I just posted what follows on another forum and thought that it would also be of interest here.
I know any discussion of what Google is doing post Florida is still highly speculative, so lets discuss what we think we knew pre Florida.
Can we agree that PageRank was then completely query independent. Simply a number based on the sharing of that same number calculated for all the pages in the link exchange?
Can we also agree that there was an additional evaluation taking place and at a minimum this involved Google reading the anchor text, or alt tag with a graphic link, and deciding on the page's relevance based on the this query dependent information?
If we can agree on this then the question is how did Google use these two evaluations in deciding where to place a page in a SERP?
We have all seem pages with higher PRs placed lower in the SERPs than pages with lower PRs. So we can only conclude that PR is not Google's primary consideration for placing a page in the SERP. This is only reasonable when we consider that Google's avowed purpose is to deliver the most relevant web pages in response to each search query.
PR is query independent therefore it would follow that it should not be used as a relevancy measurement.
Now the problem or confusion with PR arises out of the fact that Google decided to give us a numeric value for this one measurement factor. If PR attempts to measure relevance at all it is simply by implication. The implication being that in a perfect world a webmaster would predominantly link to pages of interest to his visitors, hence relevant to the topic at hand.
But this is the only measure we have. This is the only peek that Google gives into the results of any of their algos. So people place an unreasonable and unfounded amount of importance on the numeric value of PageRank. In fact many people are of the opinion that page rank reflect the total value of an or all inbound like.
So the question remains how did Google measure relevance and how did it factor into the placement of a page into the SERP? In another Forum one of the members proposed this formula for how Google determines SERP placement: (In fact the other forum referred to was IMF.)
Quote:
PR + Page Copy = Rank for non competitive words
Anchor Link Text = Ranking of competitive words
|
Would anyone care to comment on this formula? If this is correct then PR has value only for the more unusual or unique search terms. And relevance no matter how determined is the determining factor in the SERP placement for high volume search terms.
Now I think this discussion is worthwhile, because while we don't know exactly what changes Google made in Nov. it is the major consensus that these changes involved more sophisticated methods of measuring link relevance. Nobody has suggested the calculation of the PR numeric value has been changed in any way.
So why are people still possessed and engaged in the headlong pursuit of PR value? Obviously to rank well for any popular search term we should be concentrating on relevance factors. This was assumed to be predominantly anchor text prior to Nov. 16. Today it may be a number of other factors. But to succeed in getting good SERP placement from our inbound links, our efforts should be concentrated on increasing our link's relevancy factors not on increasing the numeric value of our PR.
After all, my early days of learning SEO were done at SitePoint, reading Chris Beasley's articles and links (John has as similar high regard for him as he does for Jill Whalen. 
).
Linear Mode
