Pagerank queries - the <rk> parameter

What do such figures as Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 mean?

[selomelo]

We already know that toolbar PR is in fact an historical figure. When you query google for current PR, you get some mysterious figures such as:

Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:4 Rank_1:1:4 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:6 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:1 Rank_1:1:5 Rank_1:1:2 Rank_1:1:3 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:3

These figures are for a site that has a current toolbar of PR4.

I searched the web for an explanation, but failed to get a good one.

Is there any idea as to what all these magical numbers mean?

[rkhare]

I would not assume this though - not all sites have the homepage as the top result.

exactly same for my site, my home page is nowhere in the list in xml file

[Mike521]

Can someone post a link to the tool to view your checksum? I can't find it via a websearch.

I also tried looking at my cookies but i see no google cookie besides the utm codes for analytics..

[rkhare]

Can someone post a link to the tool to view your checksum? I can't find it via a websearch.

go to iweb and use pr prediction tool

[oodlum]

Fascinating stuff! You can work out which figure and PR is for which url by doing as Knappster suggested and removing the "Rank" from the URL.

The result is broken down into URL_1, URL_2 etc. of the page you're checking and all the "related" pages, showing URL, PR, summary etc. It appears to show the actual snippets of the pages it uses to judge the theme and relevance of your page*, i.e. anchor text and text located near your URL on the referring page.

*on further inspection the snippets don't look all that relevant, and don't take into consideration the search term. Still, may be an indication of how Goog sees your overall theme?

Not sure why it picks these particular 9 other pages for a sample though. They all appear to link back to the original URL but bear no resemblance to the Google "related" or backlink queries. May actually be the real deal.

This is a gold mine! Excuse me while I ahem research some top-ranking competitors.

[cbin500]

has anyone gotten results for =filter?
I am getting nothing I checked sites I swear there are filters hurting their serps, and I checked a former competitors site that was de-indexed 2 days ago due to CSS spamming, and they dont show anything in the filter results.

[otech]

I am getting:

Filter:0:

for all my sites when using the =filter

I thought it would actually be the 'Adult Filter' flag, so I did a check on a few domains that would be hidden due to such filter but alas; they all say Filter:0: on all domains I check.

Has anyone found a URL showing a different result?

[Dayo_UK]

oodlum

>>>>Not sure why it picks these particular 9 other pages for a sample though.

They are the results for the search - whatever that search maybe.

Eg - if your query for the xml page is www.domain.com - do a search on the same dc as the xml query for "www.domain.com" - you will see the same results - the tool mentioned does not have to be used just for domain names - and search will pull up the results (except cant get spaces to work)

Also the snippet/title etc in the xml matches the snippet in the search results.

[oodlum]

Ah cool - thanks. Maybe a tin mine then.

[selomelo]

Correction: Own or Inherited PR?

In an earlier message, I wrote:

I noticed that those figures correspond to the current PRs of other pages [inbound links]that are the subsample of backlinks to the site.

Today, I tried to study the <RK> values from another perspective: for sites filtered/penalized.

During late 2005 and early 2006, I was actively interested in some spamming sites. One of them was performing extremely well in Google. I wrote and published a short article describing the technique this site utilized to manipulate the SERPs. Google was quick to act stripping off its PR (that was 6 at that time), and suppressing it from SERPs.

Today, I queried its PR along with PRs of a couple of other banned sites.

After checking every link in xmls, I noticed that the <RK> values do not refer to the PR of the page in question.

I guess that the <RK> may be the PR <b>inherited</b> from the backlink in question.

Banned Site 1:
Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0

One of the links I checked has a toolbar PR3, and a current PR2.
Another link has a toolbar PR3, and a current PR3.

Banned Site 2:
Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0

One of the backlinks has a toolbar PR4, and a current PR5 (increased!)(<RK> = 0)

Another backlink has a toolbar PR3 and current PR3
A third backlink has a toolbar PR0 and current PR4 (jump!) (<RK>=0)
A fourth backlink has a TB PR0 and a current PR3
and so on..

These observations suggest that the <RK> values may be the inherited PRs rather than the PRs of the linking pages.

[Dayo_UK]

selomelo

No - you are still thinking that the xml page refers to the domain - and I assume you are saying that the <rk> values being displayed for the domain you are querying is the PR being passed by the sites to that domain on the search you have performed?

EG. Are you saying that for domain www.example.com the values:-

Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 Rank_1:1:0 - are the PR values passed by each page to the domain www.example.com?

If so this is wrong - the xml query just relates to the search page for the query - not for the domain. Dont think of it as a domain query - just a search query.

Eg:-

[72.14.207.104...]

is just this page in xml format

[72.14.207.104...]

The query is not relating to the domain but to the search - so there is no way that the <rk> values can be said to relate to a passed PR value.

>>>>After checking every link in xmls, I noticed that the <RK> values do not refer to the PR of the page in question.

Yes, because PR is out of date - these <rk> values may be current, more current.