Haabaa.com is one of the most popular site in web. But, in the last PR update got it down from 6 to 5. Let us discuss here why this happen? Need to learn it for our all business. I think, this case is an Ideal case to study. So, please do not hesitate to put your contribution here.
Why haabaa.com got down?
- Thread starter rakib
- Start date
I will throw something in, and start with a question. What is the difference between a PR 4 and a PR6 site in PR value?
Now I just know that everyone is gonna say PR2 but it isn't
But 6-4 = 2 OWG I hear you shout. AND you would be right, except a PR6 is not a PR6 it might be a PR 6.0000000001 And a PR4 might be a PR4.9999999999
So NOW what is the difference? well the difference now between a PR6 and a PR4 is now PR1 and a tiny fraction in this instance.
PR is also relative to the number of pages in the index. So if a site goes into the Supplemental index then likely it might not be passing PR on any longer. The other thing to consider here is that because PR is relative to the volume of pages in the index, while the volume of links you had lat update might have taken you to a PR6.0000001, the same amount this time might take you to a PR5.9999999 and Pr only shows after you go above the whole number (all pages start life with a PR value, it just does not register until it goes above the whole number.
If you disagree with this statement (as many have in the past), ask yourself this simple question, if PR that is transferred is equal to the value of a page less the dampening factor (about 15%), then where does page rank come from if new pages do not have PR If new pages do NOT have PR then that means the initial index of google would have started with zero pagerank to pass on, in which case the value of the page - the dampening factor would ALWAYS equal ZERO as 100% of zero is zero.
Now I just know that everyone is gonna say PR2 but it isn't
But 6-4 = 2 OWG I hear you shout. AND you would be right, except a PR6 is not a PR6 it might be a PR 6.0000000001 And a PR4 might be a PR4.9999999999So NOW what is the difference? well the difference now between a PR6 and a PR4 is now PR1 and a tiny fraction in this instance.
PR is also relative to the number of pages in the index. So if a site goes into the Supplemental index then likely it might not be passing PR on any longer. The other thing to consider here is that because PR is relative to the volume of pages in the index, while the volume of links you had lat update might have taken you to a PR6.0000001, the same amount this time might take you to a PR5.9999999 and Pr only shows after you go above the whole number (all pages start life with a PR value, it just does not register until it goes above the whole number.
If you disagree with this statement (as many have in the past), ask yourself this simple question, if PR that is transferred is equal to the value of a page less the dampening factor (about 15%), then where does page rank come from if new pages do not have PR
If new pages do NOT have PR then that means the initial index of google would have started with zero pagerank to pass on, in which case the value of the page - the dampening factor would ALWAYS equal ZERO as 100% of zero is zero.OldWelshGuy your explication is fine with me but why that drop ? I mean some other old, stable directories dropped in PR. You are saying that is not such a big difference between 5 and 6 but rakib is asking why that drop...
My opinion is that those PR drops are related with Matt Cutts "paidlink" reporting and for sure Google algorithms are changing.
My opinion is that those PR drops are related with Matt Cutts "paidlink" reporting and for sure Google algorithms are changing.
I think sourcer is absolutely righ. Most directories that rely on paid links to bost their own PR have had the carpet pulled from under their feet. Most of the links that gave Haabaa its PR6 and predicted PR7 which it should have been at last update were from paid link which has been nobled
A
ablaye
Guest
I believe Google has started to crack down on paid links.
Matt Cutts did say that Google was implementing new algo to detect paid links. Maybe they finally got the system in place. Who knows?
Most of my sites also lost PR.
Matt Cutts did say that Google was implementing new algo to detect paid links. Maybe they finally got the system in place. Who knows?
Most of my sites also lost PR.
If it is the paid links then some directories link bigweblink why from pr0 to pr7. I think google has improved its pr algo, this update you will notice pr loosing is very common in older sites.
Well I think that Google managed to implement new algorithm to detect paid links , because I can`t explain the drop of Haabaa.com. But bdseo may also have a point with the "old sites" , I mean have a look at DP ( for about one year most of the members were expecting the forum to do up to PR 8 , yet now it`s PR 6...)
About the paid links again - I can say that could be a problem , haabaa.com had many bought links from directories and sites.
About the paid links again - I can say that could be a problem , haabaa.com had many bought links from directories and sites.
gkd_uk
Well-Known Member
Googles evil bot knows all and sees all
These bots must be very clever if they can tell whether a link has been bought or was free
Are you suggesting Google is now punishing older sites? And you give Bigweblinks 2 or 3 PR updates, it will come crashing down to earth.
I think the message is that artificially inflated sites will not be able to sustain their PR without natural links behind them.
Are you trying to say that DP is buying links ???
I was offering an example for bdseo`s theory about the "old sites" , I didn`t said anything about DP buying links.
oh... you said about paid links and then about DP my bad
my bad
M
melkior_inactive
Guest
Let's look at this socially first:
All of us can be considered (more or less) power users. And we tend to view everything through expert knowledge we have gained over the years. So it's my feeling that we discard possible reasons due to the nature of our work.
Most of the people on the internet can use a computer obviously but "using a computer" is a multi-layered term. For instance: both my father and I can use the computer. There's no way of denying it. He can use a text editor, but I can program a text editor. But we're both PC users. But the fact that I can program a text editor gives me an actual handicap when trying to analyse a computer related problem. Most of the time I try to view it trough my technical view and I fail to find a flaw. But that's just it. There's nothing wrong with it in that particular way. What's wrong with it that it isn's user friendly.
Now, having said that (only an example to give you the feel of what I'm trying to say) we can continue.
I'm sure we can all agree that Google is more than popular. But Google is also user-friendly. Very user-friendly. All those nifty little gadgets, apps, integrated mail, search history, online calendars and so on.
We look at them as nice and continue with our work. But most users on the net are like my father and they find them incredible. So they like Google. They see Google as their friend and not some large company.
So when Google says we want the paid links reported they immediately do so. They don't go hunting for them (unless they're Google fanatics) but when they see a site that says "buy links here" or something they remember what Google said and report them.
Most of today's "webmasters" are bloggers who don't know a first thing about HTML or PHP or whatever but they manage to run very succesful sites because the technology today offers them a simple way of creating websites.
Programming languages have long abandoned the coding view. You can create a fairly complicated program these days without writing a line of code.
Gaining computer knowledge is easy because everything is so simple to learn. And for most people Google makes things even simpler and that's why they listen to them.
Each day sites get reported for paid links not out of spite but out of devotion to Google. And they don't get reported by some computer wizards. They get reported by people like your brothers and sisters and cousins.
Than there's the business side:
If I wanted to kill my competition I could build my site on natural links. And I'd probably be the worst ranked page in my field. But if I see that my competition is using paid links I'd just go and report them all and all of the sudden I'm in front of them.
This also happens. It's not nice. It's not fair but it happens.
And the technical side finaly:
Once a site gets reported Google Bots can easily check it for keywords like "buy links", "paid links" and stuff. And if they don't get a 100% sure result one of the employees can easily check it out himself and decide if it gets on the black list. They don't even need to kill that site's page rank. They just add a flag to the site so when the PR is calculated all the links contained on those sites are devalued. So it looks like a site full of ref="nofollow" links.
And let me tell you: this sure wasn't some big change to the PR algorythm. It was a matter of adding a few more lines to the already existing algorythm. Simple but effective.
And I'm sure I only scratched the surface. There are many more aspects to this. And all of this is open to questioning.
All of us can be considered (more or less) power users. And we tend to view everything through expert knowledge we have gained over the years. So it's my feeling that we discard possible reasons due to the nature of our work.
Most of the people on the internet can use a computer obviously but "using a computer" is a multi-layered term. For instance: both my father and I can use the computer. There's no way of denying it. He can use a text editor, but I can program a text editor. But we're both PC users. But the fact that I can program a text editor gives me an actual handicap when trying to analyse a computer related problem. Most of the time I try to view it trough my technical view and I fail to find a flaw. But that's just it. There's nothing wrong with it in that particular way. What's wrong with it that it isn's user friendly.
Now, having said that (only an example to give you the feel of what I'm trying to say) we can continue.
I'm sure we can all agree that Google is more than popular. But Google is also user-friendly. Very user-friendly. All those nifty little gadgets, apps, integrated mail, search history, online calendars and so on.
We look at them as nice and continue with our work. But most users on the net are like my father and they find them incredible. So they like Google. They see Google as their friend and not some large company.
So when Google says we want the paid links reported they immediately do so. They don't go hunting for them (unless they're Google fanatics) but when they see a site that says "buy links here" or something they remember what Google said and report them.
Most of today's "webmasters" are bloggers who don't know a first thing about HTML or PHP or whatever but they manage to run very succesful sites because the technology today offers them a simple way of creating websites.
Programming languages have long abandoned the coding view. You can create a fairly complicated program these days without writing a line of code.
Gaining computer knowledge is easy because everything is so simple to learn. And for most people Google makes things even simpler and that's why they listen to them.
Each day sites get reported for paid links not out of spite but out of devotion to Google. And they don't get reported by some computer wizards. They get reported by people like your brothers and sisters and cousins.
Than there's the business side:
If I wanted to kill my competition I could build my site on natural links. And I'd probably be the worst ranked page in my field. But if I see that my competition is using paid links I'd just go and report them all and all of the sudden I'm in front of them.
This also happens. It's not nice. It's not fair but it happens.
And the technical side finaly:
Once a site gets reported Google Bots can easily check it for keywords like "buy links", "paid links" and stuff. And if they don't get a 100% sure result one of the employees can easily check it out himself and decide if it gets on the black list. They don't even need to kill that site's page rank. They just add a flag to the site so when the PR is calculated all the links contained on those sites are devalued. So it looks like a site full of ref="nofollow" links.
And let me tell you: this sure wasn't some big change to the PR algorythm. It was a matter of adding a few more lines to the already existing algorythm. Simple but effective.
And I'm sure I only scratched the surface. There are many more aspects to this. And all of this is open to questioning.
Apparently the plan with regard sites selling links is to investigate all the sites in their cluster and act accordingly.
Hi
Certainly no war between google and old sites
but i m coming accrosss in many webmasters forum regarding pr update . Most of the cases they loose pr. they are older sites.What I know about Chirs of alive is he is continously building links for alive . See while alive drops , his bigweblink got raise.
On thing may be google has records about older sites more to analyse to take action ( PURELY ITS MY THINKING NO PROOF I HAVE FOR THAT)
Similar threads
