I'm sure Goolge loves the situation. The people that go hunting for PR never actually get the rankings and keep the SERPS nice and spam free!
Nobody here is confused with Pagerank and webpage rank. In fact I had pointed out a site with PR6 having 5 times SE traffic as a PR7 site once. Fact still is why do I feel that some Niche sites are better pageranked? Not serp ranked, mind you. ( I haven't done an objective assessment though, and like I started it was just a feeling, and the feeling was nopt stemmed from an ignorance of how PR works...just that, "has google started factoring in relevancy?") The thought started from the term "relevant links". Are people here saying that relevant links have nothing to do with PR? Let us not conclude anything here, and this was just a thought. In fact I had started a thread on how a certain site got PR6 from mostly directory submissions.. But still, do we know everything about google?
It's not that they should do something about it, it's just that the concept is flawed. Google only/mainly awards increased ranking if the link is relevant. So a tractor site to tractor site link would be relevant. Google can determine the subjects and know it's relevant. But they reckon a bubble gum to tractor site isn't relevant but I find that a load of bullshit. Because subject relevance isn't the only form of relevance. It's common in the world of marketing to go for demographic relevance or geographic relevance etc. As an expert tractor sales man you could know for instance that 99% of all tractor buyers chew bubble gum whereas the rest of the world only averages a 6% bullbe gum chewing ratio. Knowing that, it would be HIGHLY relevant for you to get links from a bubble gum website to your tractor website. Get my point? In summary, IMO Google's explanation of what makes a good link is a bit short sighted - though knowing all those relevancy factors is obviuously impossible for them so they have to go with what they can measure themselves. And works 'sort of alright' up till now at least. So whatever suits them, I guess.
In my opinion, there are something related between them. All inner pages of my site that has original contents got PR 4 without any inbound link to that pages except from homepage, but inner pages that doesn't contain contents got PR3 or less, same condition as content pages. As i said, my opinion.
Maybe we should put a 3 months experiment about this one? Lets see who's assumption is correct. Anyone want to join the experiment?
I have a website that is mainly full on content, tutorials, etc. I have noticed that whenever I add a new page, say for html tips, it gets PR 6 with the next PR update (my home page is PR 5). It may only have a few paragraphs on the page, although it is totally unique content. I also noticed that if I don't gather links for that page right away the PR will drop to a 5 at the next update. But by then I have other new pages that got PR 6. So, in this case I believe the PR is based on Trust Rank, not so much the content and especially not for links to that page.
I definetly think there is more to it then what meets the eye. Google is never going to tell us anything, this has to be analyzed. I would have been the first to do an experiment on this, but unfortunately i am quite busy with some other projects. I sincerely hope someone does an experiment on this, because its high time that we get some solid evidence on it.
An experiment would be virtually impossible. Without a link, the content won't be indexed so G wouldn't be able to assign this fictitious 'content PR' value to it and with a link to it the page is out in the open and you can't control the experiment anymore. So good luck experimenting. And I haven't seen any ideas yet on how this 'content PR' would actually work. Based on word count? How can they possibly measure quality? The whole idea is absurd.
I agree T0PS, it's rubbish as it's not actualy being a workable concept but I guess these guys want to see proof before their eyes before they believe it. I'll be having to prove that air exists next What I have figured out is I create two new pages on existing sites. To those pages I send one link each from another existing page. One of the newly created pages will be on the same topic, the other on a completely differently themed site and page. I can tell you now what the result will be if we'd all like to save ourselves 6 months waiting
I never said that a site with zero zero links will ever get a PR. If you are experimenting, Consider two sites. Equal Number of pages. One site is single topic site. Second site is multiple topic site. Link from equal number of the same PR sites to the home page of both sites. In the single topic site, all links from similar topic site. In the second site, all links from various topics but relevant to the site. Tell us in 5 months .. It is just an experiment.
I don't see anything strange about that at all. Your category pages have PR3, and your pages that are along the top bar have PR4. The PR is higher for the non category pages simply because they have more links to them and are linked from every page. Completely normal.
This would be impossible to test accurately. Sites don't have PR, pages do. It's impossible to know what the true PR of a page is given that the PR that Google make public is out of date almost immediately and... what does PR5, for example, mean? It means that the PR is greater than 4.5 and less than 5.5. That's a big range. Page A's inbound links could all be 4.5 whereas page Bs' links could all be 5.4. When the new PR is published, page B's PR > page A's PR. Even though all links were from PR 5 pages.