some people may find this question pointless, however as i am not sure of the answer... if a page has PR10 and has 10 outgoing link on it. What will be the PR of the 10 pages it links to, assuming they were all originally PR0 thanks in adv....
it depends a lot on the outgoin' sites' content as well as the theme. You can't exactly say what PR will be of the linkin' site.
If you throw a cat out a car window does it become kitty liter? What do they use to ship styrofoam? Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets? Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny? Would a fly without wings be called a walk? When it rains, why don't sheep shrink?
it's a simple question using simple numbers like 10 and 1 and 0 if you don't know... an "I don't know" would have sufficed. what is it with this place lately?
this wouldnt happen because 10 pr1 links would make up for 1 pr10 link. and 2 pr2 links are not equal to 1 pr4 link etc etc
There is always a "damping factor" involved in PageRank calculations. Thus no page can pass on all the PageRank that is has, by giving links to other pages. Anyway the PageRank on Google toolbar is on a log scale and it is difficult to estimate the PageRank of the 10 pages unless one knows the actual PageRank of the PR10 page and the log scale used by Google. This may be useful: http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/
minstrel says in this thread http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=39045 PR passed on from any given page = 85% of the original page PR ÷ amount of links on the page (which in this case is 10 links) therefore a link on a PR10 page is worth PR8.5 ÷ 10 = PR 0.85 less than PR1 for a link from a PR10 yet on compars page on the right hand column of the graph it says you need 3.339 PR9 links to get a PR8 and that is assuming 50 links per page meaning that more PR is passed, in fact below that it says you need less than 1 link from PR10 to be a PR8 (with 50 links on the page) so i am not disputing, just asking for clarification
Well according to the assumptions made in the page, you are right. But as the page later says no one knows for sure if Google still follows the original equation or not...this equation was published by the founders of Google when they were at Stanford. They would have surely altered it over the years and the base would have increased higher than 5.5. The dampning factor of 85% (0.85) would have changed too.