| 4:34 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Very Nice. Thanks Chris.
| 5:22 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Good job! Very interesting.
| 5:23 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thaks you two :)
| 6:16 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 6:42 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Clever. Very clever. Good work!
| 6:45 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
clap clap clap clap clap
Very very good job.
| 6:52 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 7:03 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 9:02 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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?
| 10:41 pm on Nov 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The new matchup certainly fits my experience better than the previous one.
| 1:51 am on Nov 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 4:04 am on Nov 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 4:09 am on Nov 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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. :-)
| 7:12 pm on Nov 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for sharing your research Chris. The directory really does have quite an odd scale.