The fact is there are plenty of sites in any given niche or discpline that have worthy content. The fact that most of them aren’t seen is only because when you get right down to it, they don’t have enough “friends” to give them a vote.

A rotating ranking system would be much more logical I believe. There are certainly cases where that probably isn’t true, like a search for Pepsi-cola. That should probably return the the home page of Pepsi as its first result. But, If I type “where can I find the cheapest Pepsi”, there are a number of sites that could provide that information.

Maybe the “strongest” site could only hold postion 1 for up to let’s say 50% of the time. Maybe because it is the
“strongest” site, it should never fall from page 1, but other “strong” sites are rotated into the top spots.

So there is still an incentive to become the “strongest” or at least “stronger”. Your site will still gain more visbility than sites that aren’t as “strong”. But other sites that provide worthy information and content would also be givin visibility.

The algorithm could then take into account time on the page, how many pages were visited, etc. to determine if that page is worthy of continuing to receive visibility.

If only I had the time to create a search engine.

On the other hand, Google’s voting system doesn’t have an end point. It’s like if George Bush ran again he doesn’t start with 0 votes he start with whatever he received back in 2004 – that’s an unfair advantage I’d say, but that’s how Google operates. If that’s not broken, what is?

That said, when was the last time you saw a site with little/no PR (on the root domain, at least) ranking? It’s pretty rare, if we’re honest with ourselves. Not necessarily a causational link, but I’d argue there’s something to it…

I’m not sure what you’re getting at regarding the infrastructure etc. Implementing new algos is no easy task? Ok, but that doesn’t change the fact that their link analysis is screwed up.

You can lead the dance all you want – I’m still homecoming King ! Np on the Sphinn – it was a worthy article.

Matt’s language there is ambiguous. Somewhere between votes and navigation.

@ Rishi – Knol is, imho, an insurance policy. Against people making Wikipedia their starting search engine.

Vertical integration – you’re bang on.

Whether Knol proves the solution to scaling human review, we’ll have to wait and see. Certainly it can help them improve quality and control some of the most significant content in their index.

Thanks for the bright comments you too!

This kind of takes me back to June when Matt wrote http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/the-role-of-humans-in-google-search/
Strangely enough – Matt comments “PageRank is fundamentally about the hyperlinks that people on the web create. All those people creating links help Google formulate an opinion of how important a page is.”

What I do believe is that PR needs to be ignored ofr the present – it isnt a dynamic indicator anymore – and I believe that G has another card up its sleeve – which may have something to do with its introduction of KNOL.

Thats one area where they have full control over the value of a site – and considering the fact that its going head to head with Wikipedia and Squidoo – I think google has decided its tired of showing content that games its results – they will show their “own” on top results via KNOL where the community votes or whatever on good articles. Basically they haow found a way to scale the human element of search IMHO.
Owning the system that hosts the content allows its full control over spam techniques.
Vertical integration? I think so.

Rushing headlong into weighting other systems may just create even more loop holes for spammers to get into and then we’d all be complaining about that. While it (nor little else in this world) is not perfect, I do have faith in many of the directions they, and other search engines are taking things.

I think SEOs need to stop fixating on PR as THE ALGO because Google did years ago. Seems many folks are just starting to notice… hehe…

Tanx fer the Sphinn BTW…. :0) …. Feel like we’re dancing… ( I better be leading… he he)

That said, if you rephrased the title as “Why PageRank is Broken,” I’d say my criticism is still valid. And I think that Google’s alteration of their evaluation of a “link” is the cause of their own woes. Consider how much of the text link market features crappy sites that no one ever goes to yet can be used to manipulate the algos. Hell, the tide of form-completing spam could probably be eliminated at its core if trackbacks stopped counting for links (when was the last time you clicked one?) and ditto guestbook submissions and items on dead forums.

@ Paul: Constantly refreshing content is very important. It gets spiders returning regularly, and it will help you control link flow on your site to get more pages indexed and gain more long tail traffic. As to getting outside links easily, look at the sources listed towards the bottom of this post: http://seoroi.com/algorithms/supplemental-index/

I threw up a new site and managed in less than a month to get it in the top five on Google through updating content like a mad man. I slow down a bit as the site matures and the Google ranking slips, but the Yahoo is increasing. Now it’s in the top five of yahoo and page 3 of Google. Time to build links tog et it back up. I think Google favors fast moving pages a bit too much.

I’m curious to hear your idea to fix it as anytihng I can come up with probably wound’t work any better for the average Joe.

As such, discussing how to achieve better rankings by talking about the PR algo is like living in the last century when it was born. But hey, if you want to give it a go… feel free, I would just not be myopic in looking at PR as the fundamental ranking behemoth that is once was, this is no longer the case.

BTW…. Friendly freakin fella up there…. Yeeeshhh….

Talk soon (haven’t forgotten my question/answers for ya)

Dave

I’m not at all bothered by the fact that you’ve unsubscribed from my blog. Someone who makes ad hominem attacks when they disagree with an idea is not welcome in my circle.

I think it’s evident that the primary difference between Yahoo or MSN’s algorithms and Google’s is the fact that Google trusts older sites more. It might be arrogant to say that I deserve to be number, and if that’s how it came across I apologize. That said, it is logical given that with the name of my company/brand/site “SEO ROI” has turned at least partly into a brand search.

I think you’re a Google fan who is merely hurt that I pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes.

I thought this blog was nice and I added it to Google Reader, but this piece of shit post made me unsubscribe again real fast. Did you even think about the shit you wrote or did you just write down whatever came out of your ass?

And do you REALLY think it’s the SANDBOX that’s keeping you at position TEN? That’s such an arrogant and moronic statement at the same time it’s ridiculous.