PageRank non-sense

... or how Google made my head explode

[steveb]

I read that pagerank isn't that important in terms of search results but it does have *some* value. So I look at the page in the Google directory where I am listed. Sorted by PageRank I'm listed eighth (although all the sites above me are pagerank six like me). Two of those sites should be above me by any measure. One is not a shock to be above me, but the other four...

One site has a hit counter on it, and has been visited in its entire life by less people than those that visit me in one day. It's links page has been hit 228 times in all of eternity and has a half dozen links. On Alexa it ranks as "no data."

Another site above me has no links page at all! It does have incoming links though. I guess that is one way to keep all your page rank to yourself. (It's ranked 1,300,000 on Alexa while my site is at 150,000.)

A third site above me is a members.aol.com home page. My guess is that virtually no one has EVER gone to this little page. It has links from the google directory and open directory, but no outgoing links of any kind.

The final site above me is one page of much larger site similar to Ask Jeeves. It also has no outgoing links except to its own store.

So... it seems to me that the way to get pagerank is to be a complete jerk and not reciprocate links, or to merely get a link from the open directory and google directory. And then not have any site traffic!

My head hurts....

[mbauser2]

Google doesn't give a damn what your site's traffic (or any other site's traffic) is, so stop whining about that. It's irrelevant.

Alex's ranking (being traffic-based,) is also irrelevant.

[martinibuster]

Alexa? Last I heard, their toolbar was spyware and that people in Korea were their biggest users. Alexa doesn't count.

But I sypmathize with your dilemma. Incoming links are very important, and just as important is the QUALITY of those links, i.e. the keyword text within those links.

[JayC]

Steve, just guessing based on some of your comments, but you be misunderstanding some of how PageRank work. First, those sites listed above you when you look by "PageRank order" probably do have a higher PR than you, but the displayed PR is a whole number while the actual PR is not.

As others have mentioned, traffic and "click popularity" play no role in calculating PageRank.

PR is calculated for each page. Outgoing links do not reduce the PageRank of a page.

With a PageRank of 6 and with your competitors having a 6 or 7, you're in pretty good shape from the PR standpoint. At that point you're probably better off not worrying about your PR or anyone else's for a while, and concentrating on other elements of optimization and achieving rankings for specific search terms.

[steveb]

I don't know why I got the reply about "whining" about traffic. It doesn't have anything to do with anything, except as one reply said the quality of links counts. That is the point. I guess some people know less about pagerank than I do. I get quality links from the quality sites on the topic, but get lower pagerank than a site that has two directory links incoming.

I'm concentrating on pagerank because everything else on my site is optimized far more than my competition who don't even know such things exist. I am this month taking a negative spike on my Google results rankings ONLY because of a pagerank problem resulting from losing a key link to my site.

I have excellent quality incoming links in terms of anchor text and high pagerank of the other sites. I have that theme-ing/rising-tide-lifts-all-boats idea in action with the other important sites on my topic.

But still, sites that basically don't exist get higher pagerank than me, which hurts my search results ranking for a couple keywords, and my listing in the Google directory.

Two factors that people say are not important seem like they could be very important. I have 700+ outgoing links, while these others have zero. If that isn't hurting me a lot, none of this makes any sense. And then my not-as-good-as-it-could-be pagerank is hurting me on my #1 keyword. Everything else is optimized up the... I have a lot of #1 and top five rankings on keywords that are not even related to my topic. So, I'm doing great, and love Google, but my optimization is apparently hurt a lot by pagerank, which I'd like to understand better so that I can move up the pagerank list, so I can move up on one keyword.

So I'm still wondering if this phenomenon can be combatted: sites that barely exist getting excellent, better-than-me page rank by having two directory incoming links and no outgoing links.

Sorry if there is no real question there, but I'm mystified by people worrying about very low pagerank when sites can get a high six merely by getting two directory links and having no outgoing links.

[martinibuster]

Do they have other inbound links, apart from directory links? And are those inbound links keyword rich?

My serps bounce up and down, month to month. This month I'm down to around 11 because my inbounds don't have keywords in them, and those web sites that floated up, do. Whoops! Learned my lesson there. That's my take on what happened to me.

I think it pays to scrutinize exactly why those others are up above you. Whatever the reason, there's a reason, and you have to dig in there to find it, because your web site is missing something that they have. Is it pagerank? Could be (remember, the toolbar is rounded off, and values exist between pr 6 and 7).

1> Have you looked at Google's cache of those sites that are outscoring you? Google sometimes tells you WHY it ranked a site for particular keywords when you check the cache.

It's important to dig in there and I'm very interested to hear what you find.

[yankee]

Why don't you just get those same two directory links? Then you'll have a higher pagerank since you have other links too.

[steveb]

"Do they have other inbound links, apart from directory links?"

In two cases, a couple, but they aren't even particular topic related.

"And are those inbound links keyword rich?"

In one case, not at all. In the other cases, they do include the one key keyword, but everybody has that.

"I think it pays to scrutinize exactly why those others are up above you. Whatever the reason, there's a reason, and you have to dig in there to find it..."

At this point the only thing I find is one of the four has no outgoing links at all, and the others almost none.

"1> Have you looked at Google's cache of those sites that are outscoring you?"

One funny thing. The cache for one site showed a visitor number exactly one less than me looking at it "live" now. I even refreshed the page to see if the hit counter did work. It did. Zero vistors between Googlebot and me.

"Google sometimes tells you WHY it ranked a site for particular keywords when you check the cache.
It's important to dig in there and I'm very interested to hear what you find."

It just seems to me to be a case where the only thing linking is something very big (dmoz, google, yahoo), and the site then sends none of the page rank it gets out at all.

[steveb]

"Why don't you just get those same two directory links? Then you'll have a higher pagerank since you have other links too."

I already have those two, plus many others. That's the point. Your second sentence is not true. I have the same two links as them (with better keywords, right below them on the same page), plus plenty of others, but they have higher pagerank.

[martinibuster]

IMO, it's more important to come up number one in serps, regardless of where you sit in Google's directory.

And if the sites in question are the one in your profile, plus the other web site which comes up number one for a certain two word keyword, then you're SITTING PRETTY at positions number one and ten (at least as far as I can see), for a highly competitive two word keyword.

That counts the most because I don't think joe surfer bothers with directories, or at least not anywhere near to the extent that he/she surfs with the search engine.

[yankee]

"I have the same two links as them (with better keywords, right below them on the same page), plus plenty of others, but they have higher pagerank"

Just because google only shows two links doesn't mean they only have two links. Google only shows links that are PR4 and higher. They could have a bunch of PR3's which are being counted but not displayed.

[edited by: Marcia at 6:08 am (utc) on July 6, 2002]

[martinibuster]

Sidenote: At least in the two searches I did, the FAST db has more links than Google's db.

[edited by: Marcia at 6:09 am (utc) on July 6, 2002]

[yankee]

Maybe, maybe not. Google's link command doesn't show you all the links that is has in it's database.

[edited by: Marcia at 6:09 am (utc) on July 6, 2002]

[steveb]

yes, martinibuster I am sitting pretty in most ways. I am doing great on most topic searches. But I am 18th on the principal one word keyword, when there is no good reason why I'm not in the top ten. I hope now that the number one result is returning my link that I'll get to the top ten next update, but the pagerank issues in this thread really are what is now keeping me from the top ten on that one word, and the "lessons" I think I am learning on this go against the conventional wisdom somewhat. Those other sites don't search nearly as well, which is what matters, but have higher page rank, which I apparently can't do anything about.

[martinibuster]

You have a great website and rank great for a competitive industry. Sacrifice a goat already, you're number one.

One word keywords are so competitive that the results are almost random and the amount of searches can only be irrelevant (especially in your industry).

:)

[vitaplease]

Not that you guys do not understand that a high Pagerank does not automatically mean ranking high, but I think Google should rephrase their own explanations a bit to confuse people less:

[google.com...]

this single sentence in the second paragraph of the Pagerank Technology

Important pages receive a higher PageRank and appear at the top of the search results.

can get people to misinterpret Pagerank and SE ranking.

Google can be more clear, by adding "By combining PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques".. on this page:

[google.com...]

[edited by: vitaplease at 11:30 am (utc) on July 6, 2002]

[Marcia]

Good point, vitaplease. This is about Page Rank, but it can also be misinterpreted:

[google.com...]

In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

It's "important" in terms of votes having been cast for it, but within the context of that paragraph itself, it could give the impression that something else is being analyzed on that page and that the amount of Page Rank conferred by a vote from that page is somehow related to the content that's been analyzed on the page.

It could be construed to mean that links from on-theme or contextually relevant pages confer more Page Rank to the receiving page than those that aren't.

True, it's just a matter of semantics, but it can be subject to varying interpretation the way it's written, depending on who's reading it.

[Grumpus]

You folks are all missing the point, here. First of all, we're looking in the google directory, so results aren't rated the same way as through a google search.

In the google directory, sites are sorted by "PR" then "Alphabetic." The confusion comes because google uses only 2 graphics to represent 10 PR values. They adjust the widths of those graphics and they use 4 width settings to cover the 10 PR value spectrum. By looking at the page in question, we see two sites have a high PR (probably an 8 - I'm in Netscape now, so I can't check). Then you've got the next three sites with probably a PR 7 and those three are sorted alphabetically. Then we've got the next batch of sites (which has SteveB's site lumped into it and are PR6). There are 6 sites with PR6, and Steve's is listed 3rd in that group - know why? Because Steve's site is third in alphabetical order among the PR 6 sites.

Pure and simple - the directory lists by PR, then by the title. There's no trick here, nothing to optimize for - except maybe change your name to "Aardvark's Poker Tips."

G.

[ciml]

Which categories, Grumpus? I've never seen the alphabetical listings in the Google Directory.

There are seven widths of directory PR graph (8 if you include missing). Chris_R's guide [searchnerd.com] shows how they relate to the Toolbar.

[yankee]

steveb,

Ranking for one words serps is extremely difficult. I believe theme and the number of total on theme pages in the site play a mjor role. So you will probably have to add more on theme content than you already have. Your subpages say "Go to Main Page". I'm sure you know link text is used by google for ranking. You should include "Poker" in the link text back to the main page. Perhaps "Go to Poker Main Page", or "Poker Main Page".

[ann]

PR is calculated for each page. Outgoing links do not reduce the PageRank of a page.
__________

JayC, I have read time and again where outgoing links DO affect your PR, especially to link farms, Zeus type directories, and "bad" neighborhoods in general as well as low ranking sites.

It is all over webmaster world and other forums where outgoing links do indeed lower page rank or raise it, in certain circumstances.

Where did you find this information? I would like to check it out as that is precisely the reason I was first dropped and then reinstated with a low rank penalty.

Ann

[Marcia]

>It is all over webmaster world and other forums where outgoing links do indeed lower page rank or raise it, in certain circumstances.

Ann, the outgoing links from a page don't raise or lower the Page Rank for that particular page itself. Outgoing links will never raise the Page Rank of a page, even if the link is to Google. Neither will the links lower it. But how many outgoing links there are on the page determine how much of a numerical vote is benefitted to the pages linked to from it. The amount of benefit passed on from a page with 50 outgoing links is less than if there were only 5.

An index page with a 5 will still be a 5 no matter how many links out. But if there are a lot of links to off-site pages there will be less distributable PR to the interior pages of the site. It's like a pie being cut up into a lot of smaller slices instead of a few large ones - cutting it into 12 slices instead of 6 gives each a smaller edible portion.

Under normal circumstances with no penalized or dodgy pages involved, the PR of that page will stay the same no matter how many links on it; it's dependent on the aggregate value of the "votes" cast for it at the time.

Linking to bad neighborhoods doesn't lower the PR of the linking page as such, but can result in it being given a penalty under some circumstances. It's the penalty itself that lowers the Page Rank.

[edited by: Marcia at 5:22 pm (utc) on July 6, 2002]

[martinibuster]

I must politely disagree with the assertion that Google cats list sites alphabetically within equal pagerank.

We're forgetting that PR is not so neat, and that in reality, what shows as a 7 might actually be (by way of illustration) 55,455 Google points and another PR 7 may only be 40,985 points. The numbering scheme on the tool bar etc. is a simplification. Thus, it is highly unlikely that two sites will have the exact same rank, especially within the same cat.

Someone correct me if I am wrong. ;)

[JayC]

We're forgetting that PR is not so neat

I agree, and said as much in message #4 in this thread -- so I'm not forgetting! :)

If you look at other directory cats, there are certainly cases where listings with the same displayed PageRank are not shown in alphabetical order. For example:
Google Directory Web Ski Resorts Category [directory.google.com]

[edited by: Marcia at 6:50 pm (utc) on July 6, 2002]
[edit reason] link shortened for side scrolling [/edit]

[ann]

Linking to bad neighborhoods doesn't lower the PR of the linking page as such, but can result in it being given a penalty under some circumstances. It's the penalty itself that lowers the Page Rank.
--------------------
Sounds like splitting hairs to me.......

Ann

[JayC]

Ann, it's not a matter of splitting hairs; it's a matter of accurately describing the situation. To say that outgoing links to "bad neighborhoods" -- or anywhere else -- lowers PR is inaccurate. If you link to bad neighborhoods, you risk the possibility of being penalized by having your PR reduced. Such a penalty is not a certainty, and it not automatic; therefore it would not be accurate to say, if that were to happen to you, that creating outgoing links reduced your PageRank.

As for the question of "non-penalty" PR reduction because of links, consider this: imagine that a page on my site has a PageRank of exactly 6, and has no outgoing links at all -- not even to other pages on my site; not even back to my index page. It has achieved its PR through incoming links (which is where PR comes from).

Now, if I put one, or five, or ten, or twenty, outgoing links on that page, going to other sites, the PR of that page will not change -- as long as the PR value of incoming links to the page doesn't change. Outgoing links, in and of themselves, do not reduce PageRank.

The internal link structure of your site, though, might mean that adding or deleting a page's outgoing links will result in some incremental PR changes to other pages in your site, and those PR changes in turn might result in a small change to the initial site's PageRank.

Again, you might consider these distinctions to be "splitting hairs;" but they really are important in understanding how PageRank works.

[steveb]

Grumpus,

I'm not sure what you are looking at but my category is not how you describe. There are several PR6's but they aren't at all in alphebetical order. My "Pl..." listing is behind a "Po..." listing and ahead of a "No..." listing. Alphabet isn't involved.

[steveb]

yankee,

I admit I never considered putting my keyword in all my "go to main page" links. It's both a great idea and incredibly silly that it would be helpful. :)

It also would be pretty ugly so I'm going to have to thinbk about that for awhile......

[martinibuster]

Keywords in links help se's determine the relevance of a page, just as the keywords in the html text define the relevance of a page for the search engine.

Therefore it follows that it's a good idea to fully nail down the definition of that home page by linking back to it with the keyword text.

Makes total sense. It's a great idea that I've overlooked and yet so obvious too. I'm going to have to redo some links myself.

[ann]

Makes no difference either way as a penalty will darn sure lower your page rank to 0 and the comeback is verrry slow!

So linking out to certain sites does cause penaltys which actually reduces any and all page rank...

Ann