<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pagerank</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: extreme webmaster</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-547607</link>
		<dc:creator>extreme webmaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-547607</guid>
		<description>One of my websites got bitch-slapped even though it contained only AdSense. They are hypocrites like every big company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of my websites got bitch-slapped even though it contained only AdSense. They are hypocrites like every big company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-539024</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-539024</guid>
		<description>From what I understand, they haven't actually decreased PR directly of sites that sell links - they've just diluted the PR those sites pass via those links.

The problem is, half the web has been caught up with (paid) link trading for the past x years. I doubt your PR went down because *you sold links* - it's more likely sites that linked to yours *also sold links*, and the PR you got from them has decreased accordingly.

If it's any consolation, I found your site through google right near the top for a PHP query. What I reckon has happened with this fairly substantial change is a LOT of sites have lost PR, so the overall effect on individual sites probably isn't quite as dramatic as "argh I just went from PR6 to PR3" actually seems.

Good luck with the blog :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I understand, they haven&#8217;t actually decreased PR directly of sites that sell links - they&#8217;ve just diluted the PR those sites pass via those links.</p>
<p>The problem is, half the web has been caught up with (paid) link trading for the past x years. I doubt your PR went down because *you sold links* - it&#8217;s more likely sites that linked to yours *also sold links*, and the PR you got from them has decreased accordingly.</p>
<p>If it&#8217;s any consolation, I found your site through google right near the top for a PHP query. What I reckon has happened with this fairly substantial change is a LOT of sites have lost PR, so the overall effect on individual sites probably isn&#8217;t quite as dramatic as &#8220;argh I just went from PR6 to PR3&#8243; actually seems.</p>
<p>Good luck with the blog <img src='http://www.scriptygoddess.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538580</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538580</guid>
		<description>Another interesting topic Jennifer.

From its inception I have been a huge fan of google. Of late that fan status is dropping. The ranking system is competitive and has been from the beginning. Where there is a buck to be made as usual business owners, developers and of course the SEO experts will sell their mother for some edge.

It is not a far stretch to realize google is also doing that.

As a surfer looking for information I want the most viable for my time.
I have learned to skip the sponsored links at the top and side and when I land on a site that even hints of more sponsors than pertinent information I am gone before the page fully loads.

Websites such as yours that is packed with content I would probably spend hours on research. 
Advertisements on the side are fine I can look or not.
As a consumer I am more likely to click a link from a product you recommend from personal experience than just a paid sponsored link.

I was talking to a representative of a company called NettSolutions the other day. I was told they have cut a deal with both google and yahoo where they contract for position 1, 2, or 3 at the top of your (interested company) keywords. Those positions go for $200 upwards a month. 
What does that logically tell you before google or yahoo would even consider such a contract? 
That they will get more for those spots than what they would get from any other sponsored ad from clicks or any other means.

This young man was shocked that a consumer might skip the top placements for any reason. 
Imagine what the business person would think who is paying by the month.

The consumer is not totally stupid and neither is the surfer looking for information. 
So you are right sooner or later google will lose its important support base if it does not watch its P's and Q's

Personally if I were google any spam link domain would have a -0PR</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another interesting topic Jennifer.</p>
<p>From its inception I have been a huge fan of google. Of late that fan status is dropping. The ranking system is competitive and has been from the beginning. Where there is a buck to be made as usual business owners, developers and of course the SEO experts will sell their mother for some edge.</p>
<p>It is not a far stretch to realize google is also doing that.</p>
<p>As a surfer looking for information I want the most viable for my time.<br />
I have learned to skip the sponsored links at the top and side and when I land on a site that even hints of more sponsors than pertinent information I am gone before the page fully loads.</p>
<p>Websites such as yours that is packed with content I would probably spend hours on research.<br />
Advertisements on the side are fine I can look or not.<br />
As a consumer I am more likely to click a link from a product you recommend from personal experience than just a paid sponsored link.</p>
<p>I was talking to a representative of a company called NettSolutions the other day. I was told they have cut a deal with both google and yahoo where they contract for position 1, 2, or 3 at the top of your (interested company) keywords. Those positions go for $200 upwards a month.<br />
What does that logically tell you before google or yahoo would even consider such a contract?<br />
That they will get more for those spots than what they would get from any other sponsored ad from clicks or any other means.</p>
<p>This young man was shocked that a consumer might skip the top placements for any reason.<br />
Imagine what the business person would think who is paying by the month.</p>
<p>The consumer is not totally stupid and neither is the surfer looking for information.<br />
So you are right sooner or later google will lose its important support base if it does not watch its P&#8217;s and Q&#8217;s</p>
<p>Personally if I were google any spam link domain would have a -0PR</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538509</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538509</guid>
		<description>My issue isn't with them down-ranking sites that have nothing but spammy links - my issue is the fact that I dropped from 6PR to a 3PR because of TWO links on my site. &lt;strong&gt;TWO.&lt;/strong&gt; vs the MANY other VALUABLE links and content I have on this site. By dropping my PR, as far as I understand, that puts me lower in the search even when someone is specifically searching for the content on my site. Lets review the YEARS worth of content I have collected on this site vs TWO LINKS they feel shouldn't be there. I'm sorry - I just don't think it makes sense - even for them and their business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My issue isn&#8217;t with them down-ranking sites that have nothing but spammy links - my issue is the fact that I dropped from 6PR to a 3PR because of TWO links on my site. <strong>TWO.</strong> vs the MANY other VALUABLE links and content I have on this site. By dropping my PR, as far as I understand, that puts me lower in the search even when someone is specifically searching for the content on my site. Lets review the YEARS worth of content I have collected on this site vs TWO LINKS they feel shouldn&#8217;t be there. I&#8217;m sorry - I just don&#8217;t think it makes sense - even for them and their business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wellsmall</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538154</link>
		<dc:creator>wellsmall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-538154</guid>
		<description>I don't really agree with your understanding on the reasons your site dropped in rank.  On my website I use a few "affiliate" links and some Amazon Associate stuff, namely the product cloud which sucks and the automatic link creator widget which is even worse but I've never used G advertising.  Frankly, I don't want visitors finding me by my ads because then they won't stay, they won't come back, and they won't use me as a reference [reciprocal links].

If G evaluates advertising the way it evaluates regular content, my understanding is that this is what causes a site that has nothing but ads to appear before a site that has real, unique and useful content.  Lots of keywords pull up sites that are basically links to other sites that again, link to other sites and you end up with nothing in the end and a lot of time wasted.

With this change, and again this is just my understanding, is that G is just giving USEFUL CONTENT a priority over useless (in the visitor's position) advertising.  They're just raking sites based on what will benefit users as opposed to what will benefit the owner. Though, receiving visitors that come to read YOUR CONTENT are the only real visitors you should want.  The others are virtually useless.

Every for-profit company is just out to make money.  Google is no different.  They just have a different business than us.  All the other search engines out there are in it for the same reason, they just pick up the technology at different times.  Yahoo and AOL and MSN have and will continue to change their practices just like Google does...we will forever fight the battle of the rank.  This business of search engines is free advertising for us.  If you want your site in a certain position, either follow Google's protocol or pay for the privilege of being number one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t really agree with your understanding on the reasons your site dropped in rank.  On my website I use a few &#8220;affiliate&#8221; links and some Amazon Associate stuff, namely the product cloud which sucks and the automatic link creator widget which is even worse but I&#8217;ve never used G advertising.  Frankly, I don&#8217;t want visitors finding me by my ads because then they won&#8217;t stay, they won&#8217;t come back, and they won&#8217;t use me as a reference [reciprocal links].</p>
<p>If G evaluates advertising the way it evaluates regular content, my understanding is that this is what causes a site that has nothing but ads to appear before a site that has real, unique and useful content.  Lots of keywords pull up sites that are basically links to other sites that again, link to other sites and you end up with nothing in the end and a lot of time wasted.</p>
<p>With this change, and again this is just my understanding, is that G is just giving USEFUL CONTENT a priority over useless (in the visitor&#8217;s position) advertising.  They&#8217;re just raking sites based on what will benefit users as opposed to what will benefit the owner. Though, receiving visitors that come to read YOUR CONTENT are the only real visitors you should want.  The others are virtually useless.</p>
<p>Every for-profit company is just out to make money.  Google is no different.  They just have a different business than us.  All the other search engines out there are in it for the same reason, they just pick up the technology at different times.  Yahoo and AOL and MSN have and will continue to change their practices just like Google does&#8230;we will forever fight the battle of the rank.  This business of search engines is free advertising for us.  If you want your site in a certain position, either follow Google&#8217;s protocol or pay for the privilege of being number one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Redefine</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-537648</link>
		<dc:creator>Redefine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-537648</guid>
		<description>I was just thinking about this the other day and I stumbled on your blog looking for information about PHP &#38; Urls. 

Google used to be an incredible search engine. Now Greed has turned it to something almost useless. Try doing a search for "Registry Cleaner Freeware" and you will find NOTHING that is Freeware. 

Goolge needs to take the High Ground and fix that before they penalize folks that actually have usefull information posted.

Yar!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was just thinking about this the other day and I stumbled on your blog looking for information about PHP &amp; Urls. </p>
<p>Google used to be an incredible search engine. Now Greed has turned it to something almost useless. Try doing a search for &#8220;Registry Cleaner Freeware&#8221; and you will find NOTHING that is Freeware. </p>
<p>Goolge needs to take the High Ground and fix that before they penalize folks that actually have usefull information posted.</p>
<p>Yar!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rolygate</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534840</link>
		<dc:creator>rolygate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534840</guid>
		<description>I believe you have 2 problems here:
1: You have to be a little bit careful about having G. Adwords and other ads on the same page;
2. G. obviously don't like text ads. They are probably OK if you JavaScript mask them, since then they are not direct links. Or, you could turn them into gfx and mask the link. 
What they don't like is any attempt to increase PR - which translates to paid links. If you mask the links, so they don't appear as direct links, then that is within their TOS. You should have no problems then. If people are paying to get a direct link from a high PR page, that is basically a paid attempt to increase PR. I don't think you can complain if G. don't like that, as it is a clear breach of their TOS. You can play their game and get their approval, or take the money - your choice. 
With luck, you might be able to get the best of both worlds by masking the links. You're a coder, code it...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe you have 2 problems here:<br />
1: You have to be a little bit careful about having G. Adwords and other ads on the same page;<br />
2. G. obviously don&#8217;t like text ads. They are probably OK if you JavaScript mask them, since then they are not direct links. Or, you could turn them into gfx and mask the link.<br />
What they don&#8217;t like is any attempt to increase PR - which translates to paid links. If you mask the links, so they don&#8217;t appear as direct links, then that is within their TOS. You should have no problems then. If people are paying to get a direct link from a high PR page, that is basically a paid attempt to increase PR. I don&#8217;t think you can complain if G. don&#8217;t like that, as it is a clear breach of their TOS. You can play their game and get their approval, or take the money - your choice.<br />
With luck, you might be able to get the best of both worlds by masking the links. You&#8217;re a coder, code it&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534837</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534837</guid>
		<description>Actually I should clarify this, as I have no huge love of global corporations. Being a business gives you the right to change your product (search) to weight sites differently. It shouldn't give you power (only checked by the shareholders) to exploit offshore labour and ripoff consumers, which is how this 'its business' argument is used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I should clarify this, as I have no huge love of global corporations. Being a business gives you the right to change your product (search) to weight sites differently. It shouldn&#8217;t give you power (only checked by the shareholders) to exploit offshore labour and ripoff consumers, which is how this &#8216;its business&#8217; argument is used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534836</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:08:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534836</guid>
		<description>Change your default search engine to what exactly? 

Google has become ubiquitous and very powerful - gmail, google docs, search, calendar, even picasa and blogger. I use all these tools. But it's naive to expect them to behave in a totally balanced, unbiased fashion. They're a business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Change your default search engine to what exactly? </p>
<p>Google has become ubiquitous and very powerful - gmail, google docs, search, calendar, even picasa and blogger. I use all these tools. But it&#8217;s naive to expect them to behave in a totally balanced, unbiased fashion. They&#8217;re a business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534698</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/2007/10/28/pagerank/#comment-534698</guid>
		<description>@chris :P lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@chris <img src='http://www.scriptygoddess.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.328 seconds -->
