Page is a not externally linkable

claus - 10:16 am on Jul 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

LowLevel
>>We have three numbers. The first one seems an ID

- i tend to agree on that. If we pretend that these debugging messages are actuallly NewScore being calculated, the two other numbers could make sense in this way:

The "was" figures = NewScore
The "now" figures = OldScore (~PR (ie. perhaps not only that, see part 2 of this post))
The "stays" figures = NewScore being equal to OldScore (relatively)

I still do not state that this is the case, only that it could be. We have these SERPS (that have not been confirmed since cabbies first posts, which is not surprising, since they were probably intended for internal use only):

Result 0 (12945892823490907288) stays 3.353761
Result 1 -missing-
Result 2 (4248721765241641425) was 2.730382 now: 7.290199
Result 3 (8788546316820000685) stays 2.716327
Result 4 (17634787461871553436) was 2.715453 now: 6.230899
...

From this list, it seems that result 2 has an OldScore of 7 and result 4 has an OldScore of 6 (rounded numbers). Further, result 0 and 3 "stays". This can be interpreted so that their OldScore and NewScore are relatively the same.

If we further pretend that my calculating example from the very long thread "Google's 2 rankings & you" [webmasterworld.com] holds vith respect to the values of the constants in the equations, then the max NewScore is 4. Assuming again that max OldScore is indeed 10, we can compare relative values.

 Result 0: NewScore: 3.353761 Result 1: - Result 2: NewScore: 2.730382 ¦ OldScore: 7.290199 Result 3: NewScore: 2.716327 Result 4: NewScore: 2.715453 ¦ OldScore: 6.230899 Using 4 and 10 for max values, we see this re-ranking: Result 0: NewScore(relative): 83.84% ¦ OldScore(relative): 83.84% Result 1: - Result 2: NewScore(relative): 68.26% ¦ OldScore(relative): 72.90% Result 3: NewScore(relative): 67.91% ¦ OldScore(relative): 67.91% Result 4: NewScore(relative): 67.89% ¦ OldScore(relative): 62.31%

Meaning that Result 4 has climbed and result 2 has dropped, and the rest stays.

Dolemite
>> The first number is in descending order for the data we have, which PR almost never is.

It could be, that the PR you see on your Gbar might not be the exact PR, rather a derived measure or approximation (perhaps just a rounded number) in stead. I mean: with three-something billion pages, and 1,000 results for large serps, a one-digit number seems like a somewhat poor measure to sort on. A figure like, say: 7.290199 seems more appropriate in this case than a figure of, say, 7. Anyway, even if this was the case, a PR7 would still be higher than a PR6.

So, what you are saying is in fact, that some other measure than PR seems to get higher weight already. This could be keyword density or something like that, i don't know, but i don't think i disagree with you either.

Whatever it is, it must be part of the "OldScore" concept for all this to work out. This, in turn, means that OldScore does not need to be exactly the same as Page Rank, rather PR + "other mechanisms" (where "other mechanisms" can be equal to zero). We do know, however, that PR is the key concept G uses to rank pages in the index (the index being the total amount of pages, and the SERPS being just a sample).

I added the comment "given that 4 is max, that number 0 site has a mighty high PR" to my first post in this thread. What i ment by that was that a score of 8 based on PR alone seems very high. Take the first digit of the "OldScore(relative)" above, and you see what i mean. A PR8 is not very usual AFAIK, but for an adult query, i don't really know, some of those sites are really big on backlinks, keyword density and most everything else.

Well, enough guesswork for now, i only wanted to illustrate my first post in this thread, and this is done. Still nobody knows and all options are open.

/claus