Pr Update!?

'Twas Charles de gaulle I believe, who once said something to the effect of, "If you only have 5 minutes to listen to the explanation, I need a month to prepare. If you will give me a month to explain it, I can start now.

'The subject is all well documented.

 

I agree, but it used to be the case that PR0=Penalised/banned site (unless there were no links pointing to it anyway).

We have now seen that this clearly isn't the case, (At least on the Toolbar PR anyway).

 

Jenny, my question was what has this to do with the question of PR versus search rankings? Like the previous reference to the page with dates of past Toolbar PR updates, all it is is a bunch of numbers that has nothing to do with the issue on the table.

Okay: PageRank is something, the Directory PR bar is another, and the Toolbar PR is another. And they are out of sync. That does NOT mean that PageRank isn't being updated and adjusted all along -- in fact, it seems to me to suggest the opposite. And it does NOT mean that when or if Google gets around to updating the Toolbar PR graph everyone's pages will suddenly jump into the top 10. That's simply not how it works.

 

IMO the PR of a page really has very little to do with its rankings for a particular search term,and especially the toolbar PR. If you are waiting for a toolbar PR update and hoping for an improvment in your rankings as a result I am afraid you are likely to be disappointed.

Pages that are spidered should normally be parsed and in the database ready for ranking shortly after spidering (including anchor text links), but the same IMO is not true of PR

I do not believe it is possible to update PR "on the fly" as a PR change on one page can affect the PR of millions of other pages, and in fact the only way to update PR is to run through several iterations including every one of the billions of pages in the Google index.

You all are welcome to choose your favorite SEO gurus, but IMO being the most published, or best speaker, or the firm with the largest revenue should have little to do with it.

If you are a good SEO you get good rankings that last for your clients, and you should get traffic for them. IMO some of the chosen Gurus in this theard fail that test badly.

 

No... You WILL be dissapointed. Fact.

 

minstrel: I didn't note who I thought was credible, I just noted that there have been a number of article written about Kims ways and that she is not considered to be the most credible person in the SEO industry.

Concerning the PR in the directory: The PR that is displayed in the Google directory uses a scale of 7 not a scale of 10 like the toolbar PR. There are a number of good articles on the internet dealing with this. Before the Directory PR update on Aug 10th if you looked at the PR in the directory it didn't match with the PR on the toolbar and that wan't because they were out of sync, it is because it is a differnet scale.

The number that I posted (5/35, 11/29, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2) are the numbers you will see for the green/grey bar if you look in the source of the Google directory. Those numbers are the scale of the PR the directory is currently displaying.

On where PR is being updated or not, I agree. I think most people hold that it is being updated. Just the toolbar has not been updated. And very few expect a big jump in in SERP when the toolbar is updated.

Jenny: My list is just a collection from others lists. I combined about 5 different lists as I couldn't find a current up to date one. I would agree on your statement that just because the toolbar PR is not updated that there have been on PR updates.

In fact we had a Aug 10 PR update of the PR displayed in the Google directory. PR has in the past been updated after the backlink updates. We have had 4 and possible 5 BL updates since June 22/2004. I would think that the PR was updated at the time of those BL updates.

Mel: Ya when you think about it that "update on the fly" is kind of a strange idea, there are people that do hold to it though.

 

Could you show any of the articles relating to this.

 

bobmutch: I would like to see some supporting documents for the PR7 max of directory. I personally do not think that G uses a different scale on the toolbar than in the directory. My site has the same PR on the toolbar and the directory.

 

you can't have the same on the toolbar as you have in the directory, since there are only 6 or 7 (depending on if you count PR10, which only google seems to have in the directory..) different rankings, not 11 (0-10) like on the toolbar.

 

SEbasic: Sure, the first two links are the original page of Chris Raimondi and his changed page which discusses this subject. The 3rd link is Raimondi's paper discussed in a webmasterworld thread, and the 4th link is Markus Sobek's well known article which discusses the same subject. Enjoy!

The orgainal page for The Handy Dandy Google PageRank Figurin' Guide ;

Version 2 of The Handy Dandy Google PageRank Figurin' Guide ;

The Handy Dandy Google PageRank Figurin' Guide V2.0 discussed in a Webmaster World forum;

The 3rd section of A Survey of Google's PageRank: The Implementation of PageRank by Sobek;

 

Interesting stuff...

So really, we're not talking about different PR, we're talking about different percentages of PR.

Can't believe I've noticed that before...

 

vlead: I didn't mean to say the max was PR7. I meant to say that the PR scale used in the Google directory is a scale of 7. I am not counting that Google gives it self what looks like a PR10 which is really a 44/0. See Google Directory - News. The directory display scale is a scale of 6 really, and has the following values; 5/35, 11/29, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2 pos.gif/neg.gif with Google seeming to reserve 44/0 for itself which makes it a scale of 7 in some peoples mind.
SEbasic: That is correct, PR is PR, it is just how it is displayed. Wakfer has a scale for real PR in his Page Rank Calculation Chart found in his Google PageRank, & How to Get It article, Sobek has a scale he calls Real Pagerank in the 3rd page of his A Survey of Google's PageRank. There are others also.

 

Close. On the right track, but it is a lot simpler than that.

Think of the directory guages as a "viewport" that only shows PR3 and up to part of PR10. "Scale" is the wrong terminology to be using. PR0,1, and 2 is outside the window on this viewport and will appear to be a big fat 0. (When is the last time you saw a directory entry with a PR of less than 3 anyway?)

The viewport has 9 positions in all (0 thru 8). The "PR image" on the directory pages are not images at all -- they are created on the fly based on the PR fed to it. If you have worked with the GD image library at all -- you will understand how the images are created and it is based on pixel width conversions of the original PR values.

Basicly put the directory scale is the same as the googlebar scale. There is an image of this in an article by PR Weaver. Look here, a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Dodger: To start with there is a scale, that is if you accept the english defination of the word scale as 1. A progressive classification, as of size, amount, importance, or rank; 2. A standard of measurement or judgment; a criterion. Even Fabien's article you quote calls both the Google toolbar and the Google directory scales.

The scale for Google directory PR is 5/35, 11/29, 16/24, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2 and for Googles pages in the directory 44/0 (I am not sure why Fabien's Aug 30/2004 article has a value of 42 instead of 44).

These are the 7 different directory PR's that are given in the Google directory not counting Googles 44/0 [I omited 16/24 in my other posts and got a bit mixed up - sorry].

There are lots of directory entres with a toolbar PR of less than 3. There are studies done on this where they has been all considered.

I would expect that the directory pages are dynamic. If one is going to do a directory with as many entries as Googles directory and that has components that are updated from time to time you are not going to do static pages.

The PR image on the directory pages are images pos.gif and neg.gif . Those 2 gifs are combined with the following pixel 5/35, 11/29, 16/24, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2, 44/0. Here is an sample of the 22px pos.gif and the 18 px neg.gif .

The following 3 sites all are toolbar PR0 sites and 5/35's in the directory.
http://www.freewebs.com/pinksangel/
http://www.freewebs.com/hiswordshisstory/
http://www.freewebs.com/rooneyrocks1/

There are lots of PR0 sites in the Google directory.

While Fabien put the to scales side by side it is not clear to me that he is saying that the bottom 3 PR0, PR1, PR2, are dropped off and that the two scales are equal from there.

Have you read The Handy Dandy Google PageRank Figurin' Guide.

 

Of course they are 0 on the toolbar. The toolbar has not been updated, but the directory has.

Also the toolbar is broken. Some sites (and there are lots of them) that once showed PR on their homepages have suddenly been showing PR0, even thought they are still showing PR on their internal pages.

The 0 sites in the Google directory are sites that have not yet been "formerly" ranked by Google. The usual starting point for a ranked site is at PR3, is it not? Thus the "viewport" on this PR representation in the directory.

Actually if you look closely, there is no 0 in the directory. It is blank ... no neg.gif or pos.gif at all.

Yes I read it ... and it is wrong. There is no mystery or weird scale. Anything less than a PR3 is "not ranked" yet -- in essence. The scale (if you want to think of it that way) is only for "pixel" width of the bar of those pages ranked PR3 and above. Everything below it is "clipped".

 

Are you now confusing Kim Kommando with Jill Whalen? And my question, again, was "not considered to be the most credible person" by whom "in the SEO industry"? It's not like we're talking about a unified group or even a consistent opinion. I think what she says in the article I quoted makes sense. I gather you don't. Maybe others share your opinion. None of that makes her opinions "not credible""

I'm well aware of what the numbers mean and I've read the article you're drawing this from too. But if the scale used to display PR is different, that doesn't mean that the PR per se is different - it simply means it is being displayed in a different way. Are you now trying to suggest that the different PR scales are representative of two or more different versions of PR? That makes no sense at all.

 

minstrel: No I meant Jill Whalen, I just put Kim in error, sorry. I guess I could look up those articles if you want me to and post the urls. It was my understanding that most people view her as a bit off base. I have read a number of articles on some strange things she has said.
No I don't agree that you should delete the toolbar and forget about PR altogether.

Well I reread what I said, it seem very clear to me that I was refering to the google directory scale and not the raw or real PR. That is pretty elementary. There is the raw or real PR. It is different than the 1-10 toolbar scale. I think that is a given and we all know that. My point was and still is there is a google directory scale also. Same raw PR, different scale.

 

Dodger: Ok I misunderstood you then. I though you mean there were no PR0 toolbar sites in the directory. When I said there were lots of PR0 sites in the directory I mean sites in the directory that had toolbar PR0 sites.

Yes I agree there is no PR0 sites in the directory as the scale is 5/35, 11/29, 16/24, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2 and for google 44/0.

Ok so you hold that the scales are the same in the directory and on the toolbar. And that the directory starts at PR3 and goes to PR10 but shows it as 5/35, 11/29, 16/24, 22/18, 27/13, 32/8, 38/2, 44/0. That is very interesting, I have never heard that view before.

Now I would have ask you if you can up with this on your own research or are there articles you have read that hold this vew. I would be interested in reading them if you know of any.

If you view is correct would you agree that all toolbar PR10 sites would have a bar of 44/0? I have a list of 150 PR10 pages in my PR 10 Sites page and I will take a peek to see if any of them are in the directory and see what they say.

I agree that the directory PR is more current as it was updated on Aug 10th while the toolbar PR was last updated on June 22.

Do you think that Fabien's article that you posted supports your position. I reread it and it didn't seem to be clear to me. I posted a comment to his article and send him an email ask him to clarify and asking him also for his views on Chris Raimondi article.

I find this discussion very interesting.

 

Dodger: I did some further research. "www.microsoft.com" is a toolbar PR10 but is a directory 38/2 - Microsoft in the Directory ; According to what you are saying the directory is showing "www.microsoft.com" as a PR9. So if you are correct then "www.micorsoft.com" as dropped from a PR10 to a PR9. I double this has happened.

Also "www.cnn.com" is a PR9 but in the directory is a 32/8 so that would mean that "www.cnn.com" has dropped to a PR8 according to your view. That would be even harder to believe.

Also the writer of the article you posted and referred to to show how the 2 scales correlate doesn't hold that opinion. He states that "there is not any direct relation between the two PR scales."

So I guess I am back to the same question I asked before, do you know of any one that holds this same view or of any articles that have been written that would support your view?

 

It is pretty common knowledge that the PR green bar scale in the Google directory is on a scale of 40 pixels wide with seven steps. I can see no logical reason that they would omit the first three steps and like many many others I consider consider the directory toolbars to be a ranking of 4/7 etc. In addition they now show a blank toolbar for unranked pages and the width of the blank tool bar is 40 pixels, which seems to me to indictate that the entire scale is 40 pixels wide and that there are no missing ranks as suggested.

The reason that you seldom see a directory bar of less than four is that as a very minimum any page listed in the google directory has at least two good inbound links, one form DMOZ and one from Google directory, but probably a lot more in addtion.