Google pagerank is Updating

Well, that's the way you're coming across, intended or not.

 

You know, you guys should quit picking on me just because I'm the smartest person on the internet. It's not my fault, it's not like I asked for it or anything. I was just born this way. Do you know how hard it is always being the most intelligent, never having anyone you can ask questions about things? Always being the one people turn to when they need answers? IT SUCKS, I TELL YOU! IT SUCKS!

It's just as bad as having to go through high school being the cutest guy. All those damn jealous boyfriends. I mean, how the hell do you say no to all those girls??? IT WASN'T MY IDEA!!!

Damn.

-Michael

JUST KIDDING! STOP DE-REPPING ME!!!

 

Lol say that one more time and your rep will probably be in red

 

mvandemar ... since you seem to be getting higher and higher on your horse and you seem to know so much more than the rest of us ... I'll attach a little screen shot up for you to help you digest your expert advice and theories you so adamantly promote - this is just one example of MANY. Oh and btw ... there are also a fair amount of PR 6-10 (page and site PR) that aren't cracking the top 10 in serps ... here's a few in this list to get you started.





Lots of Love ...
Your favorite newbie!

 

Which software is that???
Seems neat...

 

Ill post this again, does anyone actually disagree?

 

For the newbies here is how it works as simply as I can possibly say it.

Pagerank is a numeric value, it is a PURE mathematical number crunching exercise value. It works by taking the PR value of the anchor page (where the links appear), applying a dampening factor (approx 85% but dependant on other factors, numbers of links etc) and then dividing the remaining pagerank into those links. In its simplest form. a PR10 page with 10 links out from it (including internal links) would pass PR0.85 or pr10 - 15% dampening factor divided by 10 (links)

That is how pageRank works, no relevance element, nothing bar number crunching

Relevance: Google refer to the text element as relevance this includes all the elements in the algo like titles etc, but for this part we are talking about ANCHOR TEXT and surrounding text near the link. This is text based and has no relation to page rank by that I mean take two sites with identical backlinks identical sites etc . The reuslt would be identical pagerank values. But if the one set of backlinks focused on dogs while the other focused on cats. they would rank for totally different things while at the same time having identical pr.

A site can not have PR without links and it is the power of the text within those links that push sites to the top, not the links per se. I know it might seem odd to separate the links from the content, but to get your head around it you must. Identical image links would STILL result in the same Pr as the links would be coming from the same pages. But in the case of images with no anchor text the site would not rank for anything as the search algo needs words to match relevance. The ONLY thing they would have would be the text surrounding the image. And THIS is why people talk about on topic linking being important

So we have
1. PR = numeric value number crunching
2. Relevance = word crunching

This is what people mean when they say that PR does not play that big a part in the ranking algo. people are STILL confusing page rank with relevant links. when the high PR is simply a by product of either a lot of links, a few high PR links, or a combination of both.

 

I don't, no. I would have worded it differently, but yeah. My only beef was that when people say "PR has nothing to do with rankings" it's deceiving, indicating that there was reason to believe that there should be a direct causal relationship that was for some reason missing, like maybe Google way lying to us about how they rank sites. A PR5 link carries more weight than a PR4 one, so yeah, there is a relationship. Sorta.

OWG - I think your math might be wrong... a page linked to only from a PR10 site that only has 10 links going out from it should be PR9 next update, not PR0.85 rounded up to PR1. I'm pretty sure with small numbers of links, most of the PR will be passed on to the next page. Unless I misread you.

-Michael

 

Webby ... its SEO Elite

 

Maybe, however I see A LOT more newbies popping up firmly believing that if the y can get their site from a PR4 to a PR6 at the next update then they'll take a massive jump in the SERPS which can be far more damaging.

It's pretty unlikely that a webmaster will manage to aquire a couple of hundred links all from PR0 pages with perfect anchor text and relevancy.

Far more likely one could aquire a couple of paid PR7 links with no anchor text from irrelevant pages.

I'd argue that the one getting the relevant links would be much better off, especially considering the pages would probably get PR at some point, then you factor in the relevancy and anchor text. They'll be laughing at their rival with a PR7 site but with no rankings.

 

PR is NOT rounded up. PR is NOT whole numbers it runs into many decimal points. ALL pages start with PR1 but pr1 does not register as pr1 until it goes OVER the whole number.

Two page, one is a PR8 one a PR7 the maximum PR value between the two can be up to almost PR2? How so?

because the pr7 page might be a pr 7.9999999999999
while the pr 6 might be PR6.000000000001 .

PR on the toolbar is expressed in whole numbers, but PR serverside is expressed and calculated to MANY decimal places .

And there is nothing wrong with my maths, where I went to school 8.5/10 =0.85

With regard "A PR5 link carries more weight than a PR4 one," give me a PR4 on topic link with good anchor text and only a few outbound links on it anyday over an offtopic PR5 with hundreds of links.

We are back to nit picking again, as you say 'carries more value' in terms of PR YES (providing both pages have the same amount of links or porportionately the same. With regard to ranking value NO, for the reasons I stated already such as anchor text and text surrounding the links etc.

 

two of my sites since about 8 hours ago are showing pr0 in toolbar previously pr4 with pr3 subpages

 

Don't check with the Tb, use the various datacentre tools in this thread.

 

Agree... I've wasted too much time to read so far...
Let's give it a few days..

 

So the rounding may be wrong, but the rest of what I said, in concept, was right (I think). This is what I saw:

Which to me, equates to this:

PR10 - 15% = PR8.5
PR8.5/10 links = PR0.85 per resulting page.

Is that what you meant to say?

Also:

I think it's a lot closer to 0 than 1, or else all you would need would be 2 PR0 links to make a PR1 page, and I think it's more like 7 or 8. Not positive, but pretty sure.

We're not nit picking here, we're saying different things. I am saying that with the same anchor text (not surrounding text), yes, that a PR5 link will help you more than a PR4 link, assuming the same (or similar) number of outbound links on each page. It's not a semantics thing.

You may very well be right. I'm pretty sure that a PR6 gained from one PR7 link will not outrank a PR4 gained from, say, 30 PR3 links. Not positive, but yeah, pretty sure. I actually haven't had the resources to test this. If you want, I do know I could do a PR3 single link test if you want to try and pit it against, say, 20 PR0 links. It would be neat to see what comes up top. Let me know if you want to test.

-Michael

 

Now...we're getting somewhere!

 

Michael this is getting tedious now. I said that for explanation a pr 10 would in theory equate to PR0.85 so why the hell are you asking me is that what I said when that is what I said?
I said

so lets run that shall we PR10*.85=8.5/10=PR0.85

How much simpler can I have put it?

Am I losing my mind here or something.?

You are taking the basis of the algo (pr value -.15/#links) literally, and it simply doesn't work that way. I have already stated that Google uses base5 sliding log scales to adjust the various elements within the algo. Also Pr is log based and as such 100pr4 links might get you PR5 but 200 will not get you PR6 as it is not that simple.

I don't know anything about you, as I have not come across you in any other forums, so am shooting blind here. But how much have you actually studied the various white papers released by Google? How much time have you spent studying these papers and the various patents they have applied for? And finally how much experience do you actually have of SEO? I am not condescending here, I am asking you genuine questions, because I am a little confused by the way you are posting.

I didn't come down from the sky with the last rainfall, I have been doing SEo before SEo existed, certainly before google existed, I have watched Google grow from a simple algo to what it is today. Currently I have sites ranking on the first page for various travel phrases like 'florida vacations', 'lanzarote villas'. I have sites ranking for 'sex toys', and other such phrases, and My own SEo site is second page (13 on google.co.uk worldwide search) for 'internet marketing company' It is a PR4 as it happens.

I am not looking for a fight here or disagreeing for the sake of it, but before I get drawn into this long debate, it would be nice to know a little bit more about the person I am debating with.

 

I would take a SINGLE PR5 link (in the index page of a website with a single outbound link, mine) rather then a site-wide PR8 link from a website with 20 outbound links ...

 

Here's what I'm not understanding... are saying that a PR10 with 10 outbound links on it will in any way shape or form result in anything less than 10 PR9 pages?

<edit>Ok, that may have been open to error as well... are you saying that it will definately result in less than 10 PR9 pages, not just possibly?</edit>

-Michael

 

When I said we are back to nitpicking it is because you said

NOW later you are qualifying it with 'equal anchor text' there is absolutely no mention of anchor text in your post.