#46
  1. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    OK I have another interesting question for you guys

    Let's say in 19 there are 100 websites are there.

    How they got PR? If you say because Y is point to Z then from where Y got some PR, you will say X give them then how about X? So from where PR is come in begin of web?

    Do you think Google given itself some PR and then link out wikipedia and CNN website. If you understand this thing, you will agree me. Please think strongly.
  2. #47
  3. SEO Since 97
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    7,455
    Rep Power
    4573
    Your lets say doesn't make any sense.
  4. #48
  5. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    @chedders please rethink what you have said right now.

    If Homepage PR is not going to loose, and remain as it is (Say 4 PR) then what happen when those two internal pages link back to homepage. It means again 2 PR will pass to homepage, by doing that you can cheat PR very easily.
    Last edited by Arjun3315; Aug 11th, 2017 at 03:11 AM.
  6. #49
  7. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    Test-OK@ OK I quit.
  8. #50
  9. Dinosaur
    SEO Chat High Scholar (3500 - 3999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,763
    Rep Power
    6449
    You cannot link from the home page to page A and then page A links back to the home page to pass page rank back, that would create a NEP.
    Page rank is like a one way street, it flows in 1 direction only, you can never pass page rank that originated from a page back to itself. it would just keep going around in a circle until the universe blew up.

    Comments on this post

    • Test-ok agrees : There ya go
    Owner of Page Explorer the page onsite SEO checker
    Useful Tools: Site Statistics: SEM Rush | Site Crawler: Screaming Frog
  10. #51
  11. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by Chedders
    You cannot link from the home page to page A and then page A links back to the home page to pass page rank back, that would create a NEP.
    Page rank is like a one way street, it flows in 1 direction only, you can never pass page rank that originated from a page back to itself. it would just keep going around in a circle until the universe blew up.
    If Pagerank flow only in one direction then Google don't need to use iterative formula at all.

    First when Google calculate PR(A) then it is 4, now again when they see other back/out links, then Google re-calculate again to get approx value.

    1. First time PR(A) = 4.215864
    2 PR(A) = 4.874646
    3.PR(A) = 4.64646

    15. PR(A)= 4.4454
    16. PR(A) = 4.4452

    I highly suggest to read this doc again.
    Last edited by Arjun3315; Aug 11th, 2017 at 03:47 AM.
  12. #52
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    366
    It seems to me the start point for a PageRank discussion is that G needs to analyse the individual words used in a search query. So, how can PageRank contribute?

    The ref'ed arcticle makes these statements:

    Quote: "2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation
    ...PageRank extends this idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing by the number of links on a page."

    It seems anchor text (and location?) may be significant points of ranking differenciation between various external links values to a page.

    Quote: "2.2 Anchor Text
    The text of links is treated in a special way in our search engine... we associate it with the page the link points to"

    To me you can't isolate any PageRank importance discussion from:

    Quote:"4.2.5 Hit Lists
    A hit list corresponds to a list of occurrences of a particular word in a particular document including position, font, and capitalization information..."

    "4.5.1 The Ranking System
    ...Every hitlist includes position, font, and capitalization information. Additionally, we factor in hits from anchor text and the PageRank of the document."

    Does the above not infer that the relevant component of a page's ranking is dependent on the individual search words, their use on an individual page and the PageRank that is associated with each word in the search query as potentially modified via the link text?
  14. #53
  15. Dinosaur
    SEO Chat High Scholar (3500 - 3999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,763
    Rep Power
    6449
    This is the very problem when you take 1 signal and focus on that, I think its fair to say page rank still has it part to play although maybe reducing to where it used to be but it has to be combined with many other factors.
    Its now all a bit academic anyway as we have lost the ability to view page rank or at least a rounded down version of it, So without that figure no amount of analysis can be proven
  16. #54
  17. Digital Marketing
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,158
    Rep Power
    4636
    Originally Posted by JohnAimit
    It seems to me the start point for a PageRank discussion is that G needs to analyse the individual words used in a search query.
    I'm sorry, what do words have to do with Pagerank?
  18. #55
  19. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    366
    Originally Posted by KernelPanic
    I'm sorry, what do words have to do with Pagerank?
    Read the Google reference. It's described in it.
  20. #56
  21. Digital Marketing
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,158
    Rep Power
    4636
    Originally Posted by JohnAimit
    Read the Google reference. It's described in it.
    Sorry, words have nothing to do with PR other than how they help attract links
  22. #57
  23. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    366
    Originally Posted by KernelPanic
    Sorry, words have nothing to do with PR other than how they help attract links
    There is how PR is calculated then there is how it is applied.

    You have not read the article have you?
  24. #58
  25. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    998
    Rep Power
    2238
    For all you folks out there, concerning this page rank discussion.

    I want all of you proponents that expound .....
    Originally Posted by JohnAimit
    It seems to me the start point for a PageRank discussion is that G needs to analyse the individual words used in a search query. So, how can PageRank contribute?
    Originally Posted by Arjun3315
    If Homepage PR is not going to loose, and remain as it is (Say 4 PR) then what happen when those two internal pages link back to homepage. It means again 2 PR will pass to homepage, by doing that you can cheat PR very easily
    Well the way page rank is applied precludes this way of thinking, why? Because there is this Google Zoo Animal called "PENGUIN"!

    See what you guys are forgetting is that pre-2012 you could just go out and get a link from any site, that is correct, "ANY SITE" , and it would count. SEO companies spammed sites, mostly low quality sites btw, but still you could auto post links to Blogs, Forums and most of us know the rest of list, but the fact remains that just the sheer quantity of links would boost you to page 1. Well along comes Penguin and "BAM"! Sites fall off the radar completely in instances and some sites just plain burn out. Did the PR equation change, no, we could still see public PR. Penguin on the other hand would then look at your anchor text, deduce if you were overly optimized buy using keyword rich anchors.

    Lets face facts too! Someone's who's first love is gardening is not going to link to home and garden magazine with some high volume money keyword. They are going to use what seems natural to them. Example, Hey I found this great info on gardening in "Home and Garden Vol 1 May edition" not "Best Tiller for your Garden 2017"

    So where does all this word counting, hit list , and additional non-important crap come from about the anchor text? Yes I call it crap.... why ? Basically you are trying to look at PR from today's prospective. You can not because of all the algo tweaks that have occurred.

    Penguin, Fred and others affect PR because they apply their adjustment to the links. Penguin is the algo tweak that penalizes you for "Keyword Rich Anchor Text" on money words. Not to mention other rules it applies, "not the PR equation". The PR equation only counts inbound links to your site from other websites, not from internal pages of the same site. It is the additional algo's that you see effecting links and in my opinion polutes how PR is finally calculated so we can't "GAME PR". Just another reason Google removed PR from Public View !

    Most don't like it because of how it affects link building. Makes it hard to game Google. Which I think is the Point !

    To say otherwise is to show ignorance of the Algo tweaks that Google and other SE's have applied internally. The PR equation has really not changed. What has changed is how Google fights spammed Links.
  26. #59
  27. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    366
    Hi KnowOneSpecial,
    I think we are actually very close to agreement.

    The main point of difference is likely my understanding that G does/did not use the combined PageRank of all the linked pages it could index when assessing the incoming PageRank of an individual page.

    It's been said that G. used link text as a tool to help decide which pages to include in its PageRank calculation. (May 2014: Matt Cutts Talks Google Link Extraction And PageRank)

    As you note, G went to war on spammers who used "keyword rich anchor text". A logical anti-spam priority given this explanation of PageRank's application.

    I suspect that AI or RankBrain has been able to dramatically improve this link selection process by better interpretation of a page's text and the links to it.

    This process explanation supports your contention why links from pages on the same topic of interest (Eg. gardening) have more value to a garden page than a link from a higher PR page (eg.) a finance page or even the Gov tax website.

    I suggest the word counting hit lists are still in place for assessing the on-page ranking factors for the individual words used in search queries. I imagine weighting factors for the various on-page ranking elements undergo constant revisions.

    It is simple to test that G ranks pages based on the individual words used in a search query. Pick a few four-word search queries and search with them using and not using exact match parameters (parentheses). When you ask for an exact match result, folk will often find there is no page that matches the query. If there is, it most likely won't be a top 10 page for the non-parentheses search.

    As you say, "Most don't like it (hiding PR) because of how it affects link building. Makes it hard to game Google. Which I think is the Point!"

    Agreed! The ones who may hate it most could be those who are dependent on SEO tools that spit out (IMHO) irrelevant domain and page authority numbers.

    If G upgrades like these help cull out the SEO incompetents and pretenders, I'm all for it!
    Last edited by JohnAimit; Today at 05:09 AM.
  28. #60
  29. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    998
    Rep Power
    2238
    Originally Posted by JohnAimit
    The main point of difference is likely my understanding that G does/did not use the combined PageRank of all the linked pages it could index when assessing the incoming PageRank of an individual page.

    It's been said that G. used link text as a tool to help decide which pages to include in its PageRank calculation. (May 2014: Matt Cutts Talks Google Link Extraction And PageRank)
    Yeah, close....I think Occam's razor applies here.
    Mind you all here, this is My Opinion of how the Internals of Google May Work! I don't work for them.


    Internet Link Pool (combined links on the net )

    Internet Pool (now apply spam filters, keyword rich filter, relevance filter,etc, etc) = Some sub set of the Pool

    The PR Equation will then use this subset of qualifying links to calculate PR.

    The equation is not adjusted, just the links now have stringent qualifications to adhere to for inclusion in this subset to be counted for a particular site.


    .

Similar Threads

  1. from PageRank 10 to PageRank 0 - Beware, Google also Reads
    By -search-engines-web in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec 17th, 2004, 12:22 PM
  2. Pagerank question
    By GayClarke in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Jun 1st, 2004, 05:24 AM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo