Web Directory AuthorityRank - Average Outbound PR - Page 2

John Scott · 05-20-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

But your idea of average outbound PR implies that if a web directory has many links to high PR sites the web directory has a strong link power.

No, sorry, I never suggested that.

Quote:

And, there's really not much point in talking about PR in the first place because only Google knows the real Page Rank of web pages.

Why do we need to know the exact PageRank? How is it debilitating to know a general approximation of the PR? A general approximation is all we need to know to get an idea of the website's credibility.

jv16 · 05-20-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, sorry, I never suggested that.

OK, but you do suggest that Average Outbound PR is a metric that could be used to analyze a web directory. Can we agree on that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Why do we need to know the exact PageRank? How is it debilitating to know a general approximation of the PR? A general approximation is all we need to know to get an idea of the website's credibility.

The PR shown by the PageRank toolbars or some other such utilities/sites is not a general approximation of the PR. It is a number between 0 and 10 that seems to have some relevance to the popularity (link wise) of the website.

A post from Webmaster World sums it up rather well:
* The toolbar does not reflect REAL PR.
* The toolbar is unreliable by design.
* Toolbar PR is virtually meaningless.
* Toolbar PR is not an SEO metric.

And even if you would somehow know the real PR of a web page (which you don't), that would still leave all the other possible link power analysis methods outside of your scope.

John Scott · 05-20-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

OK, but you do suggest that Average Outbound PR is a metric that could be used to analyze a web directory. Can we agree on that?

Most definitely.

Quote:

The PR shown by the PageRank toolbars or some other such utilities/sites is not a general approximation of the PR.

For the most part - barring export delays - yes it is.

Quote:

Toolbar PR is virtually meaningless.

I do disagree.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, just find some well known and respected sites with solid link profiles that have PR3 or less.

It's a useful metric - not perfect, not in depth, not an exact metric, but useful nonetheless. It's a simple way of seeing whether or not a website has link popularity.

David E · 05-20-2007, 05:24 PM

I was feeling bored so I did a check of the avarage outbound PR of the business category of my directory, I wasn't going to do the entire thing, the business category has the most subs. and a good selection of listed sites.

The avarage outbound PR = 4.14

Had 3 newely added PR0's in there as well which probably bought it down a fair bit. There are a good few hand added authorities that have probably helped it a bit. What would you say - good going?

John Scott · 05-20-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

What would you say - good going?

Definitely

David E · 05-20-2007, 06:27 PM

I read this post when it 1st started and I have taken on board just about everything you have said about directories.

anandsoft · 05-20-2007, 08:14 PM

What is the difference between the Page Rank and Link Juice? Both are not one and the same?

John Scott · 05-20-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anandsoft

What is the difference between the Page Rank and Link Juice? Both are not one and the same?

Not even close.

jv16 · 05-21-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

I do disagree.

PageRank matters, but the toolbar PageRank doesn't.

This is how Google itself put it: "The PageRank that is displayed in the Google Toolbar is for entertainment purposes only" because the data shown by the toolbar is not up-to-date. (Read more)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

If you'd like to prove me wrong, just find some well known and respected sites with solid link profiles that have PR3 or less.

www.americasbest.com. The site was started in 1998. It has a toolbar PR 0 (and has had one for quite some time now), while the page has a total of over 25.000 inbound links, including links from Yahoo directory and links from .gov and .edu sites.

The Inbound Link Quality tool reports its ILQ to be 2,630. As a reference, the ILQ of directory.v7n.com is 48.

John Scott · 05-21-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jv16

PageRank matters, but the toolbar PageRank doesn't.

This is how Google itself put it: "The PageRank that is displayed in the Google Toolbar is for entertainment purposes only" because the data shown by the toolbar is not up-to-date.

To return that quote to context:

Quote:

The PageRank that is displayed in the Google Toolbar is for
entertainment purposes only. Due to repeated attempts by hackers to
access this data, Google updates the PageRank data very infrequently
because is it not secure. On average, the PR that is displayed in the
Google Toolbar is several months old. If the toolbar is showing a PR of
zero, this is because the user is visiting a new URL that hasn't been
updated in the last update.

So obviously they are referring to the delay between updates.

Quote:

www.americasbest.com. The site was started in 1998. It has a toolbar PR 0 (and has had one for quite some time now), while the page has a total of over 25.000 inbound links, including links from Yahoo directory and links from .gov and .edu sites.

Awesome! Thank you for making my point for me. See, if you had gone by ILQ you'd think that americasbest.com was a credible website, but going by PageRank we know that they are not. They do not have PR because the vast majority of their links are reciprocal links. Awesome example, and with that I rest my case.

jv16 · 05-21-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Awesome! Thank you for making my point for me. See, if you had gone by ILQ you'd think that americasbest.com was a credible website, but going by PageRank we know that they are not.

Sounds like circular reasoning: "Show a respected website with a PR 3 or less" - "How about x.com?" - "Haa! It has a PR 0, it's not credible!"

So, I guess lii.org wasn't a credible site when their PR was 0 some time ago, but now when its PR is 8 it's credible again. Although the site or the inbound link structure hasn't changed dramatically, as far as I can see.

John Scott · 05-21-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Sounds like circular reasoning: "Show a respected website with a PR 3 or less" - "How about x.com?" - "Haa! It has a PR 0, it's not credible!"

I think you are a bit unfamiliar with cause and effect. Is that site respected? Do you respect that website? Would you link to that website? Would you send it to your mother to use? Does the website deserve high PR?

When you say:

Quote:

You must place a Reciprocal Link to us on your website

And you do it in red, underlined, and bolded, it pretty much dismisses any idea of credibility.

In other words, they have PR0 because they deserve PR0. Even if they had PR9, they would still deserve PR0. Is that stated simply enough?

Quote:

So, I guess lii.org wasn't a credible site when their PR was 0 some time ago, but now when its PR is 8 it's credible again.

I know a lot of websites that have high PR and are less than credible, and vice versa, so I would have to say your logic is Polish, or your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. Which is it?

temyong · 05-22-2007, 03:55 AM

I read some of your post and it give me some Idea thanks,

! Ask ! · 05-29-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

They do not have PR because the vast majority of their links are reciprocal links. Awesome example, and with that I rest my case.

Interesting so reciprocal links decrease your PR?

John Scott · 05-29-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ! Ask !

Interesting so reciprocal links decrease your PR?

Not per se, but when reciprocal links are the only links you have, it does tend to get you in trouble.

tycoonjo · 06-25-2007, 08:01 AM

I want to pay the $100 !

Yeah!!

doctornuke · 06-27-2007, 06:04 AM

My observation from last TBPR update ,It seems like Google doesn't give much attention and score from many web directories?

John Scott · 06-27-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctornuke

My observation from last TBPR update ,It seems like Google doesn't give much attention and score from many web directories?

Exactly what do you base this on?

Jesse Vlasveld · 06-27-2007, 08:01 AM

Thin air.

lucia · 06-27-2007, 08:39 AM

This all makes sense.

I've periodically read what Google says they do. I would expect the algorithm designers at google have thought about the issue of both link farms and link-farm type directories. Being human users, they would also see the obvious: the absolute highest trust levels should be associated with link-laden pages that are edited by fanatics about an area (like my sock knitting links pages), or by directories that check the quality of links. The absolute lowest trust should go to link-farmish type pages.

There is so much information in good links pages, Google engineers would be eager to figure out the features that distinguish the two.

After coming up with some theories, they would use some understanding of probability to come up with some sort of Bayesian filter to figure out how much to "trust" out going links. Then they would test the theory.

John's idea about trust is a metric one might expect to distinguish a link-farm or low quality directory from a good directory of "fanatic" type link page. (Others will also exist.)

Google doesn't tell us what they do, but we know one thing: Google works pretty darn well. (Despite some of it's glitches, it really does.)

So, why would anyone think Google doesn't do this sort of thing?