Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update

The higher your pagerank, the more likely you will pop up for less marketed terms...

 

Then you havn't heard many things..

Yes my friend, Pagerank is limited. They have not got like an unlimited supply of Pagerank. Pagerank is like currency, you cant print as many as you want.

So now when they ran out of the pagerank, they hold the the export and skim the PR off the top sites.. now they are buying more Gold, Germanium, new datacenters and servers so they can re-generate the new pageranks, it will take sometime. Hold your breath till then.

 

lol, Think of it like this

There has to be a natural flow of the internet, the PR flows depending on all the page rank factors, but PR doesn't get taken out of the mix or added into the mix

And if it does, it's added based on how many sites are added so it's evenly spread out

 

Is google changing the algorythm and making PR less important?

 

Is there any proof of this limited pagerank?

 

Yes it's true just like The Webmaster said, the government can't print more money when they are short.. Just like Google can't add more Pagerank or it will ruin all the equasions and the system will collapse. They must skim off the excess from those who can afford it much like taxes lol.

It's like robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, see Google are not evil.. Just give them time to plan the heist.

 

Okay here is where you are wrong, The government actually prints about 400 million dollars daily

 

Its is the opposite - I am afraid. Google is raising the bar to achieve PR very high- by way of negating the voting power of paid links.

 

To replace worn out bills, Google doesn't have to worry about this as people take good care of their pagerank.

 

Search through the Google original research papers, its on Google and Stanford University website somewhere.

Thats the basic of pagerank, that is why its so popular. When Google algo was made, it was supposed to support some millions of webpages... But now there are few billions page out there... That is why when they ran out of it (they calculated it about 4 years ago) they tried to fix it but messed up drastically(Remember all the weird exports lately? Remember how homepage getting low but internal pages getting high pagerank?) When they failed and google engineers had given up, they looked at other options, and then bought Orion Algorithm from that Israeli kid.

Now they need more resources like gold, Semiconductors like Germanium, to build new Datacenters....

 

Yeah, that's just to put out new bills, they take out the old ones

 

Limited pagerank? This has to be the biggest joke ever. Does anyone have any solid proof of this? I just got up so i don't fancy writing an essay on empty stomach but i guess i might have to. lol... limited page rank... he he

 

I sure hope the update happens soon if at all, at least we would know what we are up against.

 

Sure, Matt will update your PR manually as he did for JohnChow

 

Yes.. ask your finger....

 

Ok, even if it is stated in old google research documents, this is still NOT proof Those documents are ancient. Google then is not google now. Not everything wasn't necessarily implemented and alot of things were taken out and added as google evolved.

Our company builds search systems for a living, we probably know more about search than most people (obviously not including google but they are not most people) because we fully understand what is going on underneath the hood so to speak.

Today, right now, i can see no point whatsoever for google to create problems for itself and limit so called pagerank in the way you say. It really doesn't make sense whatsoever. Tell me, why would they do this? What advantage would it give? Why would they create a system that in the long run would only limit there own systems?

 

I personally don't believe that google now, if ever, limits the total amount of pagerank, it is not logical, regardless of what early primitive research papers say.

 

Give it up.

1. If you doubt what people are saying, go and read the papers for yourself.

2. Then do some reading on what "ranking" means. If you use a ranking scale, whether that's 1 to 10, 1 to 100, 1 to 100000 or anything else, as one member of the units (in this case pages) being ranked moves up, others necessarily have to move down. Any ranking scale is a relative scale, not an absolute scale.

 

I'm really wondering if they're going to update the PR any more.

 

Minstrel

1) I have, many many times... so is this proof? How is it proof? I'm simply trying to open the debate a little, see if anyone has any further information about this, something we didn't know. Is there anything wrong with that?

2) I have read and implemented much on ranking... ranking doesn't have to work the say you at all... the noun "rank" usually means a relative scale, but because this is so does this mean it has to be implemented this way? I think not.

I've noticed your responses are often very contrasending, especially to people you know nothing about...