Pagerank, sometimes very misleading.

[kgun]

Page rank is a hot topic on the WWW. But it may be quite misleading. In my view, high pagerank says that a site has got a lot of inbound links and are relatively mature. There may be a correlation between pagerank and quality, but not necessarily. But that should not be enough because of
- Link spamming.
- Keyword spamming.
- Domain name spamming.

One criteria I use when I link to another site, is contact info.

.no (.Norway) domains must be registered in the central Norwegain register, http://www.brreg.no/.

You may register 20 other .no domains. There are no such restriction on .com domains. Free to register for everybody.

Contact information is important, but this is being discovered:
- Telepone number is given.
- Post address.

In my viw, one should start to require, organization number and where that information can be found. Then a lot of unserious / spam / scam sites would die a natural death.

Myself, I have collected, ranked and organized links since the mid 90's. I have not checked them well enough. But most of the financial links that is not broken on my site, are relatively old. Marketing and IT related links are newer, and more of them may be bad links.

Outgoing links does not count in ranking even if Teoma has started to define what they call expert links. I will not call my IT-links expert links, but the finance links are older, more stable and collected in a more professional way?

There are perhaps one advantage with "afilliate providers" and affilliated text and banner links. They are more thoroughly checked and screened by professionals. A trained eye discovers if a link redirects from an affilliate provider to a merchant. In addition the tracking code is also visible for the trained eye.

Final question:
So, should we require organization number and where in the public register that can be checked?

Conclusion:
"You know that old saying, you are what you eat?
Same theory applies to websites, you are who you link to".
Source: Brett Tabke Webmaster World

Kjell Gunnar Bleivik
http://www.multifinansit.no/
http://multifinanceit.com/

[Ne0]

What's not to understand?
For each of your pages... the PR value is almost completely dependent upon links pointing to your site, reduced, to some degree, by the total number of links to other sites on that page. Thus, a link to your site will have the highest amount of impact on your PR if the page linking to yours has a high PR itself and the total number of links on that page is low, ideally, just the one link to your site.

The actual formula (well, an approximate one, according to Google's official papers) for PR is:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

where pages T1...Tn all point to page A. The parameter d is a damping factor which can be set between 0 and 1. Google usually sets d to 0.85. C(T) is defined as the number of links going out of page T.

Thus, a site with a high PR but a large number of outbound links can nullify its own impact on your PR. To increase your Page Rank, get as many links to your site from pages with a high PR and a low number of total links. Hope that sheds some light ;)
NeO1

[kgun]

You think of this

http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

link?

I do not want to be impolite, but do not confuse me with facts :-) :-) :-)


KBleivik
http://www.multifinansit.no/
http://multifinanceit.com/

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by kgun

I do not want to be impolite, but do not confuse me with facts :-) :-) :-)

You don't want facts? Ok - here's my opinion : The facts speak for themselves.

;-)

PR isn't an exact science for anyone outside of Google, so just take it as a number and nothing else. It isn't any indicator of importance. It's just a number that doesn't mean much any more.

Brian.

[jawn_tech]

The part about "quality"...The concept behind PR=quality is only really a democratic score when you think about it. So in essence it's only a popularity score, not a quality score. I know origninally the mindset was that if a site has a high number of ibl's, it must be a quality site. But as we know now, any site can eventually get a high number of ibl's, as time goes on. It is still true though, that higher quality sites -- people will and do link to them. But I can't necessarily agree that the mindset is still the case, that PR = quality.

I admit I've always found it odd the way that sites seem to be sorted by PR, then by relevance.

Originally Posted by brian.mark

PR isn't an exact science for anyone outside of Google, so just take it as a number and nothing else.

Yep. Especially what is shown on the toolbar, which is rarely an indicator of 'true' PR, which only Google knows what it really is. Just a number.

[kgun]

brian.mark and jawn_tech

Yes!