Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
If you both have a pos.gif width="16" of and a PR5 on the Toolbar, then you are on the lower half of the toolbar PR5. Notice these correspond to the Ranking% of 48% - while a notch above that is 52%. Those two are about the closest there is - as the notch below you would averag 41%.
So it wouldn't be that unusual to bounce back and forth between the two as other websites change.
If there is a site above you - that is "worse" in a way, but you could be very, very close.
If there are sites below you in the directory - you could use this to guestimate something even closer.
As the PR guesstimate range falls between 45.5 - 50 for your range - then if there is one person above you and nine below you (of the exact same rank) - you would be closer to 49.5%.
However, this is just a loose guess of course - the PR doesn't have to be spread that even, but it is at least an educated guess.
Might help you track minor changes over the months ahead.
Good luck and I hope that answers your question - as I am not 100% sure I understood it.
as to be expected from the real PRologist.
I would guess the Google directory glitch to be an unexpected valuation before normalisation. Personally I would put Google as the number one PR-wise.
Pagerank, the new identity currency of the web...
Now my question to you is, why did Google ever start showing a different scale on the directory? Because it updates at a later interval and therefore less differences will be noticed?
One suggestion - using the number of pixels to measure the directory PR is quite tedious, although accurate. Perhaps who could add a 1-7 scale beside the pixel numbers as a quick ready reckoner, since we've historically used this scale to describe directory PR.
1) I added that - Google also changed the 6th highest PR on the directory from 33 to 32. I didn't want to confuse people anymore than need be, but I added it anyway so people would know.
2) Dantheman, I took your suggestion and added (7th, 6th, 5th) and so on. I didn't do one for google as I assume no one here has to worry about getting PR that high and it is a little confusing until it is explained. Of course - I could have added it later on, but oh well.
I read the thread and the (good) article written by Chris. I find his work interesting, and I agree with him that in a scale from zero to ten, Google is 11. :-)
Nevertheless, I came to a different and IMHO more simple conclusion and some days ago I wrote an article about this subject on my website (the URL is in my profile; sorry it's in italian language!).
Basically, I simply divided the two ranges 0-10 and 0-43 and overlapped them. Yes, 43. Except Google, any site is below 11 and below 44, this is one difference between the two methods.
I think I haven't the necessary english language skills to illustrate my whole method ;-) but I believe that the table on the article is self-explanatory. :-)