Like it never went away. I can see no immediate difference.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

All that energy wasted on a Google glich....Well at least things are normal
again

Ken


"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9g1n91hhhjtslvpg1cl4npil8rseud2jb2@4ax.com...
> Like it never went away. I can see no immediate difference.
>
> BB
> --
> www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
> seo that watches the river flow...
> --

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:32:07 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> Like it never went away. I can see no immediate difference.

So much for the theory that google was disposing of PR. I hope that it
does not happen, for purely egocentric reasons (having a PR7 site).

i

Has anybody noticed differences after the recent changes, if any, in
Google's PR? My site still has the same PR.

Tim Kieft
http://www.vbvb.nl

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:32:09 +0200, TimK <tim@vbvb.nl> wrote:

> Has anybody noticed differences after the recent changes, if any, in
> Google's PR? My site still has the same PR.

No changes here as well.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

TimK wrote:

> Has anybody noticed differences after the recent changes, if any, in
> Google's PR? My site still has the same PR.

230 pages checked, all the same compared to april the 22th, so I would say
no changes.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 30 May 2005 22:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus29**
<ignoramus29**@NOSPAM.29**.invalid> wrote:

>So much for the theory that google was disposing of PR. I hope that it
>does not happen, for purely egocentric reasons (having a PR7 site).

LOL, me too. I use PR as guide to how I'm doing in terms of getting
enough links to everything, if a page is low PR I funnel more PR to
it. I'd hate to have to use my brain to work it out :-))

Think I got my highest day's traffic from all my sites yesterday, two
of the main sites alone came to 14,000 visitors (each site had over
7,000 visitors, one of them has increased from just under 3,000 last
month) so whatever Google's doing I like it a lot :-)

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

SEO Dave wrote:

> On 30 May 2005 22:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus29**
> <ignoramus29**@NOSPAM.29**.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So much for the theory that google was disposing of PR. I hope that it
>>does not happen, for purely egocentric reasons (having a PR7 site).
>
> LOL, me too. I use PR as guide to how I'm doing in terms of getting
> enough links to everything, if a page is low PR I funnel more PR to
> it. I'd hate to have to use my brain to work it out :-))
>
> Think I got my highest day's traffic from all my sites yesterday, two
> of the main sites alone came to 14,000 visitors (each site had over
> 7,000 visitors, one of them has increased from just under 3,000 last
> month) so whatever Google's doing I like it a lot :-)

Are you sure it is Google that brought many of these visitors? And if so,
why? Was there a lot of content added or just a PR increase? I sometimes
feel like Google place greater emphasis on content while PR gets a lower
weighting. Then again, I might be wrong. My PR is quite poor.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:59:42 -0700, "Ken Benoit" <nospam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>All that energy wasted on a Google glich....Well at least things are normal
>again
>
>Ken

They look normal. That doesn't mean they are, it's too soon to say.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:37:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2005 22:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus29**
>> <ignoramus29**@NOSPAM.29**.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>So much for the theory that google was disposing of PR. I hope that it
>>>does not happen, for purely egocentric reasons (having a PR7 site).
>>
>> LOL, me too. I use PR as guide to how I'm doing in terms of getting
>> enough links to everything, if a page is low PR I funnel more PR to
>> it. I'd hate to have to use my brain to work it out :-))
>>
>> Think I got my highest day's traffic from all my sites yesterday, two
>> of the main sites alone came to 14,000 visitors (each site had over
>> 7,000 visitors, one of them has increased from just under 3,000 last
>> month) so whatever Google's doing I like it a lot :-)
>
>Are you sure it is Google that brought many of these visitors? And if so,
>why? Was there a lot of content added or just a PR increase? I sometimes
>feel like Google place greater emphasis on content while PR gets a lower
>weighting. Then again, I might be wrong. My PR is quite poor.
>
>Roy

Then again, David doesn't show us his log files, does he?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--