7 replies to this topic

[FredAt]

I have come across frequent references to how Google puts new sites in a sandbox, lets em age before ranking them etc. My own site is now approaching the grand old age of 5 months. I have pages with a PR ranging from 0 to 5 and my index page ranks a 3. All this leaves me puzzled - do these phenomena actually exist or are they a figment of someone's imagination?

Another thing that I don't quite understand - there does not appear to be a straightforward relationship between PR and the number of links to a page. Some of my 4 & 5 ranked pages have 1. very little content and 2. very few links. So what got them there? A wrinkle in the Google algorithm?

[Randy]

#2 First. You cannot rely on the Toolbar PR to tell you anything at all. It is not the same thing as what Google uses internally so is fairly useless as a reliable metric.

As to the other, I've not studied if they've recently backed off of the typical 9-12 month time frame as the aging delay started with. However I will say that I noticed that the amount one gets dinged has always seemed to be at least a bit query dependent. Meaning I would see brand new sites ranking decently for non-competitive terms right out of the gate. But would fester a bit for more competitive terms. Then one day, when the aging delay filter was apparently removed, BOOM the site would be ranking on the first page. That's impossible to explain by anything other than some sort of aging dampening effect being applied.

[FredAt]

#2 First. You cannot rely on the Toolbar PR to tell you anything at all. It is not the same thing as what Google uses internally so is fairly useless as a reliable metric.

As to the other, I've not studied if they've recently backed off of the typical 9-12 month time frame as the aging delay started with. However I will say that I noticed that the amount one gets dinged has always seemed to be at least a bit query dependent. Meaning I would see brand new sites ranking decently for non-competitive terms right out of the gate. But would fester a bit for more competitive terms. Then one day, when the aging delay filter was apparently removed, BOOM the site would be ranking on the first page. That's impossible to explain by anything other than some sort of aging dampening effect being applied.

Thanks, Randy. I didn't realize that toolbar PR is not quite the same as what Google uses internally. Do any of the various online PR querying services do any better? I am not getting obsessed with page rank - just curious.

[Mhoram]

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward relationship between PR and anything else. I've seen a site go from PR5 to PR0 with no change in ranking, for what it's worth.  Personally, I think it's a joke Google is pulling on people who base their linking strategy on PR.

[Randy]

Do any of the various online PR querying services do any better?

No.

Because the best those tools can do is scrape the Toolbar PR, in violation of Google's TOS, from the servers that produce the little green monster.

[Ladybug]

Thanks so much for posting this. I am new at this whole thing and this has helped me understand more about what it takes to have a successful site.

[nethy]

Ageing delay seems to be one of the topics tha all you can say about is: "It behaves strangely."
Recently, I've seen a good few sites do surprisingly well straight off the bat, then go backwards for a while.

[Jill]

Yes, I think the aging delay may be a thing of the past, or at least it's been changed.