Quote:
There's something new on google.
Thats true. But you're posting very specific claims with no proof of any sort. It has only been a couple months, not long enough to do any real experimentation.
Quote:
How do you explain, that sites with high PR fall off the google results?
PR is completely independent of context. Yahoo has a very high PR but when I search for "search engine friendly URLs" Yahoo is not the #1 site. With the localrank issue sites that got their high PR from completely unrelated pages may be dropped. Or, perhaps Google simply has a new kind of spam filter. There is no way to know for sure yet, not enough time has passed.
Quote:
The patent is also old, and I don't think google's developers needed 3 years to put it into code.
Like I said. #1 rankings on very competitive phrases from nothing but same-IP incoming links from unrelated sites.
Quote:
On the changing the IP stuff.
You have nothing to back that idea up. Also who cares about money? IP addresses are just about free and if you're seriously making money its worth it to spend $2 for an IP address or $5-$10 for a new hosting account if there is a chance it will make a difference.
I can understand not wanting to make the expenditure if your site is a poor performer, but then if you don't have successful sites I would question your experience in this field.
As for your "usage-rank" idea. That just doesn't work. A couple companies have tried that in the past and it doesn't work. It also doesn't explain any recent ranking changes. It doesn't work because some sites are immensely more popular than others. For instance if you searched for something medieval related you might get an Everquest site because that game is so popular, as opposed to a history department page from a university. It just doesn't work to look at raw usage data.
Now you could like a click-through rates on search results, but then Google has been looking at those (academically they say) for years.