Amount of pages per domain -is there some scale?

[Kubano]

Do you think G has some scale which gives more points to a site up on the amount of pages?

Like..

domain with 10 to 100 pages = 1 point
domain with 100 to 1000 = 2 point
domain with 1000 to 10000 = 3 points

...and so on?

kubano

[pmkpmk]

"site:wikipedia.org" returns 2.650.000 (pretty even number, eh?) and seems to be very authoritve in Google.
"site:microsoft.com" returns 1.790.000 (as well a strangely straight number) doens't turn up in #1 for MS-related queries (always striked me as odd).
"site:google.com" returns 1.760.000 (how come that's a "nice" number too).

Biggest one I found:

"site:yahoo.com" with 22.600.000 pages indexed.

[Tom_Dalton]

I'd be interested to see if anyone had ever found a valid, statistical correlation between any factor and overall rank. I've heard a *lot* of speculation and individual (or general) examples, but I have not heard many actual studies providing results.

That said, my intuitive answer would be, yes, there's probably some scale. I bet it relates to the number of backward links, as well -- a site with 20,000 pages and 10 backward links looks a lot fishier than a site with 10 pages and 10 backward links.

[pmkpmk]

Good remark on the backward links. Makes a lot of sense to me! Backward links have always been a weak spot of mine, and my site has slightly less than 1000 pages (depending on how you count), but only a few backlinks except DMOZ and its countless mirrors.

[BigDave]

how come that's a "nice" number too

Because it is only an estimate (the word "about" before the number), and all their estimates only go to 3 significant digits.

Any points that google would give you for the number of pages on your site would be eclipsed by the actual effect that your internal navigation can have on how your pages rank.

[gmiller]

If the current PageRank algorithm resembles the original at all, it inherently rewards sites with lots of pages. There's no need to apply another size scoring factor on top of it.