PR6 domain for sale $400 (no not for sale just something my eye catched)

GyuMan82

10 years ago

I dont think its a PR5. PR4 tops. The "big links" have too many OBL to push any significant juice.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Learn To Blog Like The Pros. No Experience Necessary!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677894].message }}

nik0 Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by GyuMan82

I dont think its a PR5. PR4 tops. The "big links" have too many OBL to push any significant juice.

How much link juice we pass when we link from 1 domain to the other, assuming there are no other links on the page? 85% or something.

Not sure if we have to take other internal links into account as juice leaks through that but also comes back again.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678146].message }}

paulgl

10 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

Most links come in total from about 20 referring domains, all dofollow with 1 PR5 link from wikipedia as an exception.

Since the link on wikipdia would be nofollow, how does PR5 even
relate to such a link? It passes no PR, so would not even be in the mix
about PR.

There would be no PR5 link on wikipedia....

I gotta say, it looks as if someone just starts threads to spam....cuz
some of the stuff posted is really inane.

Asking for a guess of PR is really out there. So, what is the real reason
for the thread?

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678196].message }}

nik0

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

Since the link on wikipdia would be nofollow, how does PR5 even
relate to such a link? It passes no PR, so would not even be in the mix
about PR.

There would be no PR5 link on wikipedia....

Don't worry the PR5 link is not included in the list.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678198].message }}

nik0

Banned 10 years ago

I just used this tool:

http://www.ecreativeim.com/pagerank-...calculator.php

And put it all in an Excel file and the result is a PR4.8, although we only see round numbers so more likely it's PR5+

The calculator is based on that each PR is 9 times more strong, so:

- PR2 is 9 times as strong as a PR1
- PR3 is 9 times as strong as a PR2
etc.

Whether that's true I guess no one knows but at least it's a model that you can use to see how likely it is that a domain has the same PR as advertised after analyzing the links.

My broker put the domain for sale as a PR6 and that's what shows in the toolbar, so maybe we're off or maybe I don't have a complete picture of all the back links, who shall say, at least he asks a price that you expect to pay for a solid PR5 and it's very close to that based on the (perhaps flawed) math.

It could easily be that Google uses a different algorithm instead of factor 9, perhaps it starts at factor 3 and the higher up it ends at factor 20, who shall say.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678197].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

I just used this tool:

PageRank Link Juice Calculator - Ecreative Internet Marketing

And put it all in an Excel file and the result is a PR4.8, although we only see round numbers so more likely it's PR5+

Dude have you ever heard the expression garbage in garbage out?

Whether that's true I guess no one knows but at least it's a model that you can use to see how likely it is that a domain has the same PR as advertised after analyzing the links.

How you think a calculator based on bogus calculations and supposed PR can verify the likeliness of PR being as advertised is beyond me.

85% is common knowledge

Whose knowledge? Him?

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681140].message }}

online only

10 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678435].message }}

MikeFriedman

10 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

How much link juice we pass when we link from 1 domain to the other, assuming there are no other links on the page? 85% or something.

Not sure if we have to take other internal links into account as juice leaks through that but also comes back again.

Nothing in that statement makes any sense.

Where did you come up with 85%? When has anyone said or proved it is anything less than 100%?

Juice leaks out but comes back again? WTF... :confused:

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678776].message }}

nik0

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Nothing in that statement makes any sense.

Where did you come up with 85%? When has anyone said or proved it is anything less than 100%?

Juice leaks out but comes back again? WTF... :confused:

85% is common knowledge

yes very strange that when juice flows through links that it can flow back through other links

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8680966].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Nothing in that statement makes any sense.

Where did you come up with 85%? When has anyone said or proved it is anything less than 100%?

Juice leaks out but comes back again? WTF... :confused:

ROFL

This thread is exactly what I needed after a long day. I've been laughing constantly through half of it. Anyway I guess what Nik0 might have been referring to is the degrading factor of PR. Of course the 85% is just blind guessing and certainly not any known fact as he is implying.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681102].message }}

jxam69

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Where did you come up with 85%? When has anyone said or proved it is anything less than 100%?

That figure comes from the original paper by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.

See section titled "2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation" in The Anatomy of a Search Engine

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

This space will be awarded to the first WSO owner who can prove they make Million$ from their methods.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681116].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jxam69

That figure comes from the original paper by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.

See section titled "2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation" in The Anatomy of a Search Engine

That paper as I recall is over a decade old and no fixed for all time number was given. Even back then it wasn't definite. The whole thing is nonsense. Theres no way you are going to figure out the dampening percentage that Google actually uses today and no way a percentage of a non specific is going to get you to any determination that matters.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681160].message }}

jxam69

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

That paper as I recall is over a decade old and no fixed for all time number was given. Even back then it wasn't definite. The whole thing is nonsense. Theres no way you are going to figure out the dampening percentage that Google actually uses today and no way a percentage of a non specific is going to get you to any determination that matters.

I mostly agree with you - I was merely pointing out where people get that number from.

There is however a way to get an approximate value for the dampening variable - all you need to do is build a crawler which calculates PR using the original algorithm then tweak your algo until you have a high correlation with Toolbar PR immediately after an update - which is precisely what Moz have done, and they claim a high correlation which means they probably have a reasonable idea of what the dampening factor actually is.

Of course that assumes there is a universal dampening factor - I suspect Google have the ability to make it dynamic. For example you could change it based on the Trust Flow of a URL - meaning that a URL with a high trust factor could pass on more of it's PR than one with a lower TF.*

*Disclaimer - that paragraph is just wild speculation on my part.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

This space will be awarded to the first WSO owner who can prove they make Million$ from their methods.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681274].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jxam69

There is however a way to get an approximate value for the dampening variable - all you need to do is build a crawler which calculates PR using the original algorithm then tweak your algo until you have a high correlation with Toolbar PR immediately after an update - which is precisely what Moz have done, and they claim a high correlation which means they probably have a reasonable idea of what the dampening factor actually is.

That makes sense and is well thought out but it makes a big assumption that I have seen evidence is not the case. Toolbar updates are almost never current to the day of the update. they are like cron data dumps based on a previous measurement pushed out to the tool bar ( a fact confirmed even more by the explanation why PR has not updated - that the "pipeline" is broken). Therefore there is no evidence that even Pr updates are a snapshot of the pagerank at the given time of the update. Its kind of like unemployment and economic data. its compiled and released to the public at a later date. By the time its reported there have been people hired and fired - its a snapshot of the past.

As for Moz - I like their metrics but they are wildly off on many occasions. They've come up with a decent approximation system but far far from figured out pagerank. In fact for higher PR sites I would not trust Moz without checking trustflow. On the lower end (below PR4) if the links are not over a thousand it stands up pretty good for the most part.

*Disclaimer - that paragraph is just wild speculation on my part.

No foul there. The foul is when we start taking these assumed numbers on a secret algo and acting like they are fact and not speculatiuon. My bet is that not even Cutts knows the numbers.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682362].message }}

Mike Anthony 10 years ago

Originally Posted by webby0031

More misinformation with the god of misinformation at the helm as usual.

Who are you again?
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8685927].message }}

nik0

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jxam69

I mostly agree with you - I was merely pointing out where people get that number from.

There is however a way to get an approximate value for the dampening variable - all you need to do is build a crawler which calculates PR using the original algorithm then tweak your algo until you have a high correlation with Toolbar PR immediately after an update - which is precisely what Moz have done, and they claim a high correlation which means they probably have a reasonable idea of what the dampening factor actually is.

Of course that assumes there is a universal dampening factor - I suspect Google have the ability to make it dynamic. For example you could change it based on the Trust Flow of a URL - meaning that a URL with a high trust factor could pass on more of it's PR than one with a lower TF.*

*Disclaimer - that paragraph is just wild speculation on my part.

My results using an Excel sheet based on the numbers of that site I linked to comes out as pretty damn close to SEOmoz's MozRank almost every time.

So when I analyze domains I will give some more credit to Domain MozRank, at least while pre-filtering.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8683978].message }}

nik0 Banned 10 years ago

Funny how everyone requires scientific evidence when dealing with a number of unknowns and without me making any claims in this thread.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8683991].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jxam69

That figure comes from the original paper by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.

See section titled "2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation" in The Anatomy of a Search Engine

That's a really old doc. but it's still fun to read. Notice they hinted at personalized SERPs that far back (late 90's).

We also plan to support user context (like the user's location)

Lol, they never got this one figured out. Some basic php date code keeps them coming back.

We must have smart algorithms to decide what old web pages should be recrawled and what new ones should be crawled.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681189].message }}

tbtb123

10 years ago

You should check its history and backlinks carefully to make sure there was no spam activity on it.

Thanks

Signature

Â» Number 1 Source of High Quality SEO Domains! Â«
100% Spam Free Domains! Without Manipulations! With Natural High PR Backlinks! Ideal For PBNs!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8680975].message }}

MikeFriedman

10 years ago

Sorry. I should have explained myself more clearly. I just knew that this whole thread was garbage and didn't want to take the time.

Jinx is completely right though.

Yes, there was a 0.85 dampening factor in the original PR equation. However, they never stated that they specifically used that number. They just said it could be between 0 and 1, and stated that they usually use 0.85. That was over a decade ago though.

Things have changed so much since then. One thing that the original equation assumed, and that with a little research you can see is clearly no longer the case, is that every link on a page is equal. It used to be that way. If there were 10 links on a page, all 10 received equal weight. There are a lot of things about that which has changed. For example, footer links are clearly devalued. You can also see that the closer to the top of a page a link appears, the more PR it passes.

Stuff like that has made any approximation of the dampening factor nothing but a wild guess.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682124].message }}

patco

10 years ago

Nothing more than PR4... With so many OBL's, most of the backlinks are just NOTHING!

Thanks

Signature

A blog that will show you How to Lose Weight with a cool Quick Weight Loss guide...
Also enjoy some of my favorite Funny pictures and photos that will make you smile :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682127].message }}

PR6 domain for sale $400 (no not for sale just something my eye catched)

Trending Topics

Check out DeepL Write

Is Wordpress Website Secure? - Emmanuel Katto

Meta ad revenue increases by 27% in Q1 2024

Google Search CPC up 13%

Newbie