Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Pagerank queries - the <rk> parameter

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

         

selomelo

10:10 pm on Feb 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



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?

Jim Westergren

11:19 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Ok I see.

I think we need more examples in order to determine anything actually. Like if we have about 5 examples with the same thing we can make a conclusion but I don't think before as there is A LOT of factors in the rankings ...

I am not really tracking SERPs so I can't give any. And it seems like it's only you, me and Hanu following this thread so I am not sure how we will do about this, hehe.

Dayo_UK

11:33 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)



I can see a fair number of sites/pages that have <rk> values on the Big Daddy DCs and <rk> 0 on the non Big Daddy DCs with little or no improvement in the serp position between the two.

With the way MC has talked about Big Daddy so far then this is probably related to all the "under the hood" infastructure changes he has been talking about.

With him saying that most people will not see any ranking changes at this stage it just feels to me that perhaps those <rk> values are just waiting to be applied rather than already effecting the serps on Big Daddy.

Have a look at Bluefind (Which I always believed was Canonical issues which resulted in the loss of PR)

On Big Daddy <rk> is 6 - however search on Bluefind returns the site anywhere between 30 odd and 60 - but not stronger in Big Daddy despite <rk> 6 compared to 0.

Jim Westergren

12:02 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Yeah, I get the following:

66.249.93.104 RK 6 Rank: 51
66.102.9.99 RK N/A (error on the tool?) Rank: 39
66.102.7.99 RK 0 Rank: 51

But Bluefind is not a good example. I am 95% sure it is under penalty for making money on selling PageRank.

I will start to make a sheet I think with RK figures and SERP rankings for some sites I own.

Dayo_UK

12:08 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)



>>>under penalty for making money on selling PageRank.

Maybe, in fact other sites which look like they might have penalties are having <rk> values returned in Big Daddy DCs.

Hmmz Toxic Lemon shows <rk> too on Big Daddy - not sure what to make of that - I was sure that was banned - could also have been canonical - but might be stretching my imagination there a bit - must have been a ban surely?

I was 95% sure that it was a canonical issue with Bluefind and as Big Daddy purpose is largely to sort this out then the return of a <rk> value could be seen as an improvement in this area.

Jim Westergren

12:22 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Woah.

The BigDaddy indexes are double as big than the rest!

I checked one site which it shows RK 5 on half and 7 on the rest (bigdaddy).

I used this query on the different DCs:

-link:http://www.example.com in Google (all sites not linking which is the whole index).

Some of the BigDaddy (RK 7):
216.239.51.104 gives 18,210,000,000 hits
66.249.93.104 gives 18,200,000,000
64.233.179.104 gives 25,270,000,000
66.102.11.99 gives 9,640,000,000 (?)
64.233.187.104 gives 25,270,000,000
64.233.171.105 gives 18,210,000,000
64.233.161.99 gives 25,270,000,000
216.239.37.99 gives 18,210,000,000

Some of the Rest (RK 5):
66.102.9.99 gives 9,640,000,000 hits
66.102.7.99 gives 9,650,000,000 hits
66.102.11.104 gives 9,640,000,000 hits
64.233.183.104 gives 9,570,000,000 hits
64.233.167.147 gives 9,650,000,000 hits
216.239.59.147 gives 9,660,000,000 hits

Ranking:

Actually same on both ... strange?

Otherwise it could be that as the BigDaddy versions has much bigger indexes they have found more of the backlinks and thus higher RK.

Dayo_UK

12:26 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)



>>>66.102.11.99 gives 9,640,000,000 (?)

Not consistently Big Daddy - probably not when you queried.

With such huge differences between Big Daddy and non Big Daddy there should be more noticable ranking changes between the two.

Which makes me thing that the ranking changes <rk>? that will result from the Big Daddy infastructure are not in place yet.

Roll on Big Daddy.

To be fair to Toxic Lemon they look much cleaner than they used to be - was sure it was a ban though

BillyS

1:12 am on Mar 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I was just feeling good about my website because my pages on BigDaddy are growing. I figured I check out Hanu's tool and I'm seeing <RK>6</RK> for my website and it used to be <RK>5</RK>.

The site show PR 5 on all tools, but I was wondering if anyone else is seeing updated numbers.

Dayo_UK

11:23 am on Mar 15, 2006 (gmt 0)



BillyS

This is my only hope that Google can now fix the problems that have blighted the index.

On Big Daddy the <RK>s are showing values again for sites that went to PR0 due to Canonical and Hijack problems - these sites however still dont rank in Big Daddy.

Fingers crossed that once Big Daddy roll out is complete then a PR update (internal or external) may result in changes for these sites.

selomelo

11:30 am on Mar 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Right now, I see that <rk> values, aka live PRs all show "0" while toolbar PR is still visible. Perhaps we are nearing to a close, a full rollout?

Dayo_UK

11:36 am on Mar 24, 2006 (gmt 0)



Yes, I am not sure why they have gone to 0 though.....
This 182 message thread spans 19 pages: 182