34 replies to this topic

[Jill]

So, at SMX Advanced this week, there was a Matt Cutts Q&A where he has now apparently stated that PageRank Sculpting is no longer the shizzle. If you use it now, the only thing that will happen is that the links that you've nofollowed will make the PageRank that would otherwise go to other pages, simply evaporate.

AKA PRevaporation or as even cooler "PRevap"!

What do ya think?

Here's a good article by Danny outlining the issues:

Google Loses Backwards Compatibility On Paid Link Blocking & PageRank Sculpting

[MaKa]

I've always relie on the site navigation structure to emphasise the pages I find important. Never got into pagerank sculpting and it looks like I don't need to any more either

[1dmf]

damn you Jill, after that long debate over my PR sculpting you had to throw a spanner in the works.

Huh, the poll is completely wrong then!

You all said it wasn't 'black hat'

[Randy]

I can see the headlines already...

PR Leakage Becomes Real, Due Solely To Google's PR Sculpting Recommendations

[Jill]

Honestly, I think it was good old Matt Cutts making up for his previous bad statements that PR sculpting was okay and could help. Bet he got for that from G so now he's letting you know it evaporates PR instead. (Prolly they didn't even change anything.)

You can see how much I believe the propaganda that MC and Google spout.

[Randy]

It does sort of bring the argument back around to whether using NoFollow on ones own internal pages essentially is like telling the search engines you don't trust your own pages, doesn't it?

I remember making the argument that it might not be wise to jump on the bandwagon too soon if it meant you were telling the search engines that you didn't trust some of your own pages, and thought quickly getting poo-poo'd because of some of Matt's statements encouraging the use of sculpting.

[Andy_Seo]

Not that i'm an advocate or supporter of PR 'sculpting' or 'channeling' - however I would like to draw your attention to a quote by Matt Cutts from SEOMoz in August 2007:

Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love?

* A) Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
_
(Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.)

I can see why the theory would/could work - however as Randy put it does it look like you don't trust your own pages?

[Jill]

Yes, we are aware of that quote, Andy, which is why it's so interesting that he's taking it all back now.

It was the quote you pasted that turned many people on to PR sculpting, which perhaps he regrets?

[Andy_Seo]

Yes, we are aware of that quote, Andy, which is why it's so interesting that he's taking it all back now.

It was the quote you pasted that turned many people on to PR sculpting, which perhaps he regrets?

Yeah I thought you guys would have seen it - I remember reading it and taking it on board, but to be honest, as we all know, nothing should be done isolation. Personally I don't see it having a negative effect - as it would appear it does - however, since I did this on one website - the 'Privacy' and 'Terms and Conditions' stopped appearing within the sitelinks that appear under the entry. I may well have been a coincidence (as the site links generally consist of important pages highlighted that have good quality backlinks pointing to it).

To be fair to Matt Cutts, people do see him as the man tp turn to when they have questions regarding the big G (usually when things go wrong or they can't think of anything else to do) and he quite possibly just wanted to help out. I don't know if there was anything cynical behind it *Cue everyone laughing at the naive Brit*

[1dmf]

The big questions is - so when was he lying, then or now.

Will it harm, or do G! really not want people using the power of PR sculpting?

And what should I do with the pages I have sculpted?

[Jill]

I don't know that I would call it "lieing." Unless you call propaganda and/or marketing lieing. More like misleading, maybe?

My opinion is that he is trying to take PR sculpting out of the hands of those who don't know what they're doing as they can cause more harm than good. If you know what you're doing, it's likely that it will still have the same effect it had previously (whatever that may have been).

But we'll know more as weeks and months progress.

I was reading some others thoughts on it last night and this morning and apparently others feel similarly. Some are waiting for an official response with more info from MC, but it doesn't appear to be forthcoming.

For you 1dmf, I would just keep things as is for now.

[1dmf]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, much appreciated.

as to your comment...

Unless you call propaganda -YES and/or marketing lieing - AND YES AGAIN . More like misleading, maybe? , so the Nazis were just misleading people were they with their properganda machine?

Take those rose tinted glasses off Jill

Cigarettes companies were merley marketing the idea fags were good for you eh? one puff and you know they're bad for you, no matter what someone says!

A lie is still a lie even if you don't know you're telling it, or maybe I should rephrase that...

so when was he speaking an untruth, then or now.

Is that like when Ronald Regan claimed he didn't know he'd sold arms to the Libians?

[mal4mac]

one puff and you know they're bad for you, no matter what someone says!

Wrong. Years of statistical analysis and you know they're bad for you.

[1dmf]

I take it you don't smoke then, if you did you'd know you don't need a doctor to tell you!, well unless you're not too bright.

I've smoked since I was 8 , I knew it was bad for me then, and I know now, and it has nothing to do with doctors or health warnings.

When I was 10 i could still walk in a shop and buy them with my lunch money, So I didn't feel naughty for 'breaking the law' or because of 'health warnings' they didn't have them then!, I knew they were bad because I couldnt run the cross country with all my non-smoking friends! and i was the one coughing my lungs up. Doesn't take a brain surgeon, or the surgeon general for that matter!

[Jill]

Well, I sort of know Matt Cutts personally, not like we're buddies or anything, but I've sat at the same table with him at lunch at conferences and that sort of thing, and he doesn't strike me as someone who just out and out lies about stuff.

But I do think Google has its own agenda when making specific announcements. It's tough because people do hang on every word they (and MC) says so they have to be very careful.