
Google PageRank Is Not Dead - pierreneter
https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-pagerank/
======
gcatalfamo
Although it has some content, this article is generic enough to make me think
is is a SEO strengthening article from ahrefs for certain keywords...

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
A spam post advertising a spam product from a spam company? On a subject that
is of particular interest to spammers? Surely not!

------
stevenicr
From what I see the old Google is dead from self inflicted wounds. In an
effort to destroy spam they removed lots of good sites and changed things for
the future webmasters and users.

sadly the only game in town for new sites these days is likely facebook
traffic, snapchat and youtube.

Google has been looking more and more like the yellow pages in my experience.
They serve fast local results because so many people crowd source the info as
it's used a lot.

As far as finding useful things outside of local results, the quality varies
and the things that are censored are more due to their war on spam than any
regulations.

The good thing is that people can still share cool things via snapchat, fbook
and their future replacements. The need for google is not the same as it once
was.

Sure people will continue to use it as it's convenient for many local searches
and accurate enough for that, and its default choice on many mobile devices.

as for web sites and their creators, trying to please google's changing
pleasure zones is an unending game without clear rules, taking time and money
without an end in sight. Their war an spam has crushed many that were not
trying to fight it.

Between mysterious penalties (algorithmic of course, the manual ones are not
so mysterious unless it's the google plus network), negative seo, and
competition that uses inside info, there is little hope for new sites in many
categories to get top placement.

I suggest to either establish local brick and mortar to get those kind of
local results with google, or give up fighting google's algorithm and the
competition - just buy some ads with them, but consider that you'll likely get
more quality visitors with ads and engagement with fbook, snap and others.

Given the search results I had today when looking for a particular model of
samsung cell phone - I would guess that page rank is playing a bigger role
than one might have guessed - even though it said results effected by your
neighborhood location (my neighborhood listed) - I sure had lots of results
for phone companies in the UK and other abroad places that offered no helpful
information to me about the unlocked phone and how it worked with various lte
bands here.

Of course, selection bias and all that, other people's experience will vary.
If most of your searches are for stack exchange info you might feel they are
relevant and awesome. I prefer to use search engines to search for multiple
different sources of info about things to get a bigger picture.

~~~
SubiculumCode
I feel like I find fewer interesting (or odd) little websites these days
through Google..Either they no longer exist, or Google ignores them. It is
strange and disheartening.

~~~
metildaa
Google is ignoring these sites, using Bing, Qwant or DuckDuckGo works much
better for queries where uour looking for that obscure site thst is a treasure
trove of info.

Part # are another area where Google Search has notably gotten worse over the
past half decade. I've emailed multiple Googlers who claim to want to fix
these crap results, but I have yet to have one bother to respond (despite them
replying to my comments asking me to contact them!)

~~~
Semaphor
Obscure searches is what I use "!g" for. DDG is horrible with them, especially
with the change of ignoring _forced_ terms.

~~~
metildaa
Ah, its been a while since I tried forced terms on DDG. Been using Qwant for a
while now...

~~~
SubiculumCode
I haven't heard of that. Any good?

~~~
metildaa
Its sufficent to keep me off Google, which neither DDG or Bing could ever
achieve. I do occasionally get imposter syndrome, and search something on
Google too, but the results are generally more accurate on Qwant (for me at
least).

Where Google kills it is built-in currency conversion, wikipedia previews and
such.

~~~
Semaphor
> Where Google kills it is built-in currency conversion, wikipedia previews
> and such.

So, all those things that DDG has as well? ;)

And I tried Qwant, but didn't like it and after a short return to Google
(which was very short because I've become too used to bangs) I swallowed my
annoyance and went back to DDG.

------
googlemike
> No replica of PageRank exists. Period.

> But there are a few similar metrics around, one of which is Ahrefs’ URL
> Rating (UR).

There you have it folks, the article in a nutshell. While somewhat interesting
and still vaguely informing, the primary goal is to sell you something. TLDR:
"Pagerank as a single metric to track your sites ranking for Google is dead.
Use my single metric to track your sites ranking for Google"

~~~
victorbojica
Even tough it's a plug, it's a nice one and the content IMHO is pretty good...

~~~
googlemike
Sure, but something about the echo of the sound of salesmen makes the whole
thing a measurable deal worse. At least, enough for me to be put off by it -
if only a tad. If the sole aim was to educate and inform, leaving the sales
pitch off would have been better.

------
elihu
I think the PageRank patent is finally expired, but I'm not a hundred percent
sure. If so, that's just one less roadblock in the way of anyone who wants to
enter the search engine market and challenge Google and Bing.

~~~
icebraining
The original patent is expired, though Google has patented some tweaked
versions since then, which are still protected, so one has to be careful when
using it.

------
balibebas
The brutal rebuff reminds me of the argument against using keywords, which I
still add to my websites as, when used appropriately, adds value. PR is
similar in that, while it may no longer matter to Google, it still matters
(and you don't have to pay $7/mo. to figure that out) because there are other
search engines crawling the surface Web that aren't Google.

------
system2
Not dead doesn't mean useful. Best case, it is providing partially correct
information.

~~~
sweezyjeezy
I think the author's point is that it is still a metric that Google use, so
still potentially something worth optimising.

------
chernoby
Check out [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/) if
someone says its not dead, that means it is already dead.

~~~
blackoil
hmm, does it work vice-versa, i.e. `if someone says dead, that means alive and
kicking`.

~~~
chernoby
Even its vice-versa, if its not profitable enough google shutdown these
services...

