve, I don't care, but I will not be posting anything further on the matter in this thread at least.

[seobook]

>I'm am speaking in the context of forum signatures, Guest books, FFA site etc and any site where you can directly control your anchor text. These site will give little (more likely zero) PR and the anchor text will likely not help you in any Google SERP boost.

many search engines speak in ideals instead of how stuff actually works, but when it comes down to it there is no exact way to determine whether or not you control a link. if links were easily discounted based upon intent would Google Bombs still exist?

lots of sites have great ranking internal pages based on internal link structure. most pages are not strongly connected into the web. surely when possible search engines want to trust others more than what a webmaster says about himself, but they do weigh in many links that are obviously under the direct control of webmasters.

[Dave Hawley]

but when it comes down to it there is no exact way to determine whether or not you control a link Perhaps, but perhaps not. I would say Google has no problems at all in distinguishing a FFA site, Guest Book, Forum Signature etc. I would also lean torwards them knowing a lot more about pages, sites, links etc that anybody here. SERP relevancy is their pride and joy and they have the resources and $$ to at least try and retain it.


if links were easily discounted based upon intent would Google Bombs still exist? Google Bombs can exist on any page of any site, but whether they astually work depends on the page. For example, a Google Bomb will not work from a Forum Signature (I have tried at least 3 times).

lots of sites have great ranking internal pages based on internal link structure. most pages are not strongly connected into the web. Unless there are no external links pointing to them and no text on the page, to these site you mention, how can you claim "great ranking" is due to "link structure" and not any of the hundreds of other factors Google uses?

surely when possible search engines want to trust others more than what a webmaster says about himself, but they do weigh in many links that are obviously under the direct control of webmasters.
Perhaps, but how much weight and which ones? I know that Forum sigs, FFA links and Guest Books are given zero weight.

If you were Google, and there is a 10,000 page site that has a link back to the home page on all pages (like most sites). Would you give credit for the anchor text and page PR 10,000 times over, or simply give credit once? I would give credit once based on the highest PR page.

[seobook]

If you were Google, and there is a 10,000 page site that has a link back to the home page on all pages (like most sites). Would you give credit for the anchor text and page PR 10,000 times over, or simply give credit once? I would give credit once based on the highest PR page.
I think there is an inbetween. Search is not 100% binary.

some sites have recently ranked well in some major search engines based exclusively on guestbook links.

[Dave Hawley]

some sites have recently ranked well in some major search engines based exclusively on guestbook links In Google? Is so can you send me the URL's?

[seobook]

In Google? Is so can you send me the URL's?
I do not do tons of specific research on the various guestbook type techniques. the example I was thinking of was w MSN a few months ago, I have been told by some people that they are still effective in Google though...not for PageRank really, but for the effect of their anchor text on search relevancy. lots of various low power links add up in Google today.

[Dave Hawley]

Interesting. In the past, I have set up a page that is ONLY linked to via Guest Books and Forum signatures and used some very non-competetive anchor text. The page never showed in Google when searching for the anchor text.
I have been told by some people that they are still effective in Google though...not for PageRank really, but for the effect of their anchor text on search relevancy. Don't believe all you are told, that includes me, set up your own controlled experiment and I think you will find Google totally ingores self-serving links when it comes to position in the SERP's

[I, Brian]

For example, a Google Bomb will not work from a Forum Signature (I have tried at least 3 times).

Interesting. In the past, I have set up a page that is ONLY linked to via Guest Books and Forum signatures and used some very non-competetive anchor text. The page never showed in Google when searching for the anchor text.


How much time did you give it, though? Time enough for indexing deep pages? How much did you consider sandbox issues? And from how many different IP ranges did you apply it to? Did you also remember to naturalise the anchor text?

[Dave Hawley]

How much time did you give it, though?One was left for 3 months.

Time enough for indexing deep pages?
Yes, but it wasn't a deep page.

How much did you consider sandbox issues?
Yes.

And from how many different IP ranges did you apply it to?
One from myself. But there have been others that did a simliar test on other IP addresses.

Did you also remember to naturalise the anchor text?
Define "naturalise" ?

Care to share your answers to the exact same questions on your tests?

[Dave Hawley]

I, Brian: You really only need to check the search term "online business and marketing resources" (with quotes) via Google. I see you have some 2300 links from a forum with that exact text in your Forum signature. Yet, while the anchor text is picked up for the forum pages, your site is nowhere to be seen.

[I, Brian]

Hi Dave -

Any attempt to rank for a keyword phrase from signature links from a single forum would be missing the point.

An issue I've tried to make before is that it's not link numbers that particularly matter for value purposes. Also, number of IP ranges covered is usually considered pretty important.

Platinax is a new site, and all inbound anchor text is very much sandboxed – therefore it makes for a very poor example to use.

Also, believe it or not, I’ve actually targeted the anchor text at human users.

Signature links have some impact, but as I’ve written (http://%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.platinax.co.uk/community/thread474.html)before (http://www.platinax.co.uk/community/thread474.html), they’ve undergone significant devaluation since last September. I’m not convinced that signature links offer PR benefits, but others disgree.

However, using forum signatures as a method for SEO would be limited and foolhardy at best. It’s a bonus to whatever you already have, rather than a properly effective SEO method in itself.

Can you get useful links with anchor text benefits from signature links? Sure you can. But as before, people need to stop thinking about ranking=number of links, and think more in terms of ranking=quantity plus quality.

[Dave Hawley]

Like I tell everyone, don't take my, or anyones elses, word for it, test properly and find out for yourself.

There is a LOT of unfounded noise about Google and most has never been proven (I believe that includes "sandbox"). Unfortunately when something is said often enough and loud enough, most tend to believe it to be fact.

When I hear/read of something about Google, that I would like to know about, I never take it as fact until I have proven it to myself.

[I, Brian]

It's very easy indeed to run a test on many aspects on SEO - what is not so easy is actually being open to the range of potential interpretations of results. Is the experiment flawed; have I consider all alternative hypotheses; if the issue is not directly related to what I am looking at, could it be indirectly related? Half the problem with SEO tests is that there is a lack of proper metholody, experience, and interpretation of results - especially by people who do not have a commercial understanding of search engine theory and practice.

[lots0]

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.
LOL... Funny, I just watched a page climb to page one for a VERY VERY competitive keyword, using ONLY guest book links with keywords in the anchor text... And No I am not going to give you the URL in a public forum, unless you want to send me about $25,000 first (expected first quarter earnings for this page).

...I have set up a page that is ONLY linked to via Guest Books and Forum signatures and used some very non-competetive anchor text. The page never showed in Google when searching for the anchor text.
Most forums (especially SEO or Webmaster forums) redirect links so that PageRank or reputation is NOT passed. If they do not redirect links, then they usually have a no direct link posting policy and/or a policy not to give sig links any PR credit.

I don’t know why some people want to give google more credit than they are due. I have seen many many people come on a forum like this and make all these statements about what google does or does not do, usually most all of these statement are FALSE.

My own opinion, I think some people want google to be some super all knowing, all powerful search engine and that this super search engine should be able to do all, even if at this time most of the things that some of these people think google does are technically impossible.

Also this idea that everyone that works at google is smarter than the rest of us, I find insulting. I have been pitting my wits against the “google super search engine” and their “super brained” employees for years... and winning (as have most of the folks around here).

[lots0]

Also, Forums (like this one and all others) may have PR but none is passed via a forum signature. Guest books etc are the same.
I say this is a false statement.
Dave, can you provide any evidence at all to support this statement?

I think just about anyone that can use the google "link" command can find out the truth of this matter for themselves.

Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.
Another false statement. Again, do you have any evidence to support this statement?

I would like to ask you a question Dave; Just how would google go about telling if you, I or anyone has “direct influence” on the anchor text of a particular link?

Let me guess, they can tell if I have “direct influence” over the anchor text of a link the same way they can tell if I paid for a text link or not....

Foum sigs and alike are totally self-serving and as such mean nothing for the SERP's.
Another False Statement. In some forums (cough-cough like searchguild) Long time members/posters are rewarded by allowing their sig links to pass PR and link pop... You see Dave
things like this can be controlled, if you know how...

I'm am speaking in the context of forum signatures, Guest books, FFA site etc and any site where you can directly control your anchor text. These site will give little (more likely zero) PR and the anchor text will likely not help you in any Google SERP boost.

So, which is it Dave? Zero PR or a “little” PR, do you know?
A lot of little bits of PR add up...

So Dave, in truth you don’t know, your just making statements about the way you want google to be or the way you think it should be, not the way google actually is... (see my previous post)

...Google is about the only SE that can/does freely deep crawl the web to the extent it does. It has pages in its database that other SE's simply cannot spider...
That is true, if you forget about Slurp, which you obviously did... Then there is that new M$N bot that is out there indexing like crazy....

...I have proven it to myself many times over...
Then it should not be a problem to prove it here. I would like to see you prove ANY of your statements that I or others have questioned here.

I would hazard a guess... Looks to me like you do that a lot Dave, maybe a little more research and a lot less guessing and I would not have to take all this time to point out where your statements are way off the mark....

[lots0]

Oh ya Dave, this was just pointed out to me, I thought you might be interested. I believe it is on page 9, third link from the bottom.
http://www.google.com/search?q=link:www.ozgrid.com

It looks like a forum link showing up in the backlinks from the site you list in your profile.

If forum links don't count, why does google display them in the "link" command?

I know this does not prove PR is passed from this forum link, but it sure leans the table that way... :)

[Dave Hawley]

Yes I have ample proof and have proven more than once. Am I going to share this with you...no. Do I care if you believe me...no. You have obviously made up your mind and certainly don't want any facts to muddy the waters. In fact, thinking of you chasing your tail with a head full of rumours make me smile big time :D

I know this does not prove PR is passed from this forum link, but it sure leans the table that wayNo it certainly doesn't prove it by any stretch. To think that Google would lean toward showing links that pass PR is again just goes to show how little you know.

Have you ever done any research and/or controlled experiments? Please don't bother answering as the question is rhetorical.

[lots0]

I know proving any of these statements of yours is impossible (truly impossible), but how about just for fun showing me some evidence or better yet just point me to the thread(s) where you have already “proven your statements”.

Yes I have ample proof and have proven more than once.Show me.

All I want to see is just some evidence, I showed you some, why not show me some? Unless you can't...

[Dave Hawley]

Like I said, I have ample proof via controlled experiments I have set-up. If you believe me or not is no skin off my nose.

All I want to see is just some evidence, I showed you some
LOL! This is why it's pointless, you consider what you have shown as proof.

It want proof, do it for yourself. :p

[lots0]

If you believe me or not is no skin off my nose.
No its not, but as I see it, your inability to provide even the slightest evidence to back up your statements, does hurt your credibility with the readers and members of this forum.

you consider what you have shown as proof.
No, I consider it evidence and said so.

[Dave Hawley]

No its not, but as I see it, your inability to provide even the slightest evidence to back up your statements, does hurt your credibility with the readers and members of this forum. Perhaps, but that's alright, I wont loose any sleep :rolleyes:

BTW as this is of concern to you, you may want to go and edit out some of your fantastical statements.

[Mel]

Oh ya Dave, this was just pointed out to me, I thought you might be interested. I believe it is on page 9, third link from the bottom.
http://www.google.com/search?q=link:www.ozgrid.com

It looks like a forum link showing up in the backlinks from the site you list in your profile.

If forum links don't count, why does google display them in the "link" command?

I know this does not prove PR is passed from this forum link, but it sure leans the table that way... :)


Hi LotsO
You might be interested in this
Originally Posted by fathom
While this debate has died some recent observations suggests there is possibly conclusive evidence that sig links pass PageRank, weight, and relevancy via the sig link and anchor.

these two pages "only have links from sigs" on their respected forums and no "in post" links, external inbound links, etc.

http://www.spheri.net/dave-hawley/dave-hawley.html PR3

http://www.uncommonforum.com/dave-h...ave-hawley.html PR3

Each is "link-to" via a anchor "spherica" and most forum threads are PR2 or less.

These two pages (orphaned but for sig links) point to another orphaned page http://www.spheri.ca/dave-hawley/emarketing.html PR2 = 2 X PR3

Numerous others were set up unfortunately Duplicate Conent penalties materialized (as the design was to see if static pages within a site and traditional links induced "better ranks" as opposed to only sig links.

Spherica #25 for http://www.uncommonforum.com/dave-h...ave-hawley.html

A hard drive failure killed the static site that would have compared ranks on pages identical in every way with the exception of link type... so this will go on longer.

Regardless of whether sig links are discounted or not... they seem to be worth more than just click value.

[Dave Hawley]

Interesting indeed. I will be the first to admit I'm incorrect, assuming what you say is true.

It's a pity the test was conducted in my absense and without my knowledge, while mine (the first one) was conducted (the way you requested) in your presence. If someone had let me know this was occuring I would have been able to monitor it. The fact that it was done (to try and disprove me) and I was never informed has to be considered suspicious to say the least. This is not counting the fact that both yourself and Fathom have an axe to grind.

In light of this I'm still sticking to my orginal statement forum sigs, Guestbooks, FFA sites etc do not pass PR or boost pages in the SERP's.

Can you post the links to the pages that you say passed the PR from the forum sig? All the pages that Google show have PR0.

[Dave Hawley]

One must also question, why if forum sigs pass PR, some pages, that have many thousands of forum sig links (from PR 4+ pages), are sitting around PR4 or less.

I also think that perhaps Fathoms "test" wasn't done in the way of which forum sigs would normally be used. He was determined to rotate (or something along those lines) the sig links. I said at the time, I believe this would be tricking Google into passing PR and not really comparing apples with apples.

However, I'm as interested as anyone to know the facts on normal forum sigs so I am all willing to conduct an agreed upon controlled experiment.

The last post on this page is interesting..
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=3452&page=3&pp=10

[I, Brian]

In light of this I'm still sticking to my orginal statement forum sigs, Guestbooks, FFA sites etc do not pass PR or boost pages in the SERP's.

Can you post the links to the pages that you say passed the PR from the forum sig? All the pages that Google show have PR0.
The problem is, commercial-level link builders know that they can get benefits from a lot of different linking methods, which overlap with your list.

So now we're in a situation where someone claiming only a hobbyist interest in SEO, and has conducted a couple of small personal tests, is seen to be deriding the proven commercial results of commercial-level link building.

Asking for people who build links on a commercial level (tens or hundreds of thousands of links per day, depending on the methodology employed) to somehow explose their client rankings in public view, for reasons of pride, rather than professionalism, is not going to get very far.

Therefore the onus has to be on you to publicly prove the strength of your own statements, which you parade around a professional's SEO forum as "facts".

[I, Brian]

One must also question, why if forum sigs pass PR, some pages, that have many thousands of forum sig links (from PR 4+ pages), are sitting around PR4 or less.

This is easy - just because a forum post comes up on a link: command doesn't mean to say it actually has PR4+.

Forums are dynamic - older content is driven deeper by newer content. Therefore 000's of signatures on a forum would likely mean most are buried deep in the forum index.

There does seem to be specific weighting against forum signatures passing on much PR - as I stated in an earlier link.

However, focussing on "number of signatures" and "PR of signatures" is, in my opinion, missing the boat completely. It's anchor text that matters - varied, and from a varied range of IPs.

[lots0]

...I believe this would be tricking Google into passing PR.
This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have read on an SEO forum in quite some time.
How could you possibly “trick” google into doing what google is going to do (was designed to do) anyway?

Dave, I have to say from your statements, that you do NOT appear to even have a basic understanding of google’s PageRank. Therefor, discussion of this subject with you is a waste of everyones time.

In my opinion, the real harm from these ridiculous statements from people like Dave Hawley, comes when people that do not understand SEO, like Mr. Hawley, read these outrageous unproven, untested and incorrect assumptions in a forum for and about SEO/SEM and believe them.

And yes Dave I do make my living in the SEO field and I have done now for several years. I have also devoted quite a bit of my own (very valuable) time over the years to debunking a lot of these SEO myths people like you propagate. :)

[Dave Hawley]

I did say: "I will be the first to admit I'm incorrect, assuming what you say is true." But's let ignore that and attack the person hey :rolleyes:


I have never been one to take the results of anothers test as fact. This is particularly true when one is not aware of just how the test was conducted. As is the case here. I make no apology for that.

Now, if the test in question, was conducted in the way in which a normal forum signature would be used, it has merit. However, if the "test" was done by doing anything that would not normally be done, then it merits must be questioned. I suspect it was the latter because of what was said prior to the test.

It's anchor text that matters - varied, and from a varied range of IPs.This matters not as it's the PR value that was being tested not the anchor text, they are 2 different beasts.

lots0, your agenda is patently clear and it appears very personal. You say "refused to provide even the simplest and most basic evidence to help support his point" and must have totally forgotten you previously said "And No I am not going to give you the URL in a public forum, unless you want to send me about $25,000 first (expected first quarter earnings for this page)" Based on this contradiction, I take you are now willing to share with us your proof that a page can get to number 1 in Google for a "Highly Competetive" term with only GuestBook signatures?


I find it very strange that a so called self-named "professional" has taken the results of a test without knowing all the details of how the test was even conducted. That to me does not sound "professional" at all!

I will repeat my offer "However, I'm as interested as anyone to know the facts on normal forum sigs so I am all willing to conduct an agreed upon controlled experiment."

I also find it ironic that someone, who the "professionals" here say, has no idea about PR has a higher PR than most of the "professional" SEO businesses. That cannot be too good for the industry can it? Perhaps the "Pro" can explain this?

[I, Brian]

I also find it ironic that someone, who the "professionals" here say, has no idea about PR has a higher PR than most of the "professional" SEO businesses. That cannot be too good for the industry can it? Perhaps the "Pro" can explain this?
Perhaps you simply have more signature links around. ;)

Or more to the fact that a specialist Excel training and resource site, with at least one widely published work behind it that has been reviewed on various sites, such as NJ.com and the O'Reilly sites, might pick up quite a lot of PR naturally over the four years that it has been running. :)

High PageRank is a great badge to wear - but ultimately SEO business sites need to take in other numbers into account, such as return of investment on actual advertising and targeted anchor text. Some run a business model on buying high numbers of sponsored links (for example, on this site). Not everyone works on that business model, though. :)

Also consider that PageRank in the toolbar will not provide useful information for relatively newer sites and pages.

[seobook]

I find it very strange that a so called self-named "professional" has taken the results of a test without knowing all the details of how the test was even conducted. That to me does not sound "professional" at all!
it is an issue of trust. over time many SEOs share some data points with one another. I see a post by Lots0 or fathom and I usually think "this is going to be great info." In the same way there are other members in various forums who post and make me think "this is going to be garbage."

If you are an SEO without friends you are forcing yourself to make every error yourself. Why not have a friendly feedback loop and learn as a group?

I will repeat my offer "However, I'm as interested as anyone to know the facts on normal forum sigs so I am all willing to conduct an agreed upon controlled experiment."
It is easy enough to do. Why not just do it and then report the results?

I also find it ironic that someone, who the "professionals" here say, has no idea about PR has a higher PR than most of the "professional" SEO businesses. That cannot be too good for the industry can it? Perhaps the "Pro" can explain this?
there are a few assumptions in that statement
1.) PageRank in and of itself directly equates to value. If this were true then Google would not be working so hard to move away from the PageRank system.
2.) PageRank is the same across different industries. If you had a porn site do you think it would have that much PageRank?
3.) Some SEOs do not disclose all their sites.
4.) The age of the site is important. I have seen links randomly show up pointing at my site from sites like web reference. That linkage data usually does not build overnight.
5.) Good SEOs are focused on search results. Currently that does not always require PageRank. If it did then perhaps more SEOs would care.
6.) I could probably rent my way to a PR7 from scratch within 3 months on about $1,000 a month (or cheaper if I were to access certain automated tools friends may or may not have created). With the $25,000 in quarter one it would be really easy for Lots0 to buy PageRank for the page he mentioned, but it is not needed.
7.) PageRank is cheap and easy to manipulate. The system is too simple and transparent.
8.) Another problem with PageRank: I could use my other sites to help me build that PageRank quicker & cheaper.

PageRank is a measure of connectivity. Some people are fascinated by it...others realize its relative importance.

[Dave Hawley]

Perhaps you simply have more signature links around. I'm so glad you mentioned that! I too was under the impression that Forum sigs would be a good way to boost PR and my SERP position. After having some 5000+ posting on a number of different forums and noticing no difference I did a test. This is when I discovered that Forum sigs are worth little/no more than click value. At one time it was looking very much like Google only takes one sig link from each forum that was posted to. That could very will be the case. In fact, it would be common sense in light of the fact that Forum sigs are totally self-promoting.


It is easy enough to do. Why not just do it and then report the results? I did and was told it was ridiculous and a barage of other insults. I already have another set-up.

1.) PageRank in and of itself directly equates to value. If this were true then Google would not be working so hard to move away from the PageRank system.
That is an assumption you have made not me. I have never hailed PR as holding very much value. In fact, if you read some of my post here I tell others to IGNORE the PR of the page and swap links only if the site is of use to their visitors.

In fact, each and everyone of your points are assumptions by yourself that you assume I was assumming.

If you are an SEO without friends you are forcing yourself to make every error yourself.Why not have a friendly feedback loop and learn as a group?
Err, that is what I thought I was doing when I posted my findings. Oh well, with friends like this who need enemies :p


Like I say, Lots0 and I, Brian have both jumped the gun here and taking what Mel has stated on pure face value. They do not know how the test was conducted (if they do they are purposley not admitting it) and the manner in which it was done. I even supplied a link to another that had had different results than that of Fathoms test. I also tried to point out the Fathom had likely done something (by his own addmission) that would not normally occur with Forum sig link.

If anyone thinks I am going to ignore my own test results based on the test on someone else, who has not revealed all the facts, they are mistaken.

I have tried to open up nad invite others to participate in a controlled test but all I get is insults.

[seobook]

I have never hailed PR as holding very much value.

I also find it ironic that someone, who the "professionals" here say, has no idea about PR has a higher PR than most of the "professional" SEO businesses. That cannot be too good for the industry can it? Perhaps the "Pro" can explain this?
one of these birds is not like the other?

[Dave Hawley]

err where does it mention anything at all about how much value PR holds??? You guys are too quick to try and bail each other out that you keep doing so blindly.
seobook Sais It is easy enough to do. Why not just do it and then report the results?Yet I had already posted my findings. Some people simply well no read well they.

it is an issue of trustI think you may need to revise just who you are blindly trusting. Do you ever do your own research, or never bother when it's been done already by another SEO's.


I see a post by Lots0 or fathom and I usually think "this is going to be great info." From Lots0I just watched a page climb to page one for a VERY VERY competitive keyword, using ONLY guest book links with keywords in the anchor text I take it you will be spamming GuestBooks from now on then?


I said: "...I believe this would be tricking Google into passing PR." Lots0 replies with "This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have read on an SEO forum in quite some time.
How could you possibly “trick” google into doing what google is going to do (was designed to do) anyway?" I take it this means he is not aware of how a malicious link from one page to another can trick Google?

[seobook]

I think you may need to revise just who you are blindly trusting. Do you ever do your own research, or never bother when it's been done already by another SEO's.
most research comes through trying stuff out and seeing what happens. also you can't necissarily isolate things to test everything, because the patterns your tests would create may perhaps seem a bit artificial compared to how links naturally develop.

From Lots0 I take it you will be spamming GuestBooks from now on then?
there are multiple ways to skin a cat. you are not required to do something just because it works, but it is useful to know what does work.

[Dave Hawley]

also you can't necissarily isolate things to test everything, because the patterns your tests would create may perhaps seem a bit artificial compared to how links naturally develop. Now you are making sense. This is exactly what I have been saying about Fathoms test, which you have taken as fact. IMO, his test was more to show how forum sigs can/could be used to help with PR and SERP position and not how forum sig links "naturally develop".

[Dave Hawley]

Oh, btw, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on where I stated PR has x value?

Also, I think it's becoming rather pathetic when certain people are posting snide and childish remarks in via the Repuation ability of the Forum. Still, it does show your inability to debate in a mature way.

[lots0]

I take it you will be spamming GuestBooks from now on then?
Your making assumptions again dave, how do you know I don't own/control those guestbooks?

It is rather hard to spam yourself... But I hear it can be done. :D

[dannysullivan]

I've just edited out various comments where this debate/discussion got too personal and slipped into insults and digs at each other. As a reminder, a common rule for the forums here is to treat each other with respect and in a way you'd like to be treated. If you feel a member has violated that rule, TELL A MODERATOR via the PM system. Please don't respond in a thread back to the person. That generally only results in further unwanted insults going back and forth.

I also think this discussion has pretty much gone as far as it's going to go. I'm leaving this thread closed for the next day or so, to tell people calm down. When it reopens, it will be useful to everyone if it can go into some more productive discussion of what Google may or may not count with links showing some real examples in the thread to back up statements.