Google Answers PR10?

With 400 Backlinks?

[taxpod]

I had never been to Google Answers before so I decided to pay a visit. I was surprised to find the toolbar PR 10 so I checked backlinks. There were only 461 which I thought might be a little weak for a PR10. So I checked some of these and found a lot of them to be from a single domain, Google, and most to be relatively low PR pages with lots of links.

Also I note that many of the backlink pages were dynamically generated and contained multiple variables in the URL. Those links which weren't from Google pages were mostly fairly obscure pages with low PR. There were some quality links, like you find with any good site, to be sure but not a lot of them. Most of the good links were from Blogs or computer publication sites.

In my experience, a couple good (PR5 or 6) links generally doesn't do it. Also, multi-variable dynamically generated pages where the variables sit in the URL with a "?" and a couple "&" generally don't get indexed. It was my understanding that having a high percentage of links from a single domain might get you penalized or at least get the links discounted since this is link farming. And whereas it has been put forth that having a link to an external high quality, topical site on every page is advisable, this page had no links to the outside world.

So I figured maybe there was a single link from the Google home page that would explain high PR. Nope. I was so shocked that I ran right over here to post this. I hope this makes the cut and am anxiously awaiting a reply from anyone regarding how this page could be a 10. And this page should be recorded into the official list of natural PR10s.

[rfgdxm1]

>There is a range of real PR assigned to Toolbar PR0; also Chris_R's research on Toolbar vs Google Directory scales indicates strongly that PR is not strictly calibrated to the top of those scales.

Definitely right about PR0 being a range. With Google apparently a PR11, my guess is what the toolbar shows is rounded down. Thus, a real PR.99 shows as PR0.

[ciml]

Assuming a log scale (a correct assumption I would say), then a raw value of <1 becomes a log value of <0.

I think it's easier to assume hand tweaking when the properties of logarithms, PageRank, Toolbar behaviour, the Web's structure and Google's attitude to their technology are not considered.

[rfgdxm1]

>Assuming a log scale (a correct assumption I would say), then a raw value of <1 becomes a log value of <0.

>I think it's easier to assume hand tweaking when the properties of logarithms, PageRank, Toolbar behaviour, the Web's structure and Google's attitude to their technology are not considered.

My guess is that because the average person tends to think of something as being a zero is the lowest, Google has offset a true log scale by subtracting 1 from the real value. Basically they just set the lowest possible value (the seed value of a page with no inbound links at 0, the page with the highest value at 11, and scale it logarithmically between these 2 values. As the toolbar only displays integers between 0 and 10, the true value is just rounded down. Google could be using something else, but I can't imagine any good reason why they should complicate things more than necessary. As for why they display this publically at all, it make the toolbar more useful for the surfer because when they see lots of green, likely the site is fairly authoratative on the topic.

[antrat]

As the toolbar only displays integers between 0 and 10, the true value is just rounded down

I believe there is one BIG lag factor in Toolbar PR though.