OK, here's some stuff...

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

I'm reading one of Mike Grehan's columns (again) and he
retrospectively seems to be letting rather large cats out of the bag.
Other folks have been suggesting reciprocals are dead, no big surprise
there as blind folk could have predicted it. I think Mr Grehan,
though, is suggesting that the Googs have drawn a bead on link
spamming in general that has a rather more educated eye.
Those of you outside the circle of light made by the fire here who are
of a mathematical bent might want to pack your slide rules and
protractors and head off to


where if you can grasp it is a big paper on how Google have identified
people who have PR artificially gained.
Note this quote, with reference to me, the fabled SEO practitioner
with a home page having a PR of 4 and without a Google toolbar (I'm
quoting from said paper);
"Obviously, a node
with a small PageRank is not a beneficiary of considerable boosting,
so it is of no interest to us."
But, Mr Grehan in his piece states;
 "PageRank, for instance, is never used the way people think it is.
But as long as people think it's a major influence in the ranking
process, the easier it is for Google to use that to its advantage.
As I've said before, doesn't it appear a little suspect when the enemy
leaves you ammunition? It's bound to backfire. Buying and selling
links based on PageRank's global scale is a wonderful breadcrumb trail
for Google."
The rest of it is at

Well, I never was particularly enamoured of Page Rank. It's looking
like I was probably right not to be swept up in it.
None of which explains why my site should get banished to the outer
regions, though. Unless somewhere, despite I've never traded or bought
links based on PR, and I've only ever bought maybe three links from
plain vanilla directories, somewhere there's a breadcrumb trail
leading, albeit inadvertently, to me.


www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
         The buffalo have gone

Site Timeline