homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.213.228
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 182 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 182 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >     
Pagerank queries - the <rk> parameter
What do such figures as Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 mean?
selomelo




msg:757461
 10:10 pm on Feb 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

We already know that toolbar PR is in fact an historical figure. When you query google for current PR, you get some mysterious figures such as:

Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:4 Rank_1:1:4 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:1 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:2 Rank_1:1:3 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:3

These figures are for a site that has a current toolbar of PR4.

I searched the web for an explanation, but failed to get a good one.

Is there any idea as to what all these magical numbers mean?

 

Dayo_UK




msg:757521
 4:43 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

BillyS

The summary again shows top ten pages which contain the query.

eg. if you are searching on your domain "www.domain.com" then the summary shows the snippets as they appear on the top 10 on a normal serp page - probably with your site in number 1 (& maybe 2) position followed by other sites that mention your domain.

So - the info you may be seeing is someone else who has listed your site with that information and this appears in the snippet when searching for your domain?

On a different issue - I was thinking of the term used for <rk> in the Google xml documentation as "a general rating of the relevance of the search result", search result clearly means the page returned for the <rk> value - the relevance word stumps me a bit - it clearly does not mean relevant towards the search term - so relevant to what exactly? The rest of the web? - eg Page Rank?

ebound




msg:757522
 4:58 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I checked my current pagerank page and found a Summary <S> Tag that looked like it was hand written. After searching futher I found that the summary listed by google for my website comes from DMOZ.

So I wanted to see if this was true with other sites. The same thing happens with WebmasterWorld.
[google.com...]

S=Brett Tabke hosts professional webmaster and search engine promotion discussions.

[search.dmoz.org...]

The differnce is that when I search my site in Google, it does not use the summary listed in my current pagerank query. It uses my meta desc. WebmasterWorld on the other hand does show the DMOZ desc in Google serps.

Not really sure of the significance of this. Maybe the description they are using for my site in the serps is going to change soon.

I guess the most significant discovery here is that I actually have a link from DMOZ. I gave up checking for my link to be approved over a year ago. So there is some good news that comes from this. :)

Rose_1171




msg:757523
 5:19 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

[66.249.93.99...]

Whats that? How did you get there?
Regards,
Rosie

iblaine




msg:757524
 5:39 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

This string is a strange result and much longer than it used to be. Is this long string now normal for all PR queries or is this an isolated event?

BillyS




msg:757525
 6:20 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

So - the info you may be seeing is someone else who has listed your site with that information and this appears in the snippet when searching for your domain?

Dang, you're right.

Lorel




msg:757526
 7:50 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)


Also as this <rk> figure does not change based on the search term we are left with the definition of:-

>>Text (Integer in the range 0-10)

>>"Provides a general rating of the relevance of the search result"

Which as we know is not dependent on the search term - if it is not PR it is something very close to it.

Why can't this be a combination of your Rank in the SERPs and Page Rank. Google records visits to a page/site via it's toolbar. If a page/site is ranking well in the SERPS maybe this has something to do with those numbers and they affect one's PR also.

FromRocky




msg:757527
 8:06 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think that <RK> indicates a popularity ranking of a search term. This ranking is also based on the same scale as the page rank (0-10). Search Popularity Ranking for "hotels" is 9 and "xkgff" will be 0.

Oliver Henniges




msg:757528
 9:09 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I understand your enthusiasm about all this, but has anyone welcomed protellix (msg24) yet?

Just one thing, because I haven't found it explicitly mentioned: You may put your suggestions on a broader emprirical basis by adding the get-variables 'start' and 'num' to your query. E.g.:

[66.249.93.99...]

[66.249.93.99...]

Hollywood




msg:757529
 9:31 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Keep in mind people the keyword term "biased"

If someone here posts something very accurate and true and visionary someone else may post that the first person (visionary guy) is wrong. Why?

Cause if someone gets it finally (Something new and huge) once someone somewhere may figure out this is huge and try to convince everyone that it is all hot air to confuse you into not believing it so they can dominate from the finding when everyone else is not taking it for the truth.

Hope that made sense.

My question is when using the pagerank guessing tool why are two of my sites showing current PR of 4 and a predicted PR of 6 when hardly any work has been done to it as of late?

And what is this --> <R N="4" L="2">

Hollyweird

fischermx




msg:757530
 10:15 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

R = Result
N = Number (position)
And I think the L=2 stands for if it is complementary results. Or whatever you call at those results that have a wider left margin.

Hanu




msg:757531
 10:52 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

L, Text (Integer), Indicates the recommended indentation level of the results.
Note: Currently this value will always be 1 unless directory crowding occurs. In this case, the second directory result will have a value of 2.

Lorel




msg:757532
 11:26 pm on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been doing as suggested earlier--leaving off the "rank" on the url mentioned above for my site and notice a few interesting things.

My site has been predicted to go to PR 6 after being at pr 5 for last few years. I haven't been actively pursuing links but they are growing nevertheless. The first two listings are pages from my own site--my two highest ranking directories/pages. One of which has PR 5 at 354 links and the other PR 5 and 131 links--and I haven't gathered any links for the later and hardly any for the former. Both are very popular pages and get a lot of traffic. These two may be pushing my site up to a PR 6 - plus all the other backlinks.

The rest of the sites in that list=---their Rank on that list doesn't match actual Rank. Maybe they are all rising in rank, and thus pushing my site up, but I doubt it as their current rank is often 1-3 PR, so why they are included in that list I have no idea unless they are there because they send lots of traffic which could be as two of them are the google directory and I've seen traffic from the others.

NewQuestions




msg:757533
 12:00 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Lorel - the reason why those low ranking websites may
be in your list, could be because Google will not show
you all of the pages, that are relevant to the search
query containing your domain name.

In other words, there could be results missing, which
have even higher PR scores, that link to you ...

I think it might be fair to assume that the entire
backlink catalogue is not well represented, and this is
just a snippet of results that "relate" to your site.

Hope that makes a bit of sense. Just for the record, I
have spent most of the day testing this theory, and it
seems very close to the mark.

Hanu




msg:757534
 1:17 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

<html><head><script>
var GPR_HASH_SEED = "Mining PageRank is AGAINST GOOGLE'S TERMS OF SERVICE. Yes, I'm talking to you, scammer.";

function GPR_awesomeHash(value) {
var kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage = 16909125;
for(var i = 0;i < value.length;i ++ ) {
kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage ^= GPR_HASH_SEED.charCodeAt(i % GPR_HASH_SEED.length) ^ value.charCodeAt(i);
kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage = kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage >>> 23 ¦ kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage << 9}
return "8" + GPR_hexEncodeU32(kindOfThingAnIdiotWouldHaveOnHisLuggage)
}

function GPR_hexEncodeU32(num) {
var result = GPR_toHex8(num >>> 24);
result += GPR_toHex8(num >>> 16 & 255);
result += GPR_toHex8(num >>> 8 & 255);
return result + GPR_toHex8(num & 255)
}

function GPR_toHex8 (num) {
return(num < 16? "0" : "") + num.toString(16)
}
function $(id) {
return document.getElementById(id)
}
function generate(f) {
$('r').innerHTML = GPR_awesomeHash( f.q.value )
}
function query(f) {
var x = f.fe.selectedIndex
var u =
'http://' + f.h.value
+ '/search?client=navclient-auto'
+ ( x == 0? '' : '&features=' + f.fe.options[x].value )
+ '&start=' + f.s.value
+ '&num=' + f.n.value
+ '&ch=' + GPR_awesomeHash( f.q.value )
+ '&q=' + ( f.i.checked ¦¦ x > 0? 'info:' : '' ) + encodeURIComponent( f.q.value )
$('r').innerHTML = '<a target="blank" href="' + u +'">' + u + '</a>'
return u;
}
</script><style>
label { display:block; margin-bottom:1ex; margin-top:1ex; }
.t { width:100%; }
#rp { width:100%; background-color:#CCC; }
</style></head><body>
<form><fieldset><legend>Ugly, Bad-Ass Scammers' Ajaxed Query Generator</legend>
<label>Query:&nbsp;<input type="text" name="q" class="t"></label>
<input type="button" value="Generate Checksum" onclick="generate( this.form )" >
<label>&quot;info:&quot;&nbsp;<input type="checkbox" name="i" value="1">
<label>Start:&nbsp;<input type="text" maxlength="3" size="1" name="s" value="0"></label>
<label>Num:&nbsp;<input maxlength="3" size="1" type="text" name="n" value="10"></label>
<label>Features:&nbsp;<select name="fe">
<option value="All" selected="selected"></option>
<option value="Rank">Rank</option>
<option value="Level">Level</option>
<option value="Filter">Filter</option>
<option value="Hostname">Hostname</option>
<option value="URL">URL</option>
<option value="Results">Results</option>
<option value="Summary">Summary</option>
<option value="Title">Title</option>
<option value="CacheSize">CacheSize</option>
<option value="Link">Link</option>
</select></label>
<label>Host:&nbsp;<input type="text" name="h" class="t" value="toolbarqueries.google.com"></label>
<input type="button" value="Generate Query URL" onclick="query( this.form )" >
<input type="button" value="Show Query Result" onclick="$('rp').src=query( this.form )" >
</fieldset></form>
<p id="r"></p>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="60%" id="rp"></iframe>
</body></html>

Hanu




msg:757535
 1:21 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Due to the stupid escaping on this site, you need to replace the with a regular pipe symbol in order to make my above code work. There are three occurrences of it.

afterburner




msg:757536
 1:39 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hanu,
That is awesome.....now what does it do?

BillyS




msg:757537
 2:22 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Great tool Hanu, thanks!

Hanu




msg:757538
 4:14 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

afterburner,

That is awesome.....now what does it do?

I got tired of sniffing the toolbar for those stupid checksums (the ch parameter in the urls mentioned here). So I wrote this silly little page that you can store in an html file on your desktop and open in your browser. It doesn't need a server. It let's you synthesize the kind of query that the toolbar issues, and more. Just play around with it. Please don't put it on your servers or publish it by any other means.

Only tested in FF.

I hate to disappoint everyone that got so excited about those RK fields in the XML response or the ominous Rank... strings in &Features=Rank. I tested it for some new pages of mine that have been PR0 for a couple of weeks and the RK is 0 for these pages, too. Same for Rank_1. No sign of any internal PR.

BTW, that averaging method for determining the "Future PR" mentioned earlier is a whole load of vodoo.

a1call




msg:757539
 4:45 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Hanu,
That is plain beautiful.

CainIV




msg:757540
 6:14 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dude....poetry in coding.

Nice job, time to test this badboy!

Dayo_UK




msg:757541
 9:29 am on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>>I hate to disappoint everyone that got so excited about those RK fields in the XML response or the ominous Rank... strings in &Features=Rank. I tested it for some new pages of mine that have been PR0 for a couple of weeks and the RK is 0 for these pages, too. Same for Rank_1. No sign of any internal PR.

Yes, this factor and another couple of factors do put me slightly off the thought that <rk> might be PR.

Maybe the RK values are a snapshot at a certain time though and internal PR has not been calculated for those new sites - I think with BD going on a few things are on hold.

Hanu - do those pages have any <RK> value if you query on the main BD DC:- [64.233.179.104...] <RK> Values are different on this DC for a few sites I have monitored.

Solutions




msg:757542
 12:16 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just tried it very quickly, but I am quite positive that <RK> value equals the PageRank value in Google directory.

BillyS




msg:757543
 12:20 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hanu's tool allows you to query any DC you want Dayo_UK.

Dayo_UK




msg:757544
 12:24 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Hanu's tool allows you to query any DC you want Dayo_UK.

Cool :)

I was wondering though if the pages Hanu is saying which show a RK0 show a RK0 on the BD DCs.

pontifex




msg:757545
 12:57 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

hanu, kudos!

Hanu




msg:757546
 4:07 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK,

Hanu - do those pages have any <RK> value if you query on the main BD DC:- [64.233.179.104...] <RK> Values are different on this DC for a few sites I have monitored.

Actually, something is different on that DC. Shortly after or during Big Daddy (can't remember), I added several new pages to my site and linked to them from my homepage. The natural thing to happen in the next TPR update is that the new pages will get green while old pages lose some. Now, what I see on the DC you mention, is that my old pages' PR went down whereas my new pages' PR is still 0. It's like they did a TPR update on that DC, but not including pages that were added to the index later. I wonder if that DC is live right now.

I still think that <RK> = Rank_1 = TBR.

Hint: In my tool,
uncheck info:,
leave Features empty,
set Start: to 0 and Num: to 100 and
type "site:www.domain.com" (excl. the quotation marks) into Query:. Optionally, put 64.233.179.104 into the Host: field in order to see the BD results.

Enjoy it while it lasts ...

McMohan




msg:757547
 5:54 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hanu,
I still think that <RK> = Rank_1 = TBR.

Most likely, as I see after many trials.

afterburner




msg:757548
 6:19 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hanu,
I just did site:www.mydomain.com like the example you show above and the <RK> for my index page was <RK>5</RK> all other pages off the index page were <RK>4</RK>.

That looks like the formula google usually uses, the index page is almost always 1 point higher than the internal pages on the same domain. Right?

baron13




msg:757549
 6:46 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi,
just one question: What is going on/wrong when I receive "Pagerank unknown" from the iweb tool?

afterburner




msg:757550
 6:58 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

baron13,
I saw the same thing on some of the domains I checked?

thewindmaster




msg:757551
 7:05 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If no one else has noticed you can get the same Rank type page for your current PageRank from iwebtools like this:

[google.com...]

you can parse out the &features=Rank also to get the full XML file:

[google.com...]

I checked all 7 of my site and all current page ranks match the <RK> tag in the XML file.

Further proof that <RK> really is Future/Effective Page Rank?

The only difference is the CH value. Did we every determine what that was?

[edited by: jatar_k at 9:32 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2006]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]

This 182 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 182 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved