homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.184.242
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 82 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 82 ( 1 2 [3]     
Page Rank Update - April 2008
Atomic




msg:3637185
 12:43 am on Apr 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing PR updated where I am. Anyone else?

 

Patrick Taylor




msg:3639801
 8:37 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

he's saying a pie is a fixed size, so more slices mean each slice is smaller!

Yes, I gathered that much. But how is it a fixed pie? I thought each new page added a value of 1.00 to the potential size of the pie.

[edited by: Patrick_Taylor at 8:46 pm (utc) on May 1, 2008]

tedster




msg:3639805
 8:41 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I might have said it better - yesterday's PR5 page only gets rated as a PR4 by today's standards, with all the many links and pages that have been added to the web in the between time. To hold on to the PR5 rating, you've got to grow somewhat in parallel with the rest of the web,

PR plays a more important part in indexing rather than ranking?

It's definitely a part of both spidering and indexing decisions for Google. But it's pretty hard to rank without links, and links bring PR - so PR does play a part in ranking to, but it's just a "query-independent" part and thew query dependent factors also mean a whole lot.

Patrick Taylor




msg:3639813
 8:52 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

As I've always understood it, the pages indexed by Google average out to a PageRank of 1.0 per page. So the total PageRank of all the pages is equal to the number of pages indexed multiplied by 1, which increases the PageRank spread around the web with each new page added to the index. So linking factors aside, a bigger pie shouldn't mean less PageRank for an average page, no matter how many pages there are.

hazardtomyself




msg:3639947
 11:43 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

tedster - So a PR 5 today is not what is was last year or two years ago. Because the size of the web is increasing, it takes more today to get a PR 5 than in the past. In order to keep a PR 5, a site needs to parallel the growth of the web in both pages/content and in inbound links/votes. Is this the concept you're speaking of?

potentialgeek




msg:3639949
 11:49 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

Now I'm a 2. I feel like I'm in kindergarten again. lol.

p/g

Asia_Expat




msg:3640084
 4:51 am on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Now I'm at greybar, I feel like #%$*.
(internal pages still have green though)

Marcia




msg:3640089
 5:09 am on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

That toolbar PR has been glitchy since a year ago and I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate, that they're intentionally gaslighting webmasters.

bluntforce




msg:3640104
 5:37 am on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is how I look at PR which is totally contradictory to everything I've ever read about the true calculation of PR and isn't any kind of proposal or assumption about how SERP ranking is determined.

If there are 100 sites available on the web and their traffic is fairly equal, then you could assume each site would have a PR1.
If 50 of the 100 sites garner 75% of web traffic, then perhaps those 50 sites each should have a PR of 1.5 (75% of traffic /50 sites) while the remaining 50 sites would have PR of .5 (25% of traffic/50 sites)

In that simple example, sites with high traffic are rewarded while sites with average or low traffic don't receive anything extra.
I'm not saying that's involved in any algorithm, but I do like to see overall traffic numbers rising.

whitenight




msg:3640113
 6:06 am on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

That toolbar PR has been glitchy since a year ago and I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate, that they're intentionally gaslighting webmasters.

No need to wonder. Goog employee #3 basically admitted they are fraudulently "glitching" the TBPR.

(still waiting for some legal minds to understand the impact of this)

bazarov




msg:3640244
 9:42 am on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hi

I had a Wordpress site that took 6 months of hard work to get to a PR of 3, and from last night it is now zero, and I have NO paid links.

Yet my search ranking for my main key word is #16 on Google and #3 on Yahoo.

PR is a joke and should be scrapped. And Google sucks BIG time.

sandpetra




msg:3640386
 1:50 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is the most complete toolbar pr update I've seen this year, especially as far as internal pr for pages goes.

It is almost as if it is operating similar to prior to the manual "PR massacre" of late 2007 - defo more "accurate" if that is the right phrase to use. and defo more pr back in the search space.

harjitsinghubhi




msg:3640388
 1:52 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

None of my sites have seen the increase in PR

c41lum




msg:3640459
 3:17 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have increased from a 5 to 6. I am not holding my breath though as I was 6 a couple of days ago then it went back to 4.

randle




msg:3640499
 4:09 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

That toolbar PR has been glitchy since a year ago and I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate, that they're intentionally gaslighting webmasters.

A concerted program of disinformation via a tool bar display Google controls, aimed at foiling people who are trying to manipulate the very results their entire company is based upon?

Thats crazy.

netmeg




msg:3640576
 5:47 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Has anyone else noticed that the PR as reported in the GWT crawl stats differs from what TBPR shows?

They just updated it for March. For both February and March, the crawl stats page shows my page with the highest PR as one of my internal pages, which as far as I can tell, has a PR of 3. My home page has held a PR of 4 for over a year now (and still does, in TBPR) So what am I to make of this? The GWT is broken? That internal page has risen to a 4+, but it doesn't show in TBPR yet? Or has my home page fallen to a 3, but TBPR still lists it as 4?

While I know it really doesn't *matter* - one can't help being curious.

DXL




msg:3640697
 8:55 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm finally seeing sites that were in the #1 spot on Google (launched a few months ago) and had dipped 5-15 spots, now snapping back to the #1 position again. So far so good.

My company site had been at PR5 for years, looks like it's PR6 now.

Secret University




msg:3640758
 10:47 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

If I thought PR mattered to our site visitors vs. the many keyword/phrases which we have that rank high for what we do, then I would be concerned that we went from 4 to 2 ... both weak PR far as I'm concerned anyway, but lower surely isn't better for whatever unknown value a PR has in the real world of e-commerce.

Asia_Expat




msg:3640912
 10:02 am on May 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I mentioed a few posts above that I had gone grey bar on my root domain... well, my PR4 came back today, which is what it has been FOREVER :angryemoticon:

RichTC




msg:3640946
 11:31 am on May 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hi,

No need to wonder. Google employee #3 basically admitted they are fraudulently "glitching" the TBPR.

I do wonder. Being involved with a number of sites and talking to other webmasters recently regarding their sites, in a number of cases i see no logic to the current TBPR values.

1. An established authority site 8ys old falls from a 7 to 6 that has thousands of quality inbounds and shound be a PR8 based on the number and quality of links involved.

2. A PR6 site (established over 5yrs)falls to a PR5 yet has double the quality links than last year. Same with another site im aware of.

3. A young site one year old with a few pages and a few links moves from a PR3 to a PR5

Now whilst its not easy to compare one site with another due to different links, site structure etc. You cant tell me that an established site (2) should be a PR5 and be of the same value as (3) when they are in totally different leagues.

Due to the size gap between a PR5 and PR6 ie you could have in real terms a PR 5.1 V a PR 5.9 yet they both show as a 5 you can see where the problem could be however, i cant help but feel that google may well be showing incorrect TBPR on a percentage of sites just for protection against being gamed by link traders.

What we see may not be what the real PR is but i agree that it is nice to see a high green bar PR albiet for confidence that a site is gaining greater authority

Rich

whitenight




msg:3641074
 6:19 pm on May 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I do wonder. Being involved with a number of sites and talking to other webmasters recently regarding their sites, in a number of cases i see no logic to the current TBPR values

Yes, you can read the original admission of "glitching" here [webmasterworld.com]

However, if you read my comments in the above thread, you'll see why it's expressly "fraudulent" (the interaction between employee #3, steveb, and myself)

And of course, their reasonings are echo'ed in Randle's comments

Just because their business model is built upon the so-called "millions of everyday surfers who use TBPR for some unknown purpose" doesn't make it less illegal.

In fact, by their own logic, it makes it more illegal as it's Goog's legal responsibility to ensure that each and every page's TBPR is up-to-date and accurate .... for the sake of their millions of users who gauge "whatever" by using it.

Manpasand




msg:3641542
 6:36 pm on May 4, 2008 (gmt 0)

I didn't see any movement in my websites yet.

Seb7




msg:3651213
 8:05 pm on May 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

Some of my websites went up, some went down, now thay all have a PR2 !

This 82 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 82 ( 1 2 [3]
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