Talk:PageRank

I don't believe this article

This article's basic assumption, at least in the simple model, is that outgoing links "leak" pagerank. Please prove this. The assertion that outgoing links leak pagerank is an internet myth that I would like someone here to source and/or prove before making the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I suggest you take a look for some of Googles press releases and Matt Cutts videos where they talk about how page rank works. 76.253.76.237 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence is not correct

"The nofollow relationship was added in an attempt to help combat spamdexing."

Search engine spamming / index spamming (Spamdexing) refers to SERPs for a keyword entry point to the websites that are not relevant to the user searching for the term. I.E. spamming the google index with junk. There is absolutely no way nofollow is able to prevent spamdexing.

Probably better worded as: "The HTML attribute value of nofollow was added in attempt to help combat link spamming." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.214.65 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. If it gets reverted so be it but I doubt anyone will have a problem. --Hm2k (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Explicit algebraic methods.

There is some published research (e.g., Fast Parallel PageRank: A LinearSystem Approach, by David Gleich et. al. at Standford and Yahoo!), where they use Krylov iterative methods which doesn't require matrix inversion, and which outperform the power iteration. There is another paper along the same lines by Corso et al. These are pretty much explicit and can be tailored to varying networks. So, the paragraph that says that in general algebraic methods are slower and memory hungry has no base in my opinion; and it is very misleading. Alcides (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Profitable computer algorithm

Is this the most profitable computer algorithm ever? What is its commercial value?--22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Panda update

I think it should be mentioned the latest modification of this page ranking algorithm, as state here and here. In additional, we could create the graphs using the XLS file addateched to the first link. Xionbox^₪ 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with PageRank? PageRank is not the sole essence of Google relevance calculations, it's only one of more than 200 ranking signals. What makes you think that this "Google Panda Update" is about the PageRank signal? -- X7q (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought page rank was the essence of the Google ranking algorithm. This is why I thought modification of Google Panda had something to do with Page rank.

Xionbox^₪ 08:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not clear how PR(A) is calculated in Section 3.1

It says that PR(A) = PR(B)/2 + PR(C)/1 + PR(D)/3. However, according to the description in the text ("Suppose that page B has a link to page C as well as to page A, while page D has links to all three pages."), there's no link from C to A. So why does PR(C) appear in the equation? --91.14.208.203 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference between Page Rank and Page Ranking

There seems to be some blurring here around the difference between page rank and page ranking. For instance,

Other factors are also part of the algorithm such as the size of a page, the number of changes and its up-to-dateness, the key texts in headlines and the words of hyperlinked anchor texts.

These are part of Google's ranking algorithm, but not part of the page rank algorithm.

The Google Page Rank algorithm provides a numerical value which is used (unless discontinued) as part of the Google SERPs algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli4uk (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"named after Larry Page[1]"

Tom Anderson has cited this article as a reference for this extremely dubious factoid, but the reference goes to a nonlink at Google. So I don't know whether this is a spoof, an April Fool's joke at Google, or truth. Can anyone support it? It probably should be deleted otherwise. · rodii · 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That page disappeared only recently. There's still a copy in Google's cache dated Jul 12. There's a copy at archive.org which we can cite. -- X7q (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody knows how many pages or domain are pagerank 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0?

Here is a pages that gives numbers for pagerank 10 and 9, I would like to know the others at least how many pages are 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, none and private?

1. http://www.doheth.co.uk/info/list-of-web-sites-with-high-page-rank.php
2. http://www.ipwebdesign.it/2010/07/paerank-list/

• Pagerank 10 = 12 sites (see the website above)
• Pagerank 9 = 148 sites (see the website above)
• Pagerank 8 = guessing about 1820 sites
• Pagerank 7 = guessing about 22391 sites
• Pagerank 6 = guessing about 275408 sites
• Pagerank 5 = guessing about 3387522 sites
• Pagerank 4 = guessing about 41666524 sites
• Pagerank 3 = guessing about 512498246 sites
• Pagerank 2 = guessing about 6303728425 sites
• Pagerank 1 = guessing about 77535859754 sites
• Pagerank 0 = guessing about 953691074972 sites
• Pagerank none = finite number
• Pagerank private = finite number

From pagerank 8 to private I have guessed but if anybody knows exact numbers let me know.

216.58.19.235 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

[1] - this is pretty much the only way for you to find that out :). And most likely you wouldn't be allowed tell the answer to anyone else once you know it. -- X7q (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

--Hm2k (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)