| 4:07 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In theory it makes a difference.
Generally a pagerank 2 is worth lots more than a pagerank 1 and a 3 is worth lots more than a 2.
And so on....
But the value of pagerank is not what it used to be so don't pay too much attention to it.
| 3:26 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As Sly mentioned, I wouldn't pay much attention to PageRank. If the site you are considering exchanging links with has a PR0 don't automatically assume they are banned, penalized, worthless, etc. Do some research first before denying them.
Link to and from sites that are complimentary to what your site is about. Create your marketing/linking plan with visitors in mind, not the robots.
| 3:31 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No only Google know the formula. PR is not all. Look at any serps and I doubt you will find they are in PR order.
| 3:37 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>No only Google know the formula.
The formula is easy to find,
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))
it is the application which is in question.
| 6:06 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well that was the forumula in 1999, but it may have changed a bit in the ensuing years.
| 6:13 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Page rank is an arbitrary scale: about all you can say is that a googlebot is more likely to find a page with rank 5 than one with rank 4.
The formula is trivial, for anyone who's passed a semester of linear algebra, and incomprehensible otherwise. But if you're thinking in terms of modeling it in terms of bean-counting, then you should either find some simpler concept to model, or learn to like padded walls.
The principles are simple:
1) Incoming links to your pages are good -- the better the site that links to them, the better. If you have a choice of two incoming links, both are better than either one. But be warned that Google knows some sites are VERY bad, and links from them won't help you at all.
2) Clear navigation within the site is good: a casual human visitor or googlebot should be able to get anywhere in the site within 5 clicks or so. Fancy dynamic menus are probably not good: daunting to both humans and bots.
3) Link only to sites that are worth something to real visitors. Linking to sites Google has already identified as "GRAW" (generally recognized as worthless) will hurt your site.
4) Don't depend on link exchanges for page rank boost. A lot of people cheat on them; and even if they don't cheat, they still may lure you into linking to GRAW sites. And even if they weren't GRAW before, exchanging links with a site (like yours) desperate for links may drag both of you into the graw pits.
5) Patience. If this has to be accomplished by next month or you go crazy -- better start filling out insurance papers and checking out the asylums.
6) Don't try to second-guess Google engineers. They are the sort of people who tell rocket scientists how to deal with the difficult problems; and you are not. Instead, read the Google recommendations, and follow them. (You'd be surprised how many idiots build Flash sites and then obsess over their page rank. And even in these forums, the number of proposals for bean-counting schemes, involving intricate sorts on strain, color, number and size of spots, etc., is incredible.
| 9:29 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
These days, if the choice was between an on-topic PR2 or an off-topic PR4 link, I'd choose the former.
| 10:51 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thank you alot.
But about the formula!
What are C() & d?
And I finished Electrical Engineering , os I guess I know a little about Linear Algebra!
and again What are C() & d?
| 11:17 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Try "pagerank explained" on Google, you'll find plenty of explanations..... ;-)
| 11:31 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine [www7.scu.edu.au] by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page
The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order the the Web [citeseer.nj.nec.com] by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page
As noted earlier in this thread, these two papers describe the original page rank system. It may well have changed over the years.
| 12:20 pm on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
d is the damping factor, i.e. the fraction of PR which is transferred from one page to other pages. In the first paper d=1 was used, later they changed to d=0.85 (e.g. to avoid problems coming from leaf nodes). Currently Google is using a different value. (1-d) is some kind of self contribution of a page.
PR(x) denotes the PR of page x linking to you; C(x) is the number of links on that page.
The PR formula leads to an eigen value problem for d=1 and a system of linear equations for d<1, respectively. For large systems the solution is derived by iteration schemes.
The real PR is related to the toolbarPR by a logarithmic scale.
| 2:47 am on Mar 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
glengara speaks truly, but perhaps not emphatically enough. Page rank is only part of what goes into the actual results order. "Search relevance", which seems to be where Google research is most active right now, is the other part, and probably the more important part. And they are getting better at relating relevance to incoming links.