The truth about page rank [Archive]

janeth

09-28-2003, 09:42 PM

OK,
Here is my question and my understanding of page rank. The page rank is divided by the number of out going links on that page. So if you have a page rank of 6 with 2 out going links it would count as a three to those pages. If this is true then it would be better to be linked to a site with a page rank of 5 with 5 out going links then a site with a page rank of 7 with 20 out going links.
So actually if you want to get the most out of your links you need to find sites with a five or more with no more the three or four out going links on that page.
But would it not be easer to find a lot of good websites and link to them and not worry about page rank. I also herd that Google only counts sites with page ranks of 4 or higher. But then I started at zero and mine has gone up so should you give up a link just because the page is not ranked where you want it to be today.
What does it take to have a page ranking of 5?
How much of my information is true?

OSFan

09-29-2003, 07:38 AM

What your saying looks right, and makes sense.

If there is a site with a pagerank of 10, and it only links to you, this means your site is going to be pretty good, and you're going to get a huge addition to your pagerank.

If there is a site with a pagerank of 10, and it links to 1000 people, we know this is some kind of directory, and so its linking to many, so small addition to your pagerank, it doesn't make your webpage look any better in the view of rank, it's not like you was specially selected.

A lesson from this is perhaps to link to too many people from your homepage, when you have a rank of about 3 is not going to help those sites really. Carefully select who you link to. You can not always choose incoming links, but no matter what rank and numbers of links on an incoming link, it always adds up, wether its 0.00001 or 1, there are no negatives.

janeth

09-29-2003, 07:45 AM

Hi OSFan,
What determines how high your page ranking is. Is this also determined by incoming links.

OSFan

09-29-2003, 07:55 AM

pagerank is based on the incoming links to your website, both their own rank, the number of links they link out to, the pages within their own site linked to from the page, and the whole internet linking system as a whole.

Maybe a website of pagerank 10 links to you now, you're the only one, you'd expect to rise. But if somewhere else on the next, 1000 pagerank 10 pages, each link to one other site on the net, the whole pageranking system as a whole is going to shuffle, and you'd probably be down, hence why pagerank always changes.

I would say pagerank maybe is midleading, it has nothing at all to do with the quality or the content of the page, like you would rank something usually based on its content. It's purely based on calculations of links, using a formula known only to them.

There is no real way to edit your pagerank, you have no control over incoming links, you cannot stop people linking to you. With stats systems, you can self improve them by continually refreshing pages, even Alexa can be messed with in a similar fashion, using tools or your brains to increase the traffic ranking.

I pick links carefully, and prefer not to be linked from pages which do things like "top 500 help sites" because they are actually doing me barely any good, and they always send traffic that don't need my services.

janeth

09-29-2003, 09:05 AM

Hi OSFan,
I understand what your saying. But i have seen some sites that rank 5 when they have very few sites linking to them. Then I have seen sites with 10,000 links and be a number 6. How many points do you need to move up in your page ranking?

OSFan

09-29-2003, 02:48 PM

My site as in my signature usually ranks at 4 or 5 and doesn't have a great deal of incoming links.

Like I said, it's not 1 link in = 1point. As it depends on the rank of the page linking in.

My site linking to yours may give you 1point, webproworld linking to yours may give you 0.5points, and a huge listing of sites with yours on it, may be 0.01 points. Hence you can't say 5 sites linking in will increase your pagerank by 1.

The 10 000(no comma!) pages linking to X site may all have 100s of links on their pages, and be of rank 1, hence they have little affect on you. The 20 pages linking to Y site may all have 2 links out, and be of page rank , being a greater vote to your site.

Mel

09-29-2003, 04:19 PM

Hi Janeth:
you have to understand that first of all the PageRank you are seeing on the toolbar is NOT the PageRank that Google calculates for your page, but a handy dandy graphic representation, by way of a bunch of boxes labeled 1 thru 10.

Just to complicate it a bit these boxes are not evenly spaced, but appear to be a logrithmic scale so that the higher the box number the more links it takes to make the change to the next box. This also means that the real difference between a High PR 5 page and a low PR6 page might not be much at all, but the difference between an Low PR5 page and a high PR6 culd be quite a lot.

As an example suppose that the highest PageRank was in the range of 5 billion, then the PR 10 box might represent values from 1 to 5 billion, but the PR 4 box might only represent values of perhaps 80,000 to 100,000.

To take it a step further you have remember that the actual pagerank transferred to your page is reduced by a damping factor (maybe 15%) and the total PR of the page is divided by the total number of outbound links on the page so that if there are 50 outbound links you would get 1/50 of the amount you would get if there were only one link out.

And after you figure all this out, remember that this is not the most important factor if Google rankings.

janeth

09-29-2003, 06:30 PM

Hi Mel,
Can I find out rather I have a low 5 or high 5?
What I was trying to find out for was not really for the purpose of linking to other sites but trying to figure out how to go from a 5 to a 7 or 8 with my own site.

Mel

09-29-2003, 11:43 PM

Hi Janeth;

Sorry but Google does not make that information available to us peons. What you can often do however is watch your PR fluctuations (if any) during the updates. A High end PR4 may show temporarily as a 5 and then drop back, while a low PR may do the opposite.

You can get some idea of what it takes to move from a 5 to a 6 and from a 6 to a 7 by estimating that it will take 5 times more linking to got from a 5 to a 6 as it did to go from a 4 to a 5 and 6 times more linking to go from a 6 to a 7 than it does to go from 5 to a 6.

So as a rough measure of what it will take to move your site from a 5 to a 7 you can estimate that it will take about 30 times more linking than it did to got from 4 to 5. If it took you 50 links to go from 4 to 5, then look at 1500 similiar links to go from 5 to 7.

But remember, this is all guesstimation and the numbor of outbound links and the PR of the site have lots to do with it, If you could get a single link from a PR8 page with no other outbound links on it that might move you up to a PR7, but such links are nearly impossible to find and those who have them are normally quite aware of their value.

janeth

09-30-2003, 12:13 AM

Hi Mel,
Thanks a lot. I guess the easiest way for me to do this would be to wait for you to get a pr8 and then give me a link.

LateNight

09-30-2003, 05:09 AM

Try to purchase some "advertising" anchors on pages with high PR and few outbound anchors. There are lots of obscure websites out there with 6 and above PR. Many of the owners have no idea about PR and are more than happy to sell you some affordable advertising. Aim for some anchors on PR7s and see what happens to your PageRank.

Johann

09-30-2003, 09:08 AM

Try to go to http://webworkshop.net/pagerank_calculator.php3 and play with this. It will help you understand the page ranking concept. You have to be aware of your internal linking strategy as well as external linking.

lupole

09-30-2003, 06:11 PM

I hear what you are all saying. I have many links comming and going to my site. I have a ranking of 1 on yahoo and google with key words "Soft rock cd". only some of my exit links are on my index page but most of my out going links are on category pages, keeping my outgoing links per page to a minimal.

simonm

10-08-2003, 08:33 AM

Hi Janeth

Page ranking is (appears to be) also determined by the type of web site, business or private and many other factors, not just the quantity and quality of backward links.

I constantly review my page ranking, eg www.midkentwater is ranked as 5. It has 160 incoming links to the home page, yours has 36 and also ranks 5. Some of my links are web pages, some of course from the same site, some are from other sites but with the same IP number, and a further variation of IP's domain names, PRs etc.

As to the usefulness of backward links and search engine positioning, the context of the link is also relevant. As an example, a link to a page where the name of the link is "nutritional analysis", enough of those links and the page will be at the top of the search list for that term regardless of whether it exists within the page.

Try a search on "Nutritional analysis" on Google, look at the cached version. see the comment "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: nutritional "

Also look at the results of a search on "www.geeksonsteroids.com" (use that as the search term, I expect you do already) see how you rank on your category - that's where I got the number of backward links (also from the google toolbar of course) but also see the number of pages that 'contain the term' you have 209 which also helps PR.

A great tool for looking at backward links, but is temporarily offline is VisIT - see: http://www.visit.uiuc.edu/ but can be seen in action on this page - http://www.operatingthetan.com/google/

Good luck

Black Knight

10-08-2003, 08:47 AM

Page ranking is (appears to be) also determined by the type of web site, business or private and many other factors, not just the quantity and quality of backward links.

Only indirectly, Simon. The type of website you have will determine which categories of directories you get listed in (not all DMOZ or Yahoo categories have the same PageRank value for instance, and some have a lot more outbound links to divide their PageRank among than others too). It will also determine the other types of sites that are likely to link to you, and how willingly.

PageRank is a mathematical algorithm that calculates the relative number of citations, both direct and indirect, that any page on the web has. It includes internal links (pages from your own site) because PR works on a page by page basis, not a site basis.

simonm

10-10-2003, 09:29 AM

Black Knight

I suppose we are both right! Janeth's dmoz category has a page rank of about 8, mine has a rank of 5. Different assumption (yours was correct) but same result.

Ultimately its fair as my competitors are listed on the same low ranking listing as I am!

aventvoy

10-15-2003, 04:03 PM

Hi there,
You all seem to konw quite a lot on this PR stuff...
Could one of you explain me why the PR on my index page disappeared, from 5 to 0 ??
I haven't changed anything in the reciprocal links or site structure, and continue doing some pages updates on a regular basis... So the site is not "static" but in constant evolution, except maybe for the reciprocal links and other links which almost don't change. So why would the PR fall like that?
Thanks for your comments.
Alain
http://www.aventurevoyages.com

jhales

10-17-2003, 02:28 PM

aventvoy:

i just visited your site, you have a pagerank of 4. which is not bad. sometimes the toolbar doesn't display pagerank, but it hasn't disapeared. it is simply the toolbar being inconsistent.

aventvoy

10-18-2003, 06:33 PM

Hello Jared
Thanks for checking it.
What happened in fact, is that I had entered http://aventurevoyages.com, and for whatever a reason, when you don't type the www the PR doesn't come out...
So it only went down from 5 to 4, well, I'll blame it on the toolbar unconsistency, it's easier!
Have a nice week end and thanks again.
Alain
http://www.aventurevoyages.com

Black Knight

10-19-2003, 04:42 AM

when you don't type the www the PR doesn't come out...

The www is actually a subdomain. It is a really common one, and one that we almost all use. But is is an entirely different address to that of the root domain, whether or not you've chosen or been given a redirect to make them both supply the same content.

Because the majority of your links use the www subdomain format, that is the address that has the PR score.

Some time ago I created a simple JavaScript that can help a little with this issue.
http://www.webmarketingplus.co.uk/resources/www_javascript.html

This simple piece of javascript ensures that visitors entering your site as http://domain.com/ are immediately moved to http://www.domain.com/ thus helping to ensure consistency in the format of your URLs used in links and bookmarks.

The reason for wanting to do this is that several search engines analyse link popularity, but that many of them, including Altavista, FAST and Google currently treat the URL with the www. subdomain as being a different page to the same URL without the www. prefix.

SolarDirect

10-19-2003, 03:19 PM

What does it mean when you have a PR of "Current Page is not ranked by Google"? One of my sites that was launched in May still has this: https://shop.solardirect.com It does have some listings in Google even though I have not submitted it yet for inclusion. Googles cache is from Oct 8th. It appears that the only links to the site are from other pages in the same domain. Can I assume that this is why it does not have a PR yet? Because of no external links? But this does not add up since I know I have links from other sites of mine with PR4 pointing to this url. Also when I search for a specific page in the site on google, it shows links from other sites??? I have just started a link page https://shop.solardirect.com/links_submit.php trying to get inbound links, so I imagine this will help. Also, how offer does Google update PR?

sculptor

10-19-2003, 04:28 PM

Please explain the relation of rank to search engine placement
rod(sculptor)

Mr Fudge

10-22-2003, 05:58 PM

mm99

10-31-2003, 01:08 AM

Here's a link that might help answer your questions:

http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html

This is consistant with my experience.

peace...Paul

rlrouse

10-31-2003, 02:06 PM

Janeth:

Can I find out rather I have a low 5 or high 5?

A good indication of a "high 5" PR on your home page is if you also have a PR of 5 on the internal pages that are directly linked to from the home page.

Many times while working with my clients' sites I have noticed that the internal pages' PR will "catch up" with that of the home page, then after another update or two the home page PR will bump up a notch.

cbp

10-31-2003, 04:02 PM

Interesting thread - I believe it's more than in bound links that determine the rank.
Pick your search term of interest - see who's making page one. Enter link:www.(their domain name).com and you'll see just who is linking to these top sites.
The rankings / quality of the pages linking in seems wildly different to me.
Half of Google's listings seem to read Page Not Currently Ranked at present anyway!

Mr Fudge - you are confused between PageRank(TM) and page ranking. PR is determined solely by the number and quality (PR) of incoming links. Page ranking in search results is determined by >100 things, of which PR is only one.

Also, do not jump to conclusions based on the link:www. - Google only returns a sample of backlinks and never all of them (in the past this used to be only those links with a PR > high 3, but criteria have changed lately)

CBP

jackson992

11-01-2003, 05:51 AM

I'm sorry but PR has nothing to do with rankings

cbp

11-01-2003, 06:35 AM

I'm sorry but PR has nothing to do with rankings

What evidence do you base that claim on?

PR is one of the several important factors in the 100 or so that the Google algorithm takes into account when serving up results to a search.

CBP

janeth

11-01-2003, 10:58 AM

I agree with cbp,
pr is one of a lot of things Google looks at. It is not the only thing but does carry a lot of weight.
I have a question for cbp
quote
"Also, do not jump to conclusions based on the link:www. - Google only returns a sample of backlinks and never all of them (in the past this used to be only those links with a PR > high 3, but criteria have changed lately)"
When you say the criteria has changed which part do you feel has changed?
Also as time goes on do you think Google is going to put more weight on links or less weight?

I have seen people beat me for a key word that is not on there page just because of the amount of incoming links that use that key word.

jackson992

11-01-2003, 12:45 PM

That would make sense if the links are on that page. Otherwise there is no way. If I have better keyword density I'm gonna beat ya:)

janeth

11-01-2003, 03:24 PM

Hi jackson992,
That would make sense but it does not seem to work that way.

If you go
to "custom web sites" go to the fourth one down www.yourwebdeveloper.com/
Look at Cached
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: custom
This can be found over and over again threw out just about any search.
There are 4,840,000 web sites after this one. I'm sure at lest one of them use the key word custom but they all come after this one.
Your way would be better but it does not appear to be how it works.

cbp

11-01-2003, 04:07 PM

Also as time goes on do you think Google is going to put more weight on links or less weight?

If I had my way, Google would ignore reciprocal links. Sites exchange links purely for the purpose of increasing link popularity to get a better ranking. This says nothing about the relevance or quality of the site being linked to. If I had my way, one way links will be given so much emphasis that reciprocal links would not be worth it. This would get rid of those networks of sites that are interlinked for no reason other than PR; it means webmasters could get on with quality sites and not spend time chasing links; it means I will only link to a site if I think it offers value to the visitors to my site; it means (...and dare I say it...) directories like DMOZ will take on greater importance as the one way link will be worth so much more.

Links will always be extremely important, but links from a higher PR page should be more valuable (as it is now) and reciprocal links should be devalued or ignored (this would not be difficult to do in the search algorithm).

What say you?

CBP[/b]

janeth

11-01-2003, 04:28 PM

I agree cbp and that would fix the problem.
But as it is now if you are not spending half your time chasing after links there is no way you can keep up.

Doing it your way would also make it easer for Google I would think.

jackson992

11-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Thank you guys!

I thought I was the only one who felt this way

minstrel

11-01-2003, 10:25 PM

Random observations on the topic at hand (warning: these opinions are those of the author only and may not necessarily reflect those of a person of sound mind and body):

(1) I suspect that Google is probably making small changes to their algorithms/formulae on an ongoing basis to stay ahead of SEO experts and scammers who may try to fool the search engines into giving a higher rating to a site than it merits (disclaimer: I am not saying that all SEO experts are scam artists). I know that if I were Google I'd be doing this. I also know that if I were Google I probably wouldn't be driving a Neon.

(2) I don't think Google is going to make any drastic changes to the way they do things in the near future - why should they? what they are doing now works very well for them - they won't change it until they have to, which would be if someone else comes along with a better way of ranking pages and starts to take away some of their business.

(3) As I understand it, Google already "rates" the links to and from a web site, and reciprocal links that have no real connection will probably end up getting both sites penalized.

(4) Google already relies somewhat on the DMOZ/ODP directory but, as stated in several other threads (I am prone to deadly-drone-your-soul-out repetition, according to my sons), my prediction is that, as DMOZ collapses, which it surely must, we will see Google and others relying less and less on it. What will replace DMOZ? Uncertain... maybe Google's own directory? maybe Yahoo? maybe Google will start emailing me and asking me what I think? okay, that last one was pure fantasy... and anyway they couldn't afford my fees. :-)

My advice is to concentrate on CONTENT - you don't need to "chase links"; just add links that contribue something useful to the information a visitor can find on your site. And make sure those links are only to sites that contribute information relevant to your site. Similarly, if you are going to ask someone to add a link to your site, make sure that the other site is also relevant to the content of your website and make sure that you have something to offer the other site as a resource. Otherwise, if you ask my opinion, you're both wasting your time.

janeth

11-01-2003, 10:34 PM

Most people want to compete in the business there in.

While I agree content is king the problem is I have seen time and time again links beat out content.

Because there are sites that have been online for years and already have 50,000 links coming to them in order to compete you have to also have a good number of links coming into your site.

The best or rather fastest way to do that is to exchange links. It in itself is a job that I hate doing but in order to compete it is a job that has to be done.

jackson992

11-02-2003, 06:59 AM

One thing I thin people have to remember is that your site can have good rankings with a low PR

minstrel

11-02-2003, 09:21 AM

One thing I thin people have to remember is that your site can have good rankings with a low PR

Probably we festively plump people should also remember that :-)

Steven Glover

11-02-2003, 10:36 AM

minstrel

11-02-2003, 10:54 AM

I couldn't resist...

Google will start emailing me and asking me what I think?

I think we should all quit using any of the SEs. If you need to find something we can just fill out this form http://www.liquidfusionwebdesign.com/minstrel.htm and in no time you will find relevent search results delivered via email!

Now THAT is funny:

"Minstrel is currently busy posting at WebProWorld it may take several years for a reply. In the meantime please continue to use Minstrel Search!"

:-)

janeth

11-02-2003, 10:57 AM

I like that Steven. Very good new search engines or is that a directory?

What happened to the forms at http://www.liquidfusionwebdesign.com?

rlrouse

11-02-2003, 11:24 AM

One thing I thin people have to remember is that your site can have good rankings with a low PR.

This is perhaps the "truth of the day". Many webmasters spend way too much time chasing PR when they should be aiming for higher rankings in the SERPS and increased traffic.

Steven Glover

11-02-2003, 12:07 PM

Do they not work? Hmmm Honestly I avent worked on that site in too long. am working at HotelKingdom on more than a full time basis. :) I will look into it though

matauri

11-04-2003, 04:06 AM

I think we should all quit using any of the SEs. If you need to find something we can just fill out this form http://www.liquidfusionwebdesign.com/minstrel.htm and in no time you will find relevent search results delivered via email!

Very cool ! :-)

In regards to links, PR, ranking & content.... you have to be able to at least sustain some integrity by covering all.

There may be 50 billion links out there floating around from old dilapidated sites, but thats the nature of the beast. They are still an excellent resource for pushing people around the net. Eventually people who run sites will stop paying their hosts for sites they aren't going to develop further, and they will disappear from existence. The ones who should be campaigned against are free hosting sites that dont manage their accounts well. If someone hasnt updated their site for say 5 years or so, they should be contacted & asked if they want to pull it, if there is no response...pull it.

But on that point...there are still a LOT of information rich old sites out there. They may not be 'pretty' sites, but they represent a plethora of information on the net, and let's face it..that is quintessentially the original purpose of the Internet.

PR, ranking, etc...the jury is still out on that one IMO. I'm not fully convinced yet that this is such an important aspect. When most search the net for information, I am not entirely convinced that the majority check the page ranking, etc., when they click on that first link in the index/directory listings in Google, etc. And you can achieve a #1 position with a lower ranking than others further down the list. So aside from a bit of an ego boost, should it be an aspect that most time is spent on?

Hits are meaningless unless you can hold the visitor. So content plays a higher role IMO. If you have the content, you will get the search results, and get better value hits. My WW3 site has #21 spot out of about 113,000 sites on Google (WW3 search), it has maybe 5 external sites linking to it, and is only listed with a small amount of search engines. So it must be only relying on content.

A good site should at least hit on all aspects in the marketing of it, but PR, ranking & linkage is lost without content.

Cindy

Steven Glover

11-04-2003, 08:34 AM

Off Topic

Janeth -

Thank you forums all fixed. I also started a major overhaul. I think the results will be much improved however in the interim there may be some broken links.

Minstrel Search Rules!

minstrel

11-04-2003, 09:50 AM

PR, ranking, etc...the jury is still out on that one IMO. I'm not fully convinced yet that this is such an important aspect. When most search the net for information, I am not entirely convinced that the majority check the page ranking, etc., when they click on that first link in the index/directory listings in Google, etc. And you can achieve a #1 position with a lower ranking than others further down the list. (snip) Hits are meaningless unless you can hold the visitor. (snip) If you have the content, you will get the search results... PR, ranking & linkage are lost without content.

Exactly!

rlrouse

11-04-2003, 10:03 AM

PR, ranking & linkage are lost without content.

Without a doubt the quote of the day.

janeth

11-04-2003, 05:31 PM

I agree content is great it is what holds the customer what sells the product but Google puts more wait on links.

So content is lost with out the links

matauri

11-04-2003, 07:05 PM

How can that be entirely corrrect Janeth? Like I said...one of my sites has only 5 external links, listed with only a couple search engines (not dmoz), is content rich & is #21 spot out of about 113,000 sites on Google (WW3 search). It got to #21 spot somehow didn't it? (it had actually got higher, it was #3 for a long time).

Links are important yes...no doubt, but... Google does NOT put more weight on links. If it did, my site would be #113,000.

And I'm sorry, but if everyone goes around thinkin that links are the keyhold to getting good placings on Google, we are going to have an Internet full of crap soon. I would rather endorse being content rich, and perform the other tasks for good coverage also. Not go telling people they can have a blank page & still get #1 placing. Thats like teaching a dog bad habits. You end up with a mongrel.

Cindy

minstrel

11-04-2003, 10:54 PM

And I'm sorry, but if everyone goes around thinkin that links are the keyhold to getting good placings on Google, we are going to have an Internet full of crap soon. I would rather endorse being content rich, and perform the other tasks for good coverage also.

I tend to agree - in my opinion, if you boil down all the rhetoric about PR and links and Google rankings, what you have is essentially guesses - intelligent guesses, perhaps, but guesses nonetheless.

You can drive yourself nuts racing after links and decimal points... put your energies into worrying about building a good website and offering a sound product or service at a reasonable price... "If you build it, they will come" (I hate Kevin Costner, but a quote's a quote).

Steven Glover

11-05-2003, 09:02 AM

[quote=Matauri]
"If you build it, they will come" (I hate Kevin Costner, but a quote's a quote).

Oh come on man, didn't you see waterworld? That was the best movie ever ;p

Even if links do hold some importance at this time I believe you will see that the importance of such links will be decreasing as time goes by

minstrel

11-05-2003, 10:24 AM

I hate Kevin Costner, but a quote's a quote.

Oh come on man, didn't you see waterworld? That was the best movie ever

Actually, no... but it's the actor I dislike - it doesn't mean all his movies are bad. The problem is he only knows how to play one role and he has a penchant for doing it for 3-4 hours at a shot... remember "Dances With Wolves"? Good movie... but it would have been better a good hour shorter...

janeth

11-05-2003, 02:54 PM

I thought everybody liked Kevin Costner.

I loved Robin Hood

Steven Glover

11-05-2003, 03:07 PM

I would have to agree an hour less would have been better.

minstrel

11-05-2003, 11:01 PM

I thought everybody liked Kevin Costner. I loved Robin Hood

I liked Maid Marion better.

Did you see Robin Hood: Men In Tights? Mel Brooks' spoof of Robin Hood...

janeth

11-05-2003, 11:03 PM

No I'm sorry I missed that one

minstrel

11-05-2003, 11:06 PM

No I'm sorry I missed that one

It's funny... Mel Brooks is never subtle but when he's "on" he's amusing... one of his other good movies was "Young Frankenstein".

janeth

11-05-2003, 11:14 PM

I can not picture who Mel Brooks is.

I spend most of my time trying to learn new tricks and make a living online. 24 hours a day is still not enough time

minstrel

11-05-2003, 11:53 PM

I spend most of my time trying to learn new tricks and make a living online. 24 hours a day is still not enough time

That's because you're wasting wayyyy too much time sleeping... think what you could do if you eliminated those wasted 45 minutes a day... :-)

Steven Glover

11-06-2003, 12:32 AM

Mel brookes is great!

janeth

11-06-2003, 06:58 AM

Hi minstrel,
Yes I agree the sleep is killing me. I'm not sure why we do that anyway.

You are tired when you lay down and tired when you get up.

minstrel

11-06-2003, 09:57 AM

Hi minstrel,
Yes I agree the sleep is killing me. I'm not sure why we do that anyway. You are tired when you lay down and tired when you get up.

Hint: if you lie down for more than an hour or two at a time, say... oh I don't know, 5, 6, 8 hours at a time?... you're not as tired when you wake up...

:-)

janeth

11-06-2003, 06:30 PM

Hi everyone we had better get back on topic I herd there was a new Moderator over this section and he was a little crazy or maybe it was he dealt with crazy people not sure but I herd he was a little mean so we had better stay on topic.

jackson992

11-06-2003, 07:30 PM

What was the topic again?

Oh yeah.

The sleep deprivation of webmasters:P

minstrel

11-07-2003, 12:18 AM

What was the topic again? Oh yeah. The sleep deprivation of webmasters:P

Yes, something like that anyway... :-)

And Janeth - try to pay attention... you were nodding off there again...

janeth

11-07-2003, 05:57 PM

The only sleep I get is in front of the computer

Steven Glover

11-07-2003, 09:05 PM

That reminds me of this older guy I used to work with. He was a real good guy. We were the tech department for a plant full of machinests. The warehouse we worked in would get hot. We are talking full out summer heat of Florida. With the fans on it felt over 80 degrees.

So anyway every now and then I would look over and he would be passed out. Sitting straight up in his seat one hand on his mouse and one hand on the keyboard.

It was pretty funny