« SEO Research: Because Nothing Makes You More Informed Than Being Misinformed | Home | SEO Village Idiot; The Dunning-Kruger Effect »
The New Google PageRank Formula
By theGypsy | February 8, 2011
You gotta be kidding me
Well shit, what can I say? Sometimes we even have to call ‘bullshit‘ on our friends for the greater good. When we see misconceptions and odd statements that causes more confusion, something must be said. Case and point;
New PageRank Formula May Change Your SEO Priorities
I have a lot of friends over at Search Engine Journal from the owners to the editors and even many of the authors. Shit, I even write there myself. But this post just has to be beaten to death lest we further dilute our often struggling industry. I take no joy in it, thought it over a few times… it has to be done.
Getting Geeky Wid It
First things first; if you’re going to talk about SEO, learn about search engines.
Secondly, if you’re talking about PageRank (aka PR)… you’re talking link graph. If you’re talking about the stupid fucking tool bar, please refer to it as TBPR…. ok? If you believe PageRank has little value, then stop building links. If you’re talking about that little green shit-for-brains, dumbassed, totally misunderstood little bar, then say ToolBar Page Rank. Confused? Read this.
Here’s a goddamned info-graphic
If you do that, you won’t ever make confusing goddamned statements like THIS:
“The vast majority of website owners seem to be obsessed with PageRank. It was one of the heaviest ranking factors in the original Google algorithm, and the fame persists. I must admit that I also find it hard to ignore the single most visible feedback figure presented by Google.”
After that? Stop reading patent posts as the fucking gospel.. they’re not SEO Magic Bullets. For starters, you might want to actually look at the filing date on the patent you reference (2004 for those playing along at home). That really does put a gaping fucking hole in the ‘New‘ that is referenced in the title of the post. Not ALL link related patents from Google are about PageRank. This one sure isn’t.
Next up… gee, I dunno maybe do a little research on that particular patent and it’s coverage to date? Maybe a little ol post called; The reasonable surfer; makes for unreasonable thinkers – I won’t get into the specifics again, but let’s just say it doesn’t end well (spoiler alert!).
Just the Meat Hold the Potatoes
Now Mr. Danylchuk, sorry, but much of your post just chaffes my ass to no end. Let us play shall we?
“Previously, each link on a page passed the same amount of authority to the target page. Now, every link is weighted according to how likely a “reasonable surfer” would be to click on that link.”
NOW? Really? Maybe the terms ‘may be’ ‘could be’ would be better served here no? Please though, do go on…
“To pass PageRank, the link now has to achieve the same thing as to get the click: stand out prominently from the rest of the page, and be relevant. ”
Great, please do send over the data to proves this. Not only are there dozens of link scoring methods (patents) that may also be in play, there is a lack of understanding to implicit feedback signals (that’s what behavioural stuff generally falls under).
You then go mumbling on about why your blog didn’t get any TBPR and how you’d unlocked the secret as to why. We won’t get back into the whole TBPR crap, but sweet fucking Oracle of all that’s holy, it’s complete bullshit. Next thing I know we’ll be blaming the mythical sandbox… WTF does any of this have to do with a patent from 2004?
It doesn’t… so we must stop trying to sound like an expert in areas we’re actually not. But enough of that, I promised myself not too go too hard on ya…
Editorial Integrity in SEO Media
And so my warriors, we must ask; WTF is Dave on about? We (knowledgeable) SEOs don’t pay attention to such tripe?
Agreed, that is true. There are a million brain dead fuck nuts useless posts on SEO published around the web each and every day. That never gets me too upset. It is when some of the more highly regarded publications in our industry are involved that I start twitching like a rabbit’s nose.
I happen to be the Asshole in Chief over at my own offering. Is everything there fact? Probably not. Is everything there useful to everyone? Probably not. But, would I publish pure misleading posts that are further muddying the perceptions of the facts of what a search engine is? Not. A. Fucking.Chance.
Now, at least Ann did step in a make a case for them running the piece;
“Arguing about new / not new in SEO is as old as SEO itself. We’ve seen it enough at Sphinn… Now, we are editorial blog but we let readers decide what they like. And readers obviously like this article. ”
Which might seem sensible at first glance… but it’s not that simple. Just because a lot of the wandering pandering noobs and sheeple voted for something doesn’t make it right. I truly care about the SEO industry and have spent YEARs fighting for us to become more educated and stop misinformation.
We’ve been here before right Ann? Remember the LSI post last year?
I personally believe that we do have a responsibility to encourage a greater sense of understanding of search engines and dispel the crap when we see it. (thus I decided to pen this). I take no joy in writing this post and it’s obviously not in my best interest (given my relations with the Blue Glass/SEJ crew). But it sometimes just has to be done. (I’ve also railed against Search Engine Land and SE Watch in the past. I am an equal oportunity asshole ok?).
Quotable Quips
And now, before we go, let’s look at some of the early comments…
This was about Google changing the PageRank calculations? Fuck me. This is exactly the problem my friends. THIS is the message the reader got from it. This post proves nothing of the sort.
Writing for eyeballs or writing to educate? Your motives and measures are out of whack. Huzzah to Barry!
WTF dude, you must still be hanging on fool’s forums. Once more, those ‘changes’ are 7 fucking years old. How exactly does some friends anecdotal evidence prove ANYTHING of what is being claimed here? It doesn’t.
Thanks for the reference? Thanks for the fucking Reference? So SEJ is publishing people that don’t know something as mandatory as to how the TBPR is calculated and updated? Seriously? Muthrfuckr.
You get the idea… there are more since then that firther show the damage this post has done. There are a bunch of numb-nuts talking about the ‘new algo change’, confusing PR with TBPR and more.. It’s a fucking shame.
We MUST Become More Guarded if We’re to Grow
Anyway, I have it off my chest and am feeling better now. Thus we call this blog ‘SEO Group Therapy‘. It’s a place we can let loose and get things into the open that need to be said. As frustrated as I get, there is no real malice to Val nor my pals at SEJ. This is more about ALL OF US being more active in crafting the future of this industry.
Ignorance breeds ignorance and if we ever want to grow beyond being considered link whores and hype merchants we all need to step up. Even to the more experienced among us, these types of articles might just get a ‘meh‘… a shrug, and we move along. That is a disservice to the generation of SEOs to follow.
Keep on fighting the good fight.. I’m outties…Peace!
Topics: Myths and Crap | 78 Comments »
Posted on 08 February 2011 by David Harry
Just a ranting and rambling search geek.... Web gypsy and renaissance man! When not losing what's left o' me mind here, I can be found blogging on the Fire Horse Trail and hanging wid me peeps at the SEO Training Dojo
theGypsy has written 19 articles for SEO Bullshit
Pingback: Open #SEOChat | Search Marketing Weekly
Pingback: Don’t Blog What You Don’t Know
Pingback: New Google PageRank Algorithm Debunked | Search Engine Journal
Pingback: New Google PageRank Algorithm Debunked | Complete Web Solution
Pingback: The Most Epic Misunderstanding of PageRank In Blogging History | SEO Bullshit