| 1:30 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You may want to look here (May 2003)
| 2:03 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I did add the following to my list.
I'm looking for ONLY PR10 sites.
| 2:18 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Okay. I found some more PR10
| 3:03 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Excuse me but why? Whats the purpose?
| 3:33 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I thought no one would really get around to asking this.
The reason I ask is this -
We know that google has indexed 3,307,998,701 pages on the net.
We also know that the sum total of the PR on the web is 3,307,998,701
We also know that the Google Toolbar is exponential logrithmic scale. But no one really know the scale of WHAT?
If we do a reverse calculation of the PR10 sites down to 3,307,998,701, we can actually figure out the true base.
So far, my calculations say, the base is a factor close to '8' if we have about 24 PR10 sites.
Get the idea?
| 3:40 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>We know that google has indexed 3,307,998,701 pages on the net.
Not exactly. For e.g. [webmasterworld.com...]
|too much information|
| 3:44 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So what exactly are you trying to figure out?
Are you trying to learn how many links you need to get each value of PR from 0-10?
Wouldn't this change as they add pages to their index, and links are created?
It just seems like you are aiming at a moving target. ;)
| 3:52 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
seoRank, here's some good background that might come in handy.
Google has page rank 11 [webmasterworld.com] Especially check Chris_R's msg 36 and the link to his PR 11 analysis.
There was at least one other pretty good thread on this but I can't seem to find it right now.
| 3:55 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Wouldn't this change as they add pages to their index, and links are created? |
The base of the log wouldn't be very sensitive to this at all.
| 5:01 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The total PR on the web does not match the number of pages. That would only happen if there were no dead ends, and there are lots of those.
Pages on frames sites
PDF files with no putbound links
Pages that only link out with a form
We also do not "know" that toolbar PR is exponential and automatically generated.The PageRank papers hint at this, and it does seem to be that way, but it could also contain other adjustments to give it a more useful distribution. If Google is an 11, and they had 80 times the pagerank of the next site, it would be in their interest to tweak the numbers so that there are 9s and 10s.
I'll admit that playing around with this stuff is fun, and it can lead to some additional understanding, it really is of little practical use. Just be aware of all the places where errors can sneak into your calculations, and don't run around declaring your results as fact.
| 5:08 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok I think I see what your getting, you really should get out more.
| 5:12 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If getting out more involves a visit to Romford or Dagenham - stick with the maths and stay in ;)
| 5:15 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There's a longer list at h*tp://www.suchmaschinen-optimierung-seo.info/pagerank.html
Also, note that there is no such thing as a 'PR 10 site'. PR is related to a page (duh...) not to an entire site.
| 5:22 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|PR is related to a page (duh...) not to an entire site. |
Yup, there might actually be a PR10 page within Yahoo or Nobel that is higher than the PR9 home page. But it sure ain't worth my time to check for it.
| 2:26 am on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Yup, there might actually be a PR10 page within Yahoo or Nobel that is higher than the PR9 home page. But it sure ain't worth my time to check for it.
Because of the license agreement, likely [dmoz.org...] has higher PR than root.
| 4:03 am on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How does one find out the *true* PR of any page? We cannot rely on the toolbar as not only is it *probably* not correct, but also has a lag factor to consider.
Nice though perhaps, but you might be better off applying your math skills to a jelly bean counting contest :o)
| 6:37 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
PR means absolutely nothing these days so why bother?
Rather have visitors then stupid PR, and no, they're not always go hand in hand.
| 6:47 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
you can also include www.php.net
| 7:26 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|PR means absolutely nothing these days so why bother? |
If Yahoo! was PR3, do you think that they would have 21 million pages in the index?
And in areas where there are some real high PR sites, they still tend to dominate the searches, without applying specific SEO techniques.
PR2 pages simply do not hold positions ahead of PR8 pages that are on topic. It isn't all due to the PR of the page, a good part of it is due to the reason that page achieved PR8. But the PR is still part of the algo, and it still counts for something.
Just because it is no longer everything does not mean that it is "absolutely nothing".
| 7:31 am on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
...but another problem is that one PR10 site may be worth 5 other PR10 sites, depending on whether they're PR9.1 or 9.9.
| 12:58 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes. PR is still king. Anyone who ignores it does so at their peril.
| 1:14 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok so how do I get PR rankings up? I know about links from PR6 pages etc but anything else?
| 1:17 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nope. The only way to improve pagerank is by getting links. Lot's of small ones or one big one. It doesn't matter.
Beware high PR sites selling links. They probably are unable to pass on the pagerank through an invisible penalty.
| 1:32 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|through invisible penalty |
One of my distant partners has PR9 and links written in footer to 9 affiliate sites, some of which my company has developed. The site is a huge resource that amounts to nearly 1K pages with footer links almost EVERYWHERE across!
None of the footer sites get any links from this domain at link: query i.e. seemeingly no actual PR is transfered.
Does this look like a clearcut case of invisible google penalty of some sort?
| 2:15 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If they didn't get a PR boost then it's most likely that.
Otherwise they might have NOFOLLOW in the robots tag or file, telling Google to index the page but not follow the outgoing links. Or the links might not be spiderable. Or it might be the site uses java or frames to hide the true page which has the link. I've seen all sorts of tricks!
| 5:17 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I find it funny that Google has PR11 and Yahoo has PR9. Seems like a pretty obvious 'fix' to me.
| 5:48 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Seems like a pretty obvious 'fix' to me. |
How many of the sites out there have "Search powered by yahoo" links?
They have a link off of all of macromedia's pages (and how many of those are PR10)
How about w3c.org?
Hey, look at that, python.org has a quote with a link on their home page, and a powered by google on their search page.
Look they run the search for the World Heath Organization.
Apple has a link from the PR9 description of the Safari browser.
I would not be surprised if Yahoo had more total PR for all their pages, but google gets more big links directly to their home page.
| 6:21 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo is the most popular website on the web with 3 times more backlinks than Google - if PR doesn't reflect this simple fact then its not a very useful tool in my opinion.
| 6:33 pm on Dec 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think it was pointed out on this forum, that if the link is part of the site's template, it doesn't transfer PR. (?)
Couldn't find the exact thread but in this thread
Brett said that "those guys paying for pr and having their link stuck in a template aren't getting much bang for their buck"
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 (  2 ) > > |