| 7:29 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've seen a PR change around 1 PM eastern standard time, but it returned back to its previous PR... did anybody else notice this?
I'm located in Canada, so maybe it takes time for the full scale update to occur in certain regions.
Dayo_UK - What is the difference between a site that has PR on the [URL.com...] and [URL.com?...]
Does this weigh in in terms of rankings? If so, do you get PR by simply pointing a PR link to the non-www. site?
| 7:32 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is a thread about your specific question here:
| 7:43 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As per Coop99
And you are seeing different page rank as the updated page rank has not reached all datacenters yet.
You may continue to see different page rank (old/new) for a few days yet.
| 9:43 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Looks like the sandbox is over? |
Lorel, I don't think PR is related to the sandbox - it may even be inversely related for new sites.
I have a 12 week old site which is PR6 - if anything i think this will sink it deeper into the sandbox.
| 9:47 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
how many inbounds? is it in dmoz?
It would be interesting to see if the increased PR so soon will get you stuck in google.
| 10:50 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
google : 0
yahoo : 37 (a few PR7s)
msn : 8
Not in dmoz.
| 11:34 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Didn't GoogleGuy say that for Google SERPs and "internal Google purposes" that the PR is is updated continuously? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure he said the PR results on the toolbar were only updated periodically, but in reality, the PR that is showing is only a "snapshot" of the current PR, and the PR they use for ranking pages is "fluid".
It is nice to see an updated PR though.
| 11:41 pm on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You are right about the PR being updated only periodically on the toolbar (about every 3 months).
And yes as GG said the PR is updated a lot more often than that, just not on the toolbar.
For some its very nice to SEE, for others not so nice!
| 12:23 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But I'm not sure what you mean by 'internal link structure'. |
One thing to be very careful about is that you never alter a URL. The W3C says "Cool URIs Never Change".
Now, you can change the *content* of what's at a URL but what you NEVER EVER want to do is to have a page that used to be at www.example.com/file.html simply cease to exist.
If you had any SERPs and PageRank, then get your site redesigned in such a way that all your files have different names then they used to, then as soon as google attempts - and I say "attempts" for a reason - to reindex your site, it will get a bunch of 404s and your PR and SERPs will drop through the floor.
If you *must* move a page, use a permanent redirect. Here's how to do it if you use the Apache web server. If you use IIS or something else, then say so and maybe someone else can help. Place the following either in your apache.conf file, or in a .htaccess file in the same directory where the file used to be:
Redirect permanent /where/itusedtobe.html http://www.example.com/its/herenow.html
That is, the old location is given relative to the root directory of your web pages, while the new location is an *absolute* URL starting with http and the domain name.
My site grew organically over a period of seven years. Now that I'm earning my keep from adsense, I'm working over the whole site very carefully (and slowly :-<). I have a few pages that either I don't want to be there anymore, or that are at URLs that are hard for visitors to remember or type. As I remove pages, I redirect them to the main index to my content. If I move content, then I redirect it to its new location.
If as I hope isn't the case, your redesign has a brand-new structure that's completely different than your old site, then hopefully you made a backup before rolling out your new site. If you didn't, maybe you can find a snapshot in the Wayback Machine.
I'll send you my bill in the mail.
| 12:53 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
that makes sense... so does the never-delete-pages rule apply to .txt files that google has indexed? or even media files like .swf's that google has indexed?
| 1:02 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to say I'm preplexed by this. In the past couple of weeks traffic on my main site is up 25% ... but as it appears now, my PR has fallen from a 6 to a 5. I was hoping that the traffic increase was indicative of a pending PR increase.
I know that PR doesn't really make any difference, but it was a good selling point to advertisers.
| 1:21 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
All sites are up or the same for me. One new site (1 month old) is PR 6 on first go. Yay! :)
| 1:43 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lucky you - I have a PR6 that just dropped to PR3.
|bloke in a box|
| 1:59 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
PR 5 down to 4 again :(
| 2:07 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's actually comical to see Yahoo drop down from pr10 to pr9. So is Google now the only pr10 site?
| 2:11 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My PR was 2 then 3 but now it is back to 0.
| 2:20 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are there any decent online PR tools which can tell you the PR of more than 1 page at a time?
I've just got some PR (PR2-4) for my one year old site. Previously all pages were PR0. The only significant change I made was to link each page to about 5 or 6 semi-authority sites with PR5 or 6 (I couldn't really find any authority sites) which were on the 1st page of the SERPS for certain keywords. Most of the pages don't have any backlinks.
I notice that I get a higher PR for www.mysite.com/folder/ than I do for www.mysite.com/folder/index.php. Is there anything significant about this?
NB: All my internal links use the full url [mysite.com...] and most pages don't have any backlinks, although there are a couple of pages with backlinks to www.mysite.com/folder/ (also for the home page www.mysite.com). All major pages are linked to each other and to the home page and sitemap page by the use of a common menu via a php include.
OT: Will using common php includes on pages for such things as header/footer/menu etc trigger any duplicate content penalties?
| 3:06 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As someone who seriously questions the idea of the public seeing pagerank and also the value of taking any serious conclusions from it, I'm very glad that new sites are now getting page rank. The time delay was meaning that a lot of webmasters were linking only to sites with PR instead of actually using their own brains to decide whether a site was any good and worth linking to. This I think will be much better for Googles results although I still say get rid of visible page rank - it's a red herring.
| 3:32 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Didn't GoogleGuy say that for Google SERPs and "internal Google purposes" that the PR is is updated continuously? |
I'm pretty sure also that the PageRank value Google uses internally is a floating point number rather than an integer. Maybe they scale it so all pages range from 0.0 to 10.0, but I'm certain that one can be in between.
I don't think a site will sit at PR 5 for months and then jump instantly to 6. Instead it will be, in google's internal view, 5.0, 5.1, 5.3 and so on, and then when it goes over 5.5 and gets rounded up, what we see on the outside changes abruptly from 5 to 6.
I have two PR 6 pages now, and a bunch of PR 5 pages. I'm very fortunate that google indexes any new content I post within a few days. I'm then able to see the URL become known to google when I search for it, then a few days later, it will get a few referrals, whereupon I can see where it's appeared in the SERPs, and then over a couple weeks I can see it steadily climb to what will usually be a stable-long term position.
If Google's updates weren't to some extent continuous, I wouldn't see that behaviour. Instead, I'd see pages go from completely unknown into their final place overnight.
| 5:35 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So is Google now the only pr10 site? |
Yahoo has always been shuttling between 9 and 10, so no surprises there. There are still many PR10s. adobe.com, apple.com, mac.com, nsf.gov for example.
I believe, this PR update has a unique significance in that, between this update and the pervious we spent few exciting days talking about the no-show of TbPR, when Google had pulled down the PR from the toolbar. Good to see Google determined to keep the TbPR, and this update corroborates it.
| 6:12 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well my PR came and went in one day all my sites were PR 3 or PR 4 and are now PR 0, is their any hope.
| 6:33 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I started to submit a lengthy post about how I got one of my pages to be the only PR5 page among a bunch of PR6 and up pages in the top ten, and in fact is ahead of a PR 6 and a PR 7 page.
Then I realized it would be better to post it as a new thread in the Search Engine Promotion forum. It's here: White Hat Search Engine Optimization [webmasterworld.com]
That's the case with lots of my pages now. The short version is that you make people want to click your link when it shows up in the SERPs at all, and then you make them want to stay once they arrive.
If there is interest I'll have more to say in the coming days.
| 7:53 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Went through your contributions and visited your site. Thanks for generous sharing spirit. Much appreciated.
However, I wish to see your various posts compiled somewhere on one place to the benefit of beginners and new users fellow members.
| 8:03 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I wish to see your various posts compiled somewhere on one place to the benefit of beginners and new users fellow members. |
I'd be quite pleased if the WebmasterWorld moderators compiled all my posts and put them all in one place here.
I do have some of them in one place, but if I told you where, I'd be violating the WebmasterWorld terms of service!
I genuinely try to be helpful, as I have been able to achieve what I have because many, many other people went to a lot of trouble to help me. I want to give some of that back.
I do so at WebmasterWorld because a friend who is also a member here described the site as filled with "clueless and desperate webmasters". If you search google for keywords of interest to webmasters who want to earn a living from their site, you will find many top search results presented by sharks, scammers and ripoff artists.
That's just not right, and I want to put them all out of business. There's plenty of money to be made by honest people doing honest work.
| 8:15 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I'd be quite pleased if the WebmasterWorld moderators compiled all my posts and put them all in one place here.<
You have two ways to go ;-)
- Within Webmasterworld you are able to compile within one post the links to your contributions of your choice. You will be able in future to reffer to that exact post.
- Compile the links on a page on your site and mention the link to that page within your profile.
| 11:46 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites got a PR4 yesterday and today is PR0 again. I have worked a lot building link popularity and have some PR5 and higher links. Any suggestion of what to do to get a decent PR?
| 11:58 am on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mathematical explanation of the PR losings:
Note: many of the data posted below is based on hipotesis, aproximations and models; it pretends to be illustrative, not accurate.
As most of you should know, the value that G's use internally as PageRank value is much more accurate than the 0-10 scale that the Toolbar shows us.
Hence forward, pr is used to refer the internal (real) value of PageRank and PR is used to refer the toolbar's value, in order to abbreviatte.
So, there has to be some kind of function, f() that fulills PR = f(pr).
We also know that 0 <= PR <= 10; but we know nothing about the limits of pr. In order to make it easier, we'll assume that pr has no other limit than representability (if it's representable, then it's a possible value for pr). Using this model, the pr value of files would go increasing undefinedly, so in order to keep the PR result in-limits, the f() function has to be arranged. But before I can induce the possible ways to arrange f(), we should know a bit more about it. We know that f(pr) increases as pr does, and many people assumes that it's based on a logarythmic scale, so, f(pr)= k*log(base, pr)+n, where k, base and n would be constants that only Google can know (even so, we can and will figure them out aproximately). The function I've given above is a generic logarythm function; most porbably, n=0 so it can be ommited, and very probably the k is a constant that we also can ommit. Then, we have to consider the part log(base, pr). If adjustement has to be made here, it can only be done on the base parameter, because pr is the input to f(), not an internal part of it.
Applying some maths:
log(base, pr) = PR <=> (is equivalent) base^PR = pr <=> pr^(1/PR) = base (pr^(1/PR) is the same that the PR-th root of pr, but is more 'typeable').
Then, taking this last equation on the limits... ok, first I'll define these limits:
lim(PR) = 10* (*there are some reasons to consider lim(PR)=11, but these are out of the concepts we are working with here, so I'll take the 10 value)
lim(pr) can only be defined as max(pr) (maximum possible value of pr)
Now, applying the last equality on these limits, we have:
base = max(pr)^0.1 (1/lim(PR) = 1/10 = 0.1), so the base of the logarythmic function is (indirectly) proportional to the max(pr). As more links are crawled by Google bots & spiders, higher the max(pr) value gets, so the base also grows. Taking the original formula PR = log(base, pr), as it increases 'base', for the same value of 'pr', PR decreases.
So, returning to the begining: Why does PageRank decreases? It does not decrease, but the scale it's being compared to increases.
Hoping this will be useful and not only weird,
Herenvardo - Junior webmaster, SEO & programmer
| 12:31 pm on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>One of my sites got a PR4 yesterday and today is PR0 again. I have worked a lot building link popularity and have some PR5 and higher links. Any suggestion of what to do to get a decent PR?
same here had a 6,5,4 on three different sites, the 6 has now dropped to its old 5 and the 5 & 4 had gone back to zeros, although I do think its probably a toolbar glitch
| 1:37 pm on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Herenvardo, thanks for your mathematical explanation, but the thing is that my site is 7 months old, most of the time is PR0, sometimes is PR1 for a day, if I make the search link:www.mysite.com, sometimes Google find links to my site, sometimes it doesn't. So what's wrong with my site that even having more than 100 links, some even higher than PR5 still does not get a "stable" and decent PR? How many links do I need?
| 1:53 pm on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Tigger, maybe is a tool bar glitch but more probably is Google reorganizing their PR. You have a PR5 site which if it links to your other sites, should help them get a stable PR and get indexed frecuently.
I think Google is having some sort of PR issue since sometimes detect them and sometimes don't when you make a search link:www.yoursite.com, and that affects all of us. I have links from sites somehow related or very related to my theme, and I haven request links to gambling of porn sites.
I hope they are fixing it so that all links count. Since you have a PR5 site, you must know how to get it and keep it.
| 1:54 pm on Jul 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm so fed up with this PR crap. My site is good, I know it's good and that's all there is to it. Google has been controlling people's websites since day 1, and it's all about money for them.
I don't think Google realises that if they lower PR, then webmasters have to add content, redesign (which costs) and basically wastes people's time. Not only this, but PageRank totally governs whether people will do business with sites at all.
It's time someone put Google out of the game once and for all. Pagerank seriously messes with people's websites, successes and lives - it isn't right.