Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
During the progress of my previous thread [webmasterworld.com], I was very surprised to see several contributors, including some senior members and moderators posting, in what seems high confidence, something to the effect that Google Toolbar PageRang (TBPR) of no value or useless tool in connection to judging the quality of pages. I myself have had such opinion too.
However, neither the "seniors" nor I have had any solid facts or testing results to support of the said claim. Mostly conspiracy theories are all what we hear, with all due respect.
Recently I became in doubt that TBPR is as useless as we might thought. I have started thinking; Why would Google create and promote a useless tool? Why would Google create a tool just to mislead the webmaster communities.
In fact the more I research the more I see consistence in what GoogleGuy and Matt Cutts said about TBPR. Something to the effect:
- TBPR is one of more than 100 different factors in how Google scores documents
- TBPR doesn't always displays the current value of PageRank.
- Millions of toolbar users use the PageRank display to judge the quality of pages
- Google updates its index data, including backlinks and PageRank, continually and continuously. Google only export new backlinks, PageRank, or directory data every three months or so though.
- At some point Google takes its internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they're visible to Google Toolbar users.
And nothing of above indicates that the TBPR is useless to be used among other factors in judging the quality of pages.
Maybe its about time to do some change in our approach to Google Toolbar PageRank.
Thoughts?
[edited by: tedster at 3:53 pm (utc) on Oct. 7, 2006]
[edit reason] formatting [/edit]
My point is that it is, being only calculated via a small (100 or so) selection of sites for a search term.
> Definitely not. Calculating at run time is
- (currently) impossible, because is too time consuming
I think with a small sample of sites (being the top 100 results) it could be done.
>- not necessary, because PR isn't keyword dependent but link structure dependent
Yes, but possibly link structure within a small sample drived from a keyword search.
It's all guess work.... but I thought I would throw the idea into the mix :)
Even if my conjecture is wrong, there really can be little doubt that, in some way, the two are tied together.
[edited by: Quadrille at 6:30 pm (utc) on Oct. 8, 2006]
My biggest concern about page rank is if it affects frequency and depth of spidering. Is there any evidence the two are tied together?
Yes, it's been talked about frequently, by Matt and the Sitemaps Team, and also here. It's not a linear thing, but there is an effect. In fact, there's a thread from March of this year [webmasterworld.com] where you yourself sounded quite certain about this:
PR really does help both in ranking and in quick frequent and deep spidering of your site.
Why is this now back in question for you? Seen something new?
You constantly refer to toolbar PR as if it were 'real, current, call-it-what-you-will PR'; but only Google has that information.
I thought that you read my openning post of this thread before posting ;-)
Here is what I mentioned:
- TBPR doesn't always displays the current value of PageRank.
Better luck on another thread, Quadrille :-)
Many thanks for your generous informative post.
On the other hand, some people (myself included) think TBPR can be useful, since it is an extremely quick, easy and effortless way of gaining some sense of a page's overall importance in Google's eyes.
And I wish to add to your above statement. According to GG; "millions of toolbar users use the PageRank display to judge the quality of pages."
I thought that you read my openning post of this thread before posting ;-)Here is what I mentioned:
- TBPR doesn't always displays the current value of PageRank.
Sure, you said it; but you still, almost constantly, refer to toolbar PR as if it were 'real, current, call-it-what-you-will PR'; but only Google has that information.
So either you know about PR, or you don't.
If you don't, why so unwilling to learn?
If you do, why this thread?
You really cannot have it both ways, unless ...
If you do, why this thread?
Sharing...learning and growing together as a great WebmasterWorld community!
See ya :)
It's not a linear thing, but there is an effect.
My experience confirms this absolutely. Either it's a rather convenient coincidence, or PR does directly affect the frequency and/or depth of spidering.
Before the recent PR update, my site was generally spidered twice a week. Since the update (and a doubling in PR), those critters are gobbling bandwidth daily. Same for the Yahoo bot ...
I like to have a browser showing the green bar. That's about it. I'd rather see it than not.
Other than that, for the "take it or leave it" decision, I leave it.
There are dozens other unrelated to pagerank factors that can make or break a page in the SERPS. That's the context in which PR (and TBPR) must be considered.
I think you guys are splitting hairs and over-analyzing this whole thing.
Why is this now back in question for you? Seen something new?
No I haven't seen anything new. I just noticed it was not being brought up in this thread and wondered if I had missed something. Doubting myself I guess.
Slower spidering is the only disadvantage of having a lower page rank that I can see. But it's one that is important to me.
I'm not that concerned if it is tool bar rank or the ongoing rank. I don't find page rank changes that fast anyway. I also don't see how there is much I can do about it as it seems that almost everyone in my topic has lost rank.
Probably -- but...1) we have only TBPR by which to judge, and
2) we don't even know what "all other factors" includes.
Yes that's correct, but you can easily create test pages where "all other factors" are the same (even if one doesn't know which factors are raken into account) and which have a linking structure which leads to PageRank(page A) > PageRank(page B) > PageRank(page C)... (even if one doesn't know the real PageRank). Therefore, one can verify the statement "pages are ordered by PageRank (not by TBPR) if all other factors are the same" without knowing all factors or the PageRank.
It seems that most of us agree that, among other factors, Google Toolbar PageRank can be used as indicator of how Google see the pages.
Keeping in mind Matt Cutts stattement that: "At some point we take our internal PageRanks, put them on a 0-10 scale, and export them so that they’re visible to Google Toolbar users."
I wish to talk today about grouping pages in accordance with changes of PageRank during the period between two successive TBPR upadtes, lets call such period as PBTSPRU.
One can assume that there are two groups of pages:
- Group-I: Pages that their PageRank remain unchange during PBTSPRU
- Group-II: Pages that their PageRank change during PBTSPRU
Therefor we might assume that TBPR represent the accurate (not precise) PageRank value of Group-I during
PBTSPRU.
Of course I don't have the accurate number of pages belonging to Group-I at any given period of time. However, one might assume that a minmum of 50% of all pages on the web might belong to Group-I.
Therefore its possible to assume that at any given period of time, Google Toolbar PageRank represents the accurate values of at least 50% of pages.
As to Group-II, Google Toolbar PageRank could be still usefull as indicator of the the value of PageRank at the moment of the lates BTPR update.
In this connection, the more often Google updates its TBPR, the more current are the readings of Group-II PageRank.
I wish to thank all of you for your generous spirit of sharing and valuable info posted on this thread, and wish you a great day and a successful week.
God Bless WebmasterWorld Community.
Group-I: Pages that their PageRank remain unchange during PBTSPRU ...No you cannot assume such thing. Serps positions depend on many on site and off site developments; the whole Internet is a dynamic - YOUR site may not have changed (silly old you!), but that does not mean your competitors have done nothing, nor that there are no new sites, nor that Google has done nothing, nor that you haven't (for example) lost some of your key links.Therefore we might assume that TBPR represent the accurate (not precise) PageRank value of Group-I during
PBTSPRU.
Your previously tenuous arguments have evolved into pure science fiction (I don't pretend to even understand your Group-II suggestions).
I'm more than happy to discuss GPR, at any time, with anyone - regardless of most of it being pure conjecture. It's endlessly entertaining.
But you've crossed the 'what if' line into "Who cares?"
I think you'll find you've overextended your logic. :)
it seems that almost everyone in my topic has lost rank.
I suspect that as the web grows, PR across the web is recalibrated from time to time. That would have the effect of "moving the goalposts" for what it takes to achieve any particular PR number.
Group-I: Pages that their Google internal PageRanks remain unchange during PBTSPRU
Group-II: Pages that their Google internal PageRanks change during PBTSPRU
I assume you are familiar with what a camera does?
Okay, if You take a snapshot picture of the boats on a river an , on 1st June ,1st april, 1st june, 1st october
Those pictures will give you an idea over 1 year of generally how busy the river is, but it would be a hopelessly inaccurate picture for any purpose other than perhaps some really light weight TV documentary, or for tourist, you wouldn't get a penny from the bank on that basis.
That is how usefull TBPR is, tis just a picture taken 4 times a year
Now we have the battle of the century:
[6]Reseller V Simple Logic[/6]
Sadly, I don't hold out much hope for logic. Look out for an argument that because one boat is seen three yards upstream in a later picture, it MUST be moving at the speed of one yard per month :)
Almost lost my balance and fell off my chair.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 7:07 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2006]
