Best way for one way outbound link?

compar

Jan 15th 2005, 10:33 am

List all obls in one page, link that page only to home page.
First of all there really isn't such a thing as "leakage". You don't give any PR away when you link to a page. The target page gets a value that is some proportion of your PR. But you don't give PR away. The more OBLs on a page the less PR value shared with each of them. See my PageRank & How to Get It (http://www.compar.com/infopool/articles/PR-calculation.html) article for a complete explanation.

And can you explain how linking your "link page" to only your home page is going to help anything?

Estrange

Jan 15th 2005, 12:36 pm

compar

Jan 15th 2005, 12:41 pm

Professional SEOs who has interpreted Page and Sergei's PR Documentation,
they wrote articles about it, like you did. It's us to believe, choose and interpret which one is logical or not.
So I am not going to discuss what is right or wrong. Whether you believe or not this is my opinion. And please don't be mean
I didn't mean to be "mean". I just believe that you have misunderstood what you apparently have read. You just have it all wrong, and before you lead someone else to believe this false information I felt I should offer a more conventional view and understanding of the subject.

So please answer my question and explain the value of linking a link page only to your home page????

Estrange

Jan 15th 2005, 5:11 pm

So please answer my question and explain the value of linking a link page only to your home page????

Sure Compar, will be pleasure.

If you don't mind I want to use your own words first.

"Normally our initial concern is to transfer as much PR as possible to our home page. The way that this is done is to make sure that there is a Google readable link on every page pointing back to the home page."

I took these sentences from your article.

OK our aim is the same. I want to maximize Homepage PR. So what we need is all internal pages needs a link pointed at homepage. is that ok? right.
So let's say we have A (homepage) B(links Page) C(products page)
to maximize Pr for homepage, linking structure should be like A<->B A<->C. Am I correct? ok let's go on.

As your theory there is no leakage... So if we build our internal link structure as I explained above what would be the PRs of these pages?

I am not sure why this is happens but;

If I took as a reference of O'Reilly's Google Hacks Book and Professional SEOs who claims that this theory is logical, A should have (approx. values) 1.5, B should have 0.7 and C should have 0.7 .

So in this situation what happened to B's and C's 0.3 PRs. Honestly, can you tell me what's this called, cause I can't find out why this is happens?

Right, let me answer your question now...

Let's say you have 20 obls at Links Page.

What would be the value of transfered PR to these obls if you add more link to this page? Would it be diluted? Answer is right, yep?

So if you place a link pointing to only Home page as internal link, more PR value would be transfered to Home page unless you add link pointing at for all internal pages.

If you add link for internal pages at Links Page then Pr value would be shared by the other internal pages as well.

So you would not maximize your Home Page Pr value...

compar

Jan 15th 2005, 5:53 pm

So if you place a link pointing to only Home page as internal link, more PR value would be transfered to Home page unless you add link pointing at for all internal pages.

If you add link for internal pages at Links Page then Pr value would be shared by the other internal pages as well.

So you would not maximize your Home Page Pr value...
But if you link to all internal pages you increase the value of all pages and then they pass their increased value to the home page. So I really don't think there is any difference.

Will.Spencer

Jan 15th 2005, 9:04 pm

First of all there really isn't such a thing as "leakage".Bob:

Please review PageRank Leak (http://www.pagerank.dk/Pagerank-leak/Pagerank-leak.htm).

Francisco Aloy

Jan 15th 2005, 9:42 pm

So, is this it:

Only the home page links to the links page and the links page has a few forward links
to the rest of the website?

Question: What other areas of the website would be suitable for a forward link from the links page?

Thanks

ResaleBroker

Jan 15th 2005, 10:23 pm

What is the best way to stop PR leakage from
outbound links?You might take a look at Owlcrowft's "Via (http://seo-toys.com/link-hide-seo-toy/via-toy.shtml)" script.

minstrel

Jan 16th 2005, 12:16 am

First of all there really isn't such a thing as "leakage".
Bob:

Please review PageRank Leak.
I see a few diagrams, a lot of suppositions, and conclusions that might be of interest if it weren't for the false premise.

Page leakage doesn't exist. If you want to dispute that, don't show me an article claiming it does. Show me page leakage in action, unequivocally. Anywhere.

compar

Jan 16th 2005, 1:08 am

Michael

Jan 16th 2005, 2:57 am

I see a few diagrams, a lot of suppositions, and conclusions that might be of interest if it weren't for the false premise.What was the false premise that you saw?

I don't know why this obsession about PR leakage is so prevalentI think it is for two reasons. Firstly because it is the wrong name for the concept and much of the discussion that I see boils down to semantic differences. If it was called "loss of potential PR" which is what it is there would be less obsession and more understanding perhaps?

Secondly because it is a difficult concept to grasp. The idea that the average RAW PR for all pages in Google's universe is exactly one and the fact that for every PR increase there is a corresponding PR decrease somewhere else in Google's universe is not easy to conceptualize for most people. The fact that PR can increase on one page and decrease on another within the same domain is just a logical consequence of the calculation of PageRank.

Linking off a page deducts nothing at all from the page and those that think it does are misunderstanding the PR calculation. Equally those that believe replacing an outbound link with an internal link will have no effect on the PageRank of the linked to page are also misunderstanding the PR calculation.

Fortunately from the practical SEO point of view it makes no difference whatsoever and simply selecting outbound links on the basis that they will help users is by far the best strategy.

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 16th 2005, 8:21 am

minstrel

Jan 16th 2005, 8:38 am

Well Minstrel I'm glad to see that I will have company in taking the heat on this subject. I don't know why this obsession about PR leakage is so prevalent or where it originated, but the absolute obsession with it and the great ends that people go to apparently avoid it are simply ridiculous.
It is like superstitious behavior or religion: People search desperately for a glimpse into the Google inner sanctum in the hope of gaining a slight edge over their competitors.

If you conceptulize PR as a bank account, it would make sense: Pass some of it over to someone else and you will have less in your account. Great theory. Except the premise is false.

Now we're on to the newest "Google insight" which claims that "reciprocal linking is bad" -- just as groundless and just as hard to dislodge.

Bernard

Jan 16th 2005, 9:04 am

... selecting outbound links on the basis that they will help users is by far the best strategy.

That was worth repeating. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

compar

Jan 16th 2005, 10:43 am

Bob:

Please review PageRank Leak (http://www.pagerank.dk/Pagerank-leak/Pagerank-leak.htm).
I don't disagree with his conclusions about the mechanism of PR calculation. But the point he doesn't make is that if the outbound link had been reciprocal there would have no net difference to either site. The increase would have balanced out the dilution as I prefer to call it.

Now in real life many of our links are reciprocal, or if not reciprocal then OBLs are frequently balanced by IBLs. So the entire thing is in general balance.

I personally think that anyone who uses any method to mask his/her OBLs is dishonest and is cheating everyone s/he links to or who links back to him/her.

Then of course there is the question of the value of PR in today's algorithms. So the entire subject tends to be obsession about nothing.

Michael

Jan 16th 2005, 12:32 pm

What was the false premise that you saw?Well, first, that PR leakage exists. The article assumes that it does and then goes to great lengths to show us how it would work if it did, none of which is of the slightest interest to me because the premise is incorrect.Actually Hagstrøm does not argue from a premise at all he simple states a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. As he himself says "I hope this will give a more visual idea of PageRank - and at the same time answer time-old questions - such as does PageRank leak exist? and which linking structure is better?" He answers the first question at the end with "That depends on how you define PageRank leak" which does not indicate he is arguing from a premise but rather the opposite.

If you read through his article from the beginning here (http://www.pagerank.dk/index.html). I would be interested to hear from you which particular elements of his explanation you disagree with and why.

Linking off a page deducts nothing at all from the page and those that think it does are misunderstanding the PR calculation.
Correct. "Voting" for a web page (by linking to it) does not weaken the page doing the voting any more than voting for a mayoral candidate weakens the power of my vote for a school board candidate or a national leader. Or any more than saying "good morning" to you weakens my ability to say "good morning" to someone else.Voting is often used as an analogy for the PageRank calculation but I am afraid that it is slightly more complex than you presuppose. For a very good explanation of PageRank using the voting analogy I suggest you read Ian Rogers fine article here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/). If you follow it through to end you will see a paragraph that reads "If you give outbound links to other sites then your site's average PR will decrease (you're not keeping your vote "in house" as it were)". This is not a premise or even a hypothesis it is a logical consequence of the PageRank calculation as expounded by Brin and Page in their original paper.

Anyone is of course at liberty to disagree with Rogers and Hagstrøm (and many others) who explain the logical consequences of the PageRank calculation. However I have yet to come across anyone is able to point to a sentence in their respective articles and demonstrate an inaccuracy. Maybe you will be the first Minstrel or perhaps you compar? :)

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 16th 2005, 1:22 pm

If you follow it through to end you will see a paragraph that reads "If you give outbound links to other sites then your site's average PR will decrease (you're not keeping your vote "in house" as it were)". This is not a premise or even a hypothesis it is a logical consequence of the PageRank calculation as expounded by Brin and Page in their original paper.
No, it's an assumption or interpretation. There are numerous articles and posts "explaining" how this so-called leakage works. As I said above, if you're trying to explain something that doesn't exist, it makes no difference how eloquent your explanation or how many times you say it or how many people say it: You can't create something out of nothing.

As I also said, show me an example of this and I might begin to be persuaded. I've already read all the opinions on the myth that I need. Don't show me another article -- show me an example.

Michael

Jan 16th 2005, 3:27 pm

No, it's an assumption or interpretation. There are numerous articles and posts "explaining" how this so-called leakage works. As I said above, if you're trying to explain something that doesn't exist, it makes no difference how eloquent your explanation or how many times you say it or how many people say it: You can't create something out of nothing.If you are saying, as you seem to be, that Rogers and Hagstrøm have got it wrong simply because "they are wrong" then that rather precludes a debate. If you say that they have got it wrong because you can demonstrate where in their logic they have made an error then a rational discourse may follow. It's up to you and the ball is in your court.

As I also said, show me an example of this and I might begin to be persuaded. I've already read all the opinions on the myth that I need. Don't show me another article -- show me an example.Both Rogers and Hagstrøm give clear examples and Hagstrøm even has a downloadable spreadsheet which demonstrates PR flow quite nicely.

- Michael

spdude

Jan 16th 2005, 4:18 pm

Page leakage doesn't exist. If you want to dispute that, don't show me an article claiming it does. Show me page leakage in action, unequivocally. Anywhere.

I dunno, but I've been using Owlcrafts via.php script to block this leakage for over six months. There was a good few months *before* I came accross this wherein we linked directly to close to 200 sites in our directory. I was really excited in those days, and used Zeus (if anybody knows of it), to crawl the net and create this themed directory for link building purposes. The idea was to e-mail them and tell them we've added their link and can you please do the same.. and all that newby stuff.. lol..

Later the vast majority wouldn't reply because our link pages didn't have PR. Our main site internals linked similarly had PR5 in those days. So I said what the heck and used the php script and set the robot.txt to dissalow.

I did this with these sites only. All others who I would trade links with from time to time were linked to directly without script. Sure enough, in the next update two months later, our link pages went to PR5s and PR6s. I know we were doing some link building in those days, but I have no way of explaining the PR0s while the links were outbound and clean, whereas many internals of our domain linked similarly were showing a reasonable PR4, and some PR5.

This leads me to believe that linking out to sites who you have no reciprocle arrangement with in a manner that their links are one third or more compared to your own internal links will harm your PR. Of course the occasional link or two to quality resources is never a bad idea, and should be done directly.

Also a site giving five site-wides to others will have a harder time reaching a good PR level compared to one which does not link out this agressively. Isn't this much clear?

mnemtsas

Jan 16th 2005, 9:36 pm

PR leak doesnt exist. How does any links/resources page have any PR? They almost never have any links pointing at them apart from maybe a sitemap link and can have hundreds of links pointing away from them. And yet my links pages have PR5 exactly the same as my index page. Bah. Humbug.

compar

Jan 16th 2005, 9:41 pm

minstrel

Jan 16th 2005, 9:53 pm

Michael

Jan 17th 2005, 12:00 am

Show me a site that has supposedly suffered PR leakage and we'll talk.Show me a way to record/measure a small changes in RAW PR on demand and you could see for yourself. The absence of such a mechanism (at least outside of Google labs) precludes the evidence that you ask for. Fortunately because we are discussing a formal procedure (the calculation of PR) it is possible to build a model and observe the effects of PR flow in that way. If you believe that the Rogers the Hagstrøm models are flawed in some way just say so.

PR leak doesnt exist. How does any links/resources page have any PR? They almost never have any links pointing at them apart from maybe a sitemap link and can have hundreds of links pointing away from them. And yet my links pages have PR5 exactly the same as my index page. Bah. Humbug.Your observation is based on the false assumption that Toolbar PR can be substituted as measure for RAW PR. No one knows (outside of the Google labs) how the eleven (0 -10) toolbar icons are related to RAW PR or even if they are related at all. For example sometimes you will see a Toolbar PR for a page that has not even been indexed.

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 17th 2005, 12:08 am

So, if I understand you correctly, any PR leakage that might occur would be too small to measure, i.e., for all intents and purposes invisible? Or alternatively that no one but Google would know how to measure it, however small or large it might be?

Then what exactly are we talking about? Some hypothetical effect that cannot be seen or measured?

What's the point of that?

Michael

Jan 17th 2005, 12:14 am

Bob:

Please review PageRank Leak (http://www.pagerank.dk/Pagerank-leak/Pagerank-leak.htm).I don't disagree with his conclusions about the mechanism of PR calculation.Does this mean that you are in agreement with what he says on this particular page (http://www.pagerank.dk/Pagerank-leak/Pagerank-leakage.htm)?

- Michael

Michael

Jan 17th 2005, 12:34 am

So, if I understand you correctly, any PR leakage that might occur would be too small to measure, i.e., for all intents and purposes invisible? Or alternatively that no one but Google would know how to measure it, however small or large it might be?No I am not saying it too small to measure, I am saying there is nothing to measure it with.

Then what exactly are we talking about? Some hypothetical effect that cannot be seen or measured?No not a hypothetical effect but a logical consequence of the calculations as defined by Brin and Page.

What's the point of that?Academic interest only. As I said earlier "...from the practical SEO point of view it makes no difference whatsoever and simply selecting outbound links on the basis that they will help users is by far the best strategy".

- Michael

mnemtsas

Jan 17th 2005, 3:03 pm

Michael

Jan 17th 2005, 11:50 pm

Michael sounds like he is talking about Schroedingers Cat (http://physics.about.com/od/quantumglossary/g/SchrodingersCat.htm). 'PR leakage does occur its just that when you try to measure it with anything you destroy the validity of the experiment'.LOL That is funny mnemtsas, made all the more so because I was a Physics major, thank you for introducing some levity into what is a rather dry subject!

To be clear though RAW PR is not like Schrödinger's cat or even Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) :)

RAW PR is simply a variable that is calculated by substituting numbers into a formula in the way that Brin and Page described. The actual value of this variable will depend on the data set that the original numbers are extracted from. Anyone can perform the Brin and Page calculations on any suitable data set and those that use the same data set will produce identical answers.

However we do not have access to Google's data set and therefore cannot use it to calculate RAW PR. So we can never know the value of the RAW PR of any of the pages in the Google data set and consequently we cannot perform experiments on this particular data set and observe the corresponding changes in RAW PR.

What we can do though is choose another data set over which we have complete control and use exactly the same calculation that Brin and Page have described. Because we have control of the data set we can then make changes to it and observe the effects of these changes.

This is exactly what Rogers has done on paper and Hagstrøm has done on a spreadsheet and the results are there for everyone to see.

- Michael

ResaleBroker

Jan 20th 2005, 11:33 pm

Couldn't you also use the "rel=nofollow" attribute?

Estrange

Jan 21st 2005, 1:43 am

Page leakage doesn't exist. If you want to dispute that, don't show me an article claiming it does. Show me page leakage in action, unequivocally. Anywhere.

Hi Minstrel,

Umm I don't if this is a PR linkage or not, would you be able to tell me why this is hapens...

http://www.hhdirect.co.uk/

All ibls are pointed at index page (internal pages and other websites). It has PR2, some of internal pages have PR3.

Thanks

Michael

Jan 21st 2005, 2:43 am

All ibls are pointed at index page (internal pages and other websites). It has PR2, some of internal pages have PR3.See http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=7097&goto=nextoldest

- Michael

Michael

Jan 21st 2005, 3:01 am

Couldn't you also use the "rel=nofollow" attribute?You could because there would be no PR transfer and I am sure a lot of people will. It adds yet another method to the long list of ways for link partners to cheat :(

- Michael

ResaleBroker

Jan 21st 2005, 7:45 am

It adds yet another method to the long list of ways for link partners to cheatUnfortunately true. :(

minstrel

Jan 21st 2005, 8:02 am

I don't if this is a PR leakage or not, would you be able to tell me why this is happens...

http://www.hhdirect.co.uk/

All ibls are pointed at index page (internal pages and other websites). It has PR2, some of internal pages have PR3.
It's not PR leakage. There have been a number of threads here and on other forums about this -- it's one of the outcomes of the latest Google update. What it means isn't clear, except (1) the datacenters are still not all synchronized, (2) this was an unusual update which may be still being tweaked, and (3) I don't believe any publicly reported PR values any more.

compar

Jan 21st 2005, 9:00 am

Does this mean that you are in agreement with what he says on this particular page (http://www.pagerank.dk/Pagerank-leak/Pagerank-leakage.htm)?

- Michael
As I said I don't disagree with their explanation of the calculation mechanism. But the data sets they are using are artifical and biased to show as large a PR dilution as possible. That type of structure just doesn't exist in the real web world and several people have already reported pages that shouldn't have any PR based on this principle, however they still do have substantial PR.

My biggest point is to try and counter the riduclous obsession some people have with this entire subject and the heroic lengths they go to to try and avoid "leakage".

Michael

Jan 22nd 2005, 1:04 am

As I said I don't disagree with their explanation of the calculation mechanism. But the data sets they are using are artifical and biased to show as large a PR dilution as possible.Of course the data sets are artificial and as a result we can deduce nothing at all about the magnitude of the effect. It may be small or microscopic in the real Google universe but its existence is the point at issue here.

That type of structure just doesn't exist in the real web world and several people have already reported pages that shouldn't have any PR based on this principle, however they still do have substantial PR.The PR you are referring to here is presumably toolbar PR? It is not possible to observe the flow of RAW PR by observing the toolbar PR. Not least because we have no way of knowing the relationship between the two but also because toolbar PR is a crude and unreliable indicator in itself.

My biggest point is to try and counter the riduclous obsession some people have with this entire subject and the heroic lengths they go to to try and avoid "leakage". I agree but the key to this is education and imo denying its existence does nothing to further understanding of this difficult concept.

If you really want "to try and counter the ridiculous obsession" then maybe confirming that it exists but explaining that the effect is probably negligible and why it should be ignored would be a more effective counter, rather than declaring "Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist" as you did earlier.

- Michael

compar

Jan 22nd 2005, 1:20 am

If you really want "to try and counter the ridiculous obsession" then maybe confirming that it exists but explaining that the effect is probably negligible and why it should be ignored would be a more effective counter, rather than declaring "Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist" as you did earlier.

- Michael
Michael,

Does "go fuck yourself" have any resonance with you? Show me where I ever said "Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist".

minstrel

Jan 22nd 2005, 2:09 am

Michael

Jan 22nd 2005, 3:25 am

Michael,Does "go fuck yourself" have any resonance with you?". None whatsoever, it is however a remark that says more about the person who delivers it than the intended recipient.

Show me where I ever said "Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist". Sure, message #12 in this thread as follows:

Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist.

- Michael

Michael

Jan 22nd 2005, 3:35 am

:D Well said, compar. Michael, why are you continuing to waste bandwidth with something that cannot be measured or seen, has no practical significance or relevance, and can not be shown to exist except in a hypothetical data set in a hypothetical universe? Give it a rest.Wasting bandwidth is of course your opinion. Others perhaps more inquiring and analytical than yourself have sent messages of thanks for shedding some light on the subject. I make no apologies for boring you and you do not have to contribute if you have nothing constructive to say.

- Michael

compar

Jan 22nd 2005, 7:01 am

rather than declaring "Some people will never believe that PR Leakage doesn't exist" as you did earlier.

- MichaelYou're right I did say it. I didn't recognize it taken slightly out of context as it was in your accusation. But the statement is true, somepeople never will. In fact I believe that the math is accurate. I just don't believe that it is something worth obsessing about. In practical terms it is so close to zero as to not exist.

maverick

Jan 28th 2005, 11:45 pm

So is it good to have OBLs on homepage itself? Will this affect homepage PR?

tomsey

Jan 28th 2005, 11:49 pm

Just found this forum. Great forum!

Thank you Micheal for the good information.

Micheal, if you wanted to stop pr passing to an "about us" or "privacy" page or an affiliate program link, would you use a php arrangement like the via system or would you use the new nofollow google tag?

Thanks for your help.

Also, a less related question:

With the sitemap, is it better to put a link to it on all pages of a site or is it better just to put a link to it from the homepage only? I'm thinking homepage only because this way the other pages will have more pr to push back toward the main pages, with one less link on them. Any thoughts?

Thanks again.

Michael

Jan 29th 2005, 10:37 am

So is it good to have OBLs on homepage itself? Will this affect homepage PR?Sure it is good to have OBLs anywhere they are useful to the visitor and no it will not change the PR of the page.

Michael, if you wanted to stop pr passing to an "about us" or "privacy" page or an affiliate program link, would you use a php arrangement like the via system or would you use the new nofollow google tag?I wouldn't bother to use either on an "about us" or "privacy" page because presumably these pages will not have any external links but will have links to other internal pages. For an affiliate program link there may be circumstances where I would use the new tag.

With the sitemap, is it better to put a link to it on all pages of a site or is it better just to put a link to it from the homepage only? I'm thinking homepage only because this way the other pages will have more pr to push back toward the main pages, with one less link on them. Any thoughts? I don't think it will make any practical difference not least because a site map will not have any external links. Personally I like to see a text link to the site map and home page in the footer of every page.

- Michael

tomsey

Jan 29th 2005, 11:25 am

Ok, thanks Micheal.

The reason I am asking about the about us page is because if you blocked it off, you would have more page pr to pass to the other pages right? Or does it not matter because the about us page is feeding back into the other pages on the site? What about a terms and conditions page that you want to include on every page of the site? You wouldnt block it off to stop pr going to it so there would be more pr to be channeled to where you want it to go?

Thanks.

NewComputer

Jan 29th 2005, 12:06 pm

Yes. And Rodgers and Hammerstein and anyone else who wants to can create as many hypotherical examples and demonstrations as they wish. For the third time, Michael, I am saying I really don't care about any of that: Show me a site that has supposedly suffered PR leakage and we'll talk.

I have yet to see any site anywhere on the internet suffer from PR leak. I have not read this entire thread, but I have looked high and low into a page that is experiencing PR leak.

Michael

Jan 29th 2005, 12:41 pm

The reason I am asking about the about us page is because if you blocked it off, you would have more page pr to pass to the other pages right? Or does it not matter because the about us page is feeding back into the other pages on the site? What about a terms and conditions page that you want to include on every page of the site? You wouldnt block it off to stop pr going to it so there would be more pr to be channeled to where you want it to go?You cannot create RAW PR and assuming that the about us page is not orphaned then there is nothing to be gained by 'blocking it off'.

- Michael

Michael

Jan 29th 2005, 1:02 pm

I have yet to see any site anywhere on the internet suffer from PR leak.How would you determine if it was or was not suffering from PR leak?

I have not read this entire threadYou don't have to, just read :

The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine (http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html)

The Google Pagerank Algorithm and How It Works (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/)

PageRank Explained with Bright Colours (http://www.pagerank.dk/index.html)

- Michael

tomsey

Jan 29th 2005, 1:14 pm

You cannot create RAW PR and assuming that the about us page is not orphaned then there is nothing to be gained by 'blocking it off'.

- Michael

not create it but channel it towards some pages over others

NewComputer

Jan 29th 2005, 1:36 pm

Michael

Jan 29th 2005, 2:04 pm

Michael,

In one breath you say "How would you determine if it was or was not suffering from PR leak?" and yet you defend that it is happening all around you. I have yet to see anyone here prove that it exists besides quoting other resources from people who don't know that it exists either. Blind leading the blind. Only G knows if there is PR leaking taking place and they are not telling anyone. The rest is speculation...You said "I have yet to see any site anywhere on the internet suffer from PR leak". I asked "How would you determine if it was or was not suffering from PR leak?" In plain words what was your criteria for deciding that you had not seen it?

I agree the blind are leading the blind.

- Michael

NewComputer

Jan 29th 2005, 3:15 pm

In plain words what was your criteria for deciding that you had not seen it?

I have no idea, because no one can prove it exists...

Michael

Jan 29th 2005, 4:34 pm

I have no ideaWell if you have no idea what your criteria were for arriving at your conclusion I am afraid I cannot help you.

no one can prove it exists...In the deepest philosophical sense that is true of everything but if you take the Brin and Page calculation as axiomatic then it exists by definition.

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 29th 2005, 4:38 pm

no one can prove it exists...
In the deepest philosophical sense that is true of everything but if you take the Brin and Page calculation as axiomatic then it exists by definition.
At best and if at all, that would be in a hypothetical universe with zero relevance to actual web pages.

Stop scaring people with this nonsense, Michael -- now we have another thread going here with people worrying about how to stop something that doesn't exist.

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 12:08 am

Stop scaring people with this nonsense, Michael -- now we have another thread going here with people worrying about how to stop something that doesn't exist.Ah! Now I think I can see a glimpse of one of your problems - you do not fully understand cause and effect perhaps :)

You will notice that I have confined my comments on this topic to this thread. You however are prepared to recite your very own misguided thoughts on this subject at every opportunity anywhere on the board. I saw that you recently posted (shouted) without any explanation "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PR LEAKAGE" in a newer thread on this topic.

It does not surprise me if people are "worrying" as you say they are. As this thread demonstrates you express an opinion and are then unable to provide any coherent reason why you believe it to be true or engage in any technical discussion on the calculation of RAW PR.

It is of course your prerogative to attempt debate without rational thought but please not with me :D

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 30th 2005, 8:10 am

As this thread demonstrates you express an opinion and are then unable to provide any coherent reason why you believe it to be true or engage in any technical discussion on the calculation of RAW PR.
I think you should re-read this thread, Michael. I have provided more than one reason -- you just choose to ignore them and continue to cite articles that most of us are already aware of and none of which prove your point. Why would I or anyone else want to engage in a technical discussion of a fictional entity which, by your own admission, has no impact on real-world web pages?

It is of course your prerogative to attempt debate... but please not with me
Now that I will agree with -- debating with you is pointless.

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 9:20 am

I think you should re-read this thread, Michael. I have provided more than one reason -- you just choose to ignore them and continue to cite articles that most of us are already aware of and none of which prove your point.Not one coherent reason as I said.

Why would I or anyone else want to engage in a technical discussion of a fictional entity which, by your own admission, has no impact on real-world web pages?For your own education perhaps? That should be no observable impact btw.

Now that I will agree with -- debating with you is pointless.Snipping sentences to change the inference so you can agree is a naive ploy. What I actually said "It is of course your prerogative to attempt debate without rational thought but please not with me".

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 30th 2005, 9:26 am

I'm aware of what you said and so is anyone else reading this thread. I changed the quote (with ellipsis so there'd be no question that something was left out) to make a point myself: There is no point in debating this with you under any circumstances.

You are determined to have the last word: Go ahead. I leave this absurd and meaningless thread to you.

mopacfan

Jan 30th 2005, 9:30 am

First of all there really isn't such a thing as "leakage". You don't give any PR away when you link to a page. The target page gets a value that is some proportion of your PR. But you don't give PR away. The more OBLs on a page the less PR value shared with each of them.
Very well said. PR leak is complete bunk. It's too bad there are so many bad 'experts' out there peddling such nonsense.

NewComputer

Jan 30th 2005, 9:31 am

drum roll please....

mopacfan

Jan 30th 2005, 9:34 am

Correct. "Voting" for a web page (by linking to it) does not weaken the page doing the voting any more than voting for a mayoral candidate weakens the power of my vote for a school board candidate or a national leader. Or any more than saying "good morning" to you weakens my ability to say "good morning" to someone else.
I don't think I could have said it any better. By the way, Good Morning Minstrel, Good Morning Compar, Good Morning NewComputer :)

NewComputer

Jan 30th 2005, 9:49 am

I don't think I could have said it any better. By the way, Good Morning Minstrel, Good Morning Compar, Good Morning NewComputer :)

GM Mopac.... sheet, mine just got a little bit weaker... ;)

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 9:56 am

drum roll please....LOL

No fight from me :) unless it involves cerebral activity which sadly seems to be lacking from some contributors to this thread.

- Michael

mopacfan

Jan 30th 2005, 10:36 am

Sorry Michael, you won't bait me into your feeble attempt at persuasive argument. http://www.thejosher.com/smile/images/huelga3wl.gif

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 10:54 am

Sorry Michael, you won't bait me into your feeble attempt at persuasive argument. http://www.thejosher.com/smile/images/huelga3wl.gifGood news! Thank you.

mopacfan

Jan 30th 2005, 11:15 am

Indeed it is. But I'm sure the folks over at highrankings will welcome you with open arms :)

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 11:28 am

But I'm sure the folks over at highrankings will welcome you with open arms :)I am sure the opposite would be true. Are you able to type anything else apart from facetious or inane remarks? :D

- Michael

minstrel

Jan 30th 2005, 11:37 am

Damn! I forgot to turn off notifications to this thread and got dragged back in.

mopacfan -- it's evident by now Michael is a sad little man who is determined to have the last word no matter what it takes. The way this is going, he'll be stooping to "no, you are... no, you are to infinity..." very soon.

In the spirit of "why beat your head against a brick wall", let's let him have his wish. My guess is there's very little else in his life for him to hang on to and it's apparently of critical importance for him.

Michael, proceed... the last word is yours:

Michael

Jan 30th 2005, 12:04 pm

Damn! I forgot to turn off notifications to this thread and got dragged back in.No one forced you to post and you could have ignored it.

mopacfan -- it's evident by now Michael is a sad little man who is determined to have the last word no matter what it takes. The way this is going, he'll be stooping to "no, you are... no, you are to infinity..." very soon.School playground rhetoric, what a surprise!

Michael, proceed... the last word is yours:Thank you I hadn't realized it was your prerogative.

- Michael

NewComputer

Jan 30th 2005, 12:06 pm

this is the last word in this thread.... unless Michael continues it.

mopacfan

Jan 30th 2005, 1:23 pm

NC, I've got one more last word here for Michael:

I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you :)

clasione

Feb 5th 2005, 7:13 am

First of all there really isn't such a thing as "leakage". You don't give any PR away when you link to a page. The target page gets a value that is some proportion of your PR. But you don't give PR away. The more OBLs on a page the less PR value shared with each of them. See my PageRank & How to Get It (http://www.compar.com/infopool/articles/PR-calculation.html) article for a complete explanation.

And can you explain how linking your "link page" to only your home page is going to help anything?

Now theres a face from the past.... What up Compar..... havent seen you by seochat - now I know where you went.... :D

I'm pretty taken back by DigitalPoint..... This place is thriving!
Pretty cool - Don't know how in the world I missed this place.....