With MATT telling PR gone which factor tells now site is good
-
MATT CUTTS in his like second last video told the world.Guys turn off PR in your Browser.If PR is no longer have value than what an SEO professional needs to know is the site good or bad.
1.Domain authority.
2.alexa
3.SEMRUSH rank
4.compete.
So guys need your advice about it.
-
YUP.
-
You are very welcome Christopher. I hope it was helpful.
-
DANA thanks a lot for your clarification.
-
Hi Christopher,
Yes, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Matt Cutts at no point in this video says that PR has no value. In fact, he says exactly the opposite. He says:
"There are a lot of SEOs and people in search who look at the PageRank toolbar, but there are a ton of regular users as well. You would be really surprised at how many just regular people have the Google toolbar and use PageRank as a way to figure out ihow reputable something is....We get into our tunnel vision and think no one else uses the PageRank toolbar, but the fact is a lot of people do."
He goes on to say that Chrome doesn't have a PageRank toolbar and IE10 won't allow toolbars or add-ins of any kind. He talks about how, if IE10 catches on, the PageRank toolbar might not be used by as many people.
He then reiterates: "A lot of people do use it. I believe we will continue to support those people while they use the Google toolbar...but it looks like the writing's on the wall that with IE 10 the Google Toolbar won't be allowed any more on IE 10 in Windows, so we'll see how things develop in the future."
So you see, his video is about the Google Toolbar. He never even addresses PageRank, aside from the fact that it is something in the Google Toolbar. He certainly acknowledges that people use it and that Google continues to support it. In no way did he ever say or even imply that PageRank wasn't a valid way to determine the trustworthiness of a site. In fact, he said just the opposite.
What are your thoughts?
Dana
-
I read that case of newpaper where there PR getting down from PR 7 to PR 3.
Lets see what he said last week.
-
I think characterizing what Matt Cutts said about PageRank as meaning that PageRank no longer means anything is a mistake. In his blog post from August 2012, (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/why-did-my-pagerank-go-down/) Cutts clearly spends an entire email explaining to a Newspaper why their PageRank might have gone down. If PageRank no longer meant anything, he would have said that in his response to them. But he didn't. Instead, he spent the entire email discussing several issues that Google saw with the site that were in violation of the terms of service. As a result, the PageRank dropped 50%.
I think Cutts' comments regarding PageRank in no way undermine the fact that PageRank still is an indicator of a site's authority and value. I think what he's trying to get people (including SEOs) to understand, is that attempting to manipulate PageRank, via sculpting, selling links that pass PR or buying links that pas PR are bad things to do and could hurt your site, possible even getting it removed from Google's index.
I still pay attention to PR as I am managing SEO, but it isn't the be all end all, nor do I do anything to try to articfically manipulate PR on the sites I manage.
I also use all of the other resources you mentioned. One I use that isn't on your list is http://ahrefs.com, and for domain authority I specifically use OSE.
I hope this is a helpful viewpoint. I do think there are a lot of misconstrued notions about things Matt Cutts has to say, with people often over-interpreting or reading things into his comments. Mostly, I think he means exactly what he says, no more, no less.
Cheers!
Dana
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How do I code SEO for a secondary site without impacting the main site?
We have a secondary site for our online magazine, how do I code the SEO so I don't steal links from the main site?
Algorithm Updates | | gacwebteam0 -
Optimized site-wide internal links in footer - a problem?
Hello all - I am looking at a website with 8 heavily keyword optimized site-wide links in the footer. Yes, there are only 8 but it looks a bit spammy and I'm tempted to remove them. I imagine there's some possibility of a Google penalty too? What would your advice be? Thanks, Luke
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
Post penguin & panda update. what would be a good seo strategies for brand new sites
Hi there. I have the luxury of launching a few sites after the penguin and panda updates, so I can start from scratch and hopefully do it right. I will get SEO companies to help me with this so i just want to ask for advices on what would be a good strategies for a brand new site. my understand of the new updates is this content and user experience is important, like how long they spend, how many pages etc social media is important. we intent to engage FB and twitter alot. in New Zealand, not too many people use google+ so we will probbaly just concentrate on the first two hopefully we will try to get people to share our website via social media, apparent that is important should only concentrate on high quality backlinks with a good diverse set of alt tags, but concentrate on branding rather than keywords. Am i correct to say that so far? if that is the principle, what would be the strategy to implement these goals? Links to any articles would also be great please. Love learning. i just want to do this right and hopefully try to future proof the sites against updates as possible. i guess quality content and links will most likely to be safe. Thank you for your help.
Algorithm Updates | | btrinh0 -
301-Redirects, PageRank, Matt Cutts, Eric Enge & Barry Schwartz - Fact or Myth?
I've been trying to wrap my head around this for the last hour or so and thought it might make a good discussion. There's been a ton about this in the Q & A here, Eric Enge's interview with Matt Cutts from 2010 (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-012510.shtml) said one thing and Barry Schwartz seemed to say another: http://searchengineland.com/google-pagerank-dilution-through-a-301-redirect-is-a-myth-149656 Is this all just semantics? Are all of these people really saying the same thing and have they been saying the same thing ever since 2010? Cyrus Shepherd shed a little light on things in this post when he said that it seemed people were confusing links and 301-redirects and viewing them as being the same things, when they really aren't. He wrote "here's a huge difference between redirecting a page and linking to a page." I think he is the only writer who is getting down to the heart of the matter. But I'm still in a fog. In this video from April, 2011, Matt Cutts states very clearly that "There is a little bit of pagerank that doesn't pass through a 301-redirect." continuing on to say that if this wasn't the case, then there would be a temptation to 301-redirect from one page to another instead of just linking. VIDEO - http://youtu.be/zW5UL3lzBOA So it seems to me, it is not a myth that 301-redirects result in loss of pagerank. In this video from February 2013, Matt Cutts states that "The amount of pagerank that dissipates through a 301 is currently identical to the amount of pagerank that dissipates through a link." VIDEO - http://youtu.be/Filv4pP-1nw Again, Matt Cutts is clearly stating that yes, a 301-redirect dissipates pagerank. Now for the "myth" part. Apparently the "myth" was about how much pagerank dissipates via a 301-redirect versus a link. Here's where my head starts to hurt: Does this mean that when Page A links to Page B it looks like this: A -----> ( reduces pagerank by about 15%)-------> B (inherits about 85% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page But say the "link" that exists on Page A is no longer good, but it's still the original URL, which, when clicked, now redirects to Page B via a URL rewrite (301 redirect)....based on what Matt Cutts said, does the pagerank scenario now look like this: A (with an old URL to Page B) ----- ( reduces pagerank by about 15%) -------> URL rewrite (301 redirect) - Reduces pagerank by another 15% --------> B (inherits about 72% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page) Forgive me, I'm not a mathematician, so not sure if that 72% is right? It seems to me, from what Matt is saying, the only way to avoid this scenario would be to make sure that Page A was updated with the new URL, thereby avoiding the 301 rewrite? I recently had to re-write 18 product page URLs on a site and do 301 redirects. This was brought about by our hosting company initiating rules in the back end that broke all of our custom URLs. The redirects were to exactly the same product pages (so, highly relevant). PageRank tanked on all 18 of them, hard. Perhaps this is why I am diving into this question more deeply. I am really interested to hear your point of view
Algorithm Updates | | danatanseo0 -
How to get Yahoo visitors to my site
I get great traffic from Google but Yahoo is at about a 20 to 1 ratio on visitors. Is there anything I should do to increase Yahoo traffic? I bought a Yahoo Directory listing about 3 months ago but it did no good. Thanks, Boo
Algorithm Updates | | Boodreaux0 -
Are links irrelevant now?
After having one of my sites trashed by penguin, I rebuilt it on a new domain. Pretty much everything was the same except for the look of the site plus I decreased the keyword density and did a few other things to avoid future Penguin penalties. I created a small number of directory links. My site is now maybe 6 months old, doesn't get much traffic, however I wa suprised to see that my main keyword " uncontested divorce lawyer" is now ranking number 1 in google in US ! This despite the EMD update. The domain name is www.uncontesteddivorce-lawyer.com . Like I said I still don't get a lot of traffic on this site. I have another site which until recently was driving over 500 visitors a month, since November it has declined to 350 a month. This site is over 4 years old and was unaffected by all the updates, until recently. It too is an EMD but has more links. Not co complain but can anyone explain the #1 rating? Also it would appear that links are practically irrelevant. I have read and heard that practically no one is linking to content, instead they are sharing, liking, etc. Any comments
Algorithm Updates | | diogenes0 -
How to optimise a news site? - tomorrows chip paper terms
Are there any specific tips to how to gain traffic from very short lived search terms? If the site you are SEO/SEMing want to go for search related to things like the latest celebrity breakup, or a fashion event that lasts less than a week The onsite stuff seems pretty good as SEO onsite tools generally give it an A grade Is it just a case of doing the same stuff as normal, but faster? 😉
Algorithm Updates | | Fammy0 -
Site Usage Statistics and organic ranking
I'm not sure if anyone has tested this properly but i'm begining to suspect that google is using site usage statistics as a site quality guide and ultimately as a ranking variable. The this what i've seen so far on one of my sites (site A) Week 1= bounce rate (83.88%), Avg time on site (0:0:57), Pages/visit (1.28) no changes made to the site apart from the usual link building. Week 2: Traffic drops by 30%, Keywords generating traffic drops by 39%. Bounce rate (87.25%), Avg time on site (0:0:43), pages/visit (1.21). I replaced all affiliate links on my homepage to internal pages where the chunk of the content is and did a reconsideration request. Week 3: Traffic goes up by 30%, keywords generating traffic goes up by 65%, Bounce rate (30.41%), Avg time on site (0:3:02), Pages/visit (3.74). This is not the most scientific test but surely google must be using these variables and a ranking factor? Anyone seen something along these lines or have thoughts on it?
Algorithm Updates | | clickangel0