ZydoSEO - 12:09 am on Feb 27, 2013 (gmt 0)
Yep the algorithm requires multiple passes before PageRank approaches some asymptotic value where it stabilizes.
Query: Overall, what proportion of 301 redirects give the human user the option of not following them? I mean in actual practice, not in browser-prefs-changing theory.
I wasn't implying that any 301 redirects give the human user the option of not following the redirect.
But in real life, how often do you navigate to a random web page where you are only given the option to 1) click on a link to visit another page or 2) navigate to another page random page... and are never allowed to hit the "back" button? LOL Only in the case of those annoying, typically spammy sites (ironic) that disable the back button to trap you on their site. Yet this is the "model" the algorithm for PageRank was based on.
I was simply pointing out that in this "make believe world" of "the random surfer" where you never hit the back button and can only click a link or navigate directly to another random page... that if the user clicks on a link on PageA pointing to PageB and PageB has been 301 redirected to PageC ( by the Wizard of Oz for example), that it would likely be a nobrainer for Google to "treat this the same as if":
1) the user clicked on the PageB link on PageA
2) the browser fetched/displayed PageB which only had one link on it (to PageC),
3) the user clicked on the PageC link on PageB
4) the browser fetched/displayed PageC
The end result is exactly the same in the real world: the user clicked on a link on PageA pointing to PageB and 2 page requests/hops later (one for PageB followed by one for PageC) the user finally arrived at PageC. The only real difference is that instead of PageB being displayed with a single link to PageC and the user clicking on that link in the random surfer model... in the redirect scenario the redirect is automatic and essentially is equivalent to the user clicking on that PageC link.