What I’m seeing more and more is that it’s really hard to accurately determine EXACTLY why sites have PageRanks and how important they really are. Example, Christer Edwards starts a blog in December that is basically a compilation of other people’s blogs. It’s a great idea and is something I look at a lot. All of a sudden it has a PR3 after only a few weeks online. Why? It’s hard to say for sure. Maybe it’s because he’s got links to others sites that have high PageRanks. Maybe it’s because alot of us have linked to him. Maybe it’s none of those factores. To me, and I definitely may be wrong, Christer’s website contradicts what Jim Boykin is saying about the “3-6 months prior” idea.
If Link Building and submitting to directories is so importatnt, PageRank must be important too, right!? If PageRank doesn’t have some clout, how do we determine which places are best to build links? How do we determine if a site is “link quality” or not?
I’m definitely open to suggestions and am implementing new ideas all the time. The best thing I’m learning is that there are so many opinions out there about what works and what doesn’t. It seems like the old cliche “Moderation in all things!” fits here too: focusing all your efforts on just one thing, be it PageRank, Cache or whatever else, is not a balanced, most effective attack.Ã‚Â Diversify!