Very Nice. Thanks Chris.
Good job! Very interesting.
Thaks you two :)
Thats very interesting. You mentioned that the toolbar and directory update at different times. Who is first. I noticed after the last Google update I was no longer at the top of my Google category, although I was still a pr 5, same as the site above me. Now we're both pr 4 (pos.gif width="16") but both still have a Google toolbar PR of 5. Both sites have strong backlinks and the backlinks for mysite have been steadily on the rise.
Clever. Very clever. Good work!
clap clap clap clap clap
Very very good job.
The toolbar is updated as soon as the regular update is done. The directory updates later using this in, but I really don't follow the directory that much.
If you both have a pos.gif width="16" of and a PR5 on the Toolbar, then you are on the lower half of the toolbar PR5. Notice these correspond to the Ranking% of 48% - while a notch above that is 52%. Those two are about the closest there is - as the notch below you would averag 41%.
So it wouldn't be that unusual to bounce back and forth between the two as other websites change.
If there is a site above you - that is "worse" in a way, but you could be very, very close.
If there are sites below you in the directory - you could use this to guestimate something even closer.
As the PR guesstimate range falls between 45.5 - 50 for your range - then if there is one person above you and nine below you (of the exact same rank) - you would be closer to 49.5%.
However, this is just a loose guess of course - the PR doesn't have to be spread that even, but it is at least an educated guess.
Might help you track minor changes over the months ahead.
Good luck and I hope that answers your question - as I am not 100% sure I understood it.
I guess i was asking if the directory pr was indicative of the toolbar's future pr or maybe vice versa. I gather neither, they just sometimes show up differently if your on the cusp, so to speak.
Nice one Chris,
as to be expected from the real PRologist.
I would guess the Google directory glitch to be an unexpected valuation before normalisation. Personally I would put Google as the number one PR-wise.
Pagerank, the new identity currency of the web...
Now my question to you is, why did Google ever start showing a different scale on the directory? Because it updates at a later interval and therefore less differences will be noticed?
The new matchup certainly fits my experience better than the previous one.
Great work Chris. I tried the same months ago and came up with 14 levels, not counting PR0 and Google's own top level. I hope people start quoting the "Nerdrank" number when describing the PR of their site, rather than just PR 5, 6, etc. I'll start - my main site has a Nerdrank of 68!
One suggestion - using the number of pixels to measure the directory PR is quite tedious, although accurate. Perhaps who could add a 1-7 scale beside the pixel numbers as a quick ready reckoner, since we've historically used this scale to describe directory PR.
1) I added that - Google also changed the 6th highest PR on the directory from 33 to 32. I didn't want to confuse people anymore than need be, but I added it anyway so people would know.
2) Dantheman, I took your suggestion and added (7th, 6th, 5th) and so on. I didn't do one for google as I assume no one here has to worry about getting PR that high and it is a little confusing until it is explained. Of course - I could have added it later on, but oh well.
I read the thread and the (good) article written by Chris. I find his work interesting, and I agree with him that in a scale from zero to ten, Google is 11. :-)
Nevertheless, I came to a different and IMHO more simple conclusion and some days ago I wrote an article about this subject on my website (the URL is in my profile; sorry it's in italian language!).
Basically, I simply divided the two ranges 0-10 and 0-43 and overlapped them. Yes, 43. Except Google, any site is below 11 and below 44, this is one difference between the two methods.
I think I haven't the necessary english language skills to illustrate my whole method ;-) but I believe that the table on the article is self-explanatory. :-)
Thanks for sharing your research Chris. The directory really does have quite an odd scale.