Comments on: Google To Abandon PageRank? http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:19:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Shrinidhi Hande http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-675352 Shrinidhi Hande Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:51:24 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-675352 How will the user know before visiting the link that it is useful or not? After he visits the page he wont care to go back and rate... <a href="http://www.enidhi.net" rel="nofollow"> Shrinidhi Hande</a> How will the user know before visiting the link that it is useful or not?

After he visits the page he wont care to go back and rate…

Shrinidhi Hande

]]> By: APatcher http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-567506 APatcher Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:14:50 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-567506 I have a number of websites. It seems to me that PageRank is virtually dead at this time. As long as the page has some PR, it can rank just as well in the results as other pages that have much more PR. For example, my PR3 and PR4 sites unexpectedly became my most popular sites on Google. It used to be the PR5 and PR6 sites that always did well. More than ever before, I believe Google is now weighing how many people stay on pages versus how many people "bounce" back to Google after looking at the page for only a few seconds. This makes sense to me because the "bounce" factor would be a difficult thing to fake on a grand scale (unlike PR, which is relatively easy to fake/spam up the rank). Google Analytics and AWstats both offer a measure of "bounce" (but in different ways/terms). Pages with high bounce factors rank low because people are looking and the page for a couple seconds and then going right back to the search results by clicking the back button on their browser. Pages with low bounce factors rank high because if someone stays on the page or clicks a link on the page to go to another area on the web, they probably have actually FOUND what they were looking for in the search engine. Bounce factor is also a easy thing to measure (unlike PR). I have a number of websites. It seems to me that PageRank is virtually dead at this time. As long as the page has some PR, it can rank just as well in the results as other pages that have much more PR. For example, my PR3 and PR4 sites unexpectedly became my most popular sites on Google. It used to be the PR5 and PR6 sites that always did well. More than ever before, I believe Google is now weighing how many people stay on pages versus how many people “bounce” back to Google after looking at the page for only a few seconds. This makes sense to me because the “bounce” factor would be a difficult thing to fake on a grand scale (unlike PR, which is relatively easy to fake/spam up the rank). Google Analytics and AWstats both offer a measure of “bounce” (but in different ways/terms). Pages with high bounce factors rank low because people are looking and the page for a couple seconds and then going right back to the search results by clicking the back button on their browser. Pages with low bounce factors rank high because if someone stays on the page or clicks a link on the page to go to another area on the web, they probably have actually FOUND what they were looking for in the search engine. Bounce factor is also a easy thing to measure (unlike PR).

]]> By: asp_funda http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-541029 asp_funda Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:59:55 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-541029 <blockquote>Who's going to spend the time to vote up or down search results?</blockquote> err Simon, I think that Digg gets a lot of traffic & there are quite a lot of users who vote up for stories on it. so if that can work, why not this? I agree that not all will vote on search results but then not all the visitors to digg vote as well. but even a few hundred thousand visitors who vote will make a difference imho! :)

Who’s going to spend the time to vote up or down search results?

err Simon, I think that Digg gets a lot of traffic & there are quite a lot of users who vote up for stories on it. so if that can work, why not this? I agree that not all will vote on search results but then not all the visitors to digg vote as well. but even a few hundred thousand visitors who vote will make a difference imho! :)

]]> By: Mr Misleading http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-533251 Mr Misleading Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:30:55 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-533251 Change the misleading title of this POINTLESS blog. Why are you even letting this guy blog, SitePoint? Change the misleading title of this POINTLESS blog. Why are you even letting this guy blog, SitePoint?

]]> By: dochost http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-532631 dochost Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:11:02 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-532631 I think PR can not be replaced , but algo should be sharpened with user's votes. I think PR can not be replaced , but algo should be sharpened with user’s votes.

]]> By: Dr John http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531898 Dr John Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:58:00 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531898 I read this is a personalised search, getting rid of the subject pages that you recognise as not being relevant to you personally. Eventually when you do a search at a later time, a more refined search probably - say three keywords instead of two, the "better" results from the earlier search will be the first ones to be checked for the extra keword, or influence which pages with all three keywords are more likely tobe returned. It's not a case of some people voting for a site as a better one and then the rest of us being influenced by these people's choices. I don't think it is a knew idea either, I'm sure I readsome time ago something about personalising your searches over time, to give you more of what you want. For example I'm an ex-chemist. If I searched on alcohol from uni, it's chemicals which are alcohols that I'd be after. where as you might be searching for beer. As a chemist, my search on nmr (look it up) would be very different from a medic searching on nmr, and I and the medic could filter out over time the pages that were not our normal intended targets. So future similar searches would be tailored to our individual needs. I read this is a personalised search, getting rid of the subject pages that you recognise as not being relevant to you personally. Eventually when you do a search at a later time, a more refined search probably - say three keywords instead of two, the “better” results from the earlier search will be the first ones to be checked for the extra keword, or influence which pages with all three keywords are more likely tobe returned. It’s not a case of some people voting for a site as a better one and then the rest of us being influenced by these people’s choices.

I don’t think it is a knew idea either, I’m sure I readsome time ago something about personalising your searches over time, to give you more of what you want.

For example I’m an ex-chemist. If I searched on alcohol from uni, it’s chemicals which are alcohols that I’d be after. where as you might be searching for beer. As a chemist, my search on nmr (look it up) would be very different from a medic searching on nmr, and I and the medic could filter out over time the pages that were not our normal intended targets. So future similar searches would be tailored to our individual needs.

]]> By: SEO Canada http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531731 SEO Canada Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:39:47 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531731 Like what Doug said: <em>It’s looking like search results will be delivered in two stages; first you’ll get the results based on page rank, then they’ll be reordered to your preference.</em> Also, the title is a lame attempt to linkbait. Like what Doug said: It’s looking like search results will be delivered in two stages; first you’ll get the results based on page rank, then they’ll be reordered to your preference.
Also, the title is a lame attempt to linkbait.

]]> By: SEO Canada http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531703 SEO Canada Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:25:52 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531703 How would they determine the top 10 to begin with if they drop PR? The idea of how likely a random surfer is to visit a given page is good, it's just measuring that likelihood that needs refinement. I think that's where these thumbs up/down will come in to use. How would they determine the top 10 to begin with if they drop PR? The idea of how likely a random surfer is to visit a given page is good, it’s just measuring that likelihood that needs refinement. I think that’s where these thumbs up/down will come in to use.

]]> By: roosevelt http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531604 roosevelt Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:36:42 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531604 It could lead to lots of Spam. For example some culprit could use proxy and stuff to vote his own web page. Which will bury the most relevant results below you know. It could lead to lots of Spam. For example some culprit could use proxy and stuff to vote his own web page. Which will bury the most relevant results below you know.

]]> By: stormfly http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531440 stormfly Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:14:27 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/11/30/google-to-abandon-pagerank/#comment-531440 @skyjuice: you are right, it's google 2.0 :D @skyjuice: you are right, it’s google 2.0 :D

]]>