PageRank 10 Sites (PR10) - November 07
by matt @ 2:00 pm. Blogged under Search Optimisation
I’m not as obsessed with Google PageRank™ as I used to be, but was disappointed to see Firetop’s score lowered from 5/10 to 4/10 last week. For those that don’t know, PageRank™ is Google’s scoring method for determining which websites are most popular and therefore in all likelihood contain valuable content. The algorithm behind the scoring looks at the volume of in-bound links from related websites, which also have high PageRank™ scores… of course it’s a bit chicken and egg. If you use the Google toolbar in your browser you probably already have a little green PageRank™ bar at the top of your page. Interestingly it seems that there are now only ten ‘PR10′ websites - down from twenty or so earlier this year, probably not the sites you would think of either.
The ten most important websites in the world (by PageRank™ 10 allocations) this month are:
1. Google - 3,090,000 links
http://www.google.com/
2. The W3C CSS Validation Service - 821,000 links
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
3. Real Player - 428,000 links
http://www.real.com/
4. Dept of Energy - 423,000 links
http://www.energy.gov/
5. MIT - 415,000 links
http://web.mit.edu/
6. World Wide Web Consortium - 122,000 links
http://www.w3.org/
7. Adobe - 116,000 links
http://www.adobe.com/support/
8. The Whitehouse - 60,200 links
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
9. US NSF - National Science Foundation - 43,000 links
http://www.nsf.gov/
10. MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory - 4,790 links
http://www.csail.mit.edu/
Out go a few universities, as well as IBM, Microsoft, Apache, Cisco and Apple - relegated to PageRank 9 (along with approximately 150 other PR 9 websites). There was a time when Nature.com was a 10 as well, but that too has been a 9 for a couple of years. You have to wonder why Facebook, Ebay and Amazon aren’t up there either - maybe they would be if they were owned by Google!
Google’s description of PageRank™ is that it ‘relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important”.‘
Technorati Tags: pagerank, pagerank 10, most important websites, pagerank calculator, link exchanges, link building
Loading ...
December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Much of this appears to be SEO punishment (especially in the blogging community) off the back of the emerging “pay per post” industry, which would (if one is honest) undermine any potential trustworthyness or worth of blog content…there was a summary in Wired the other day…
Not good for the internet or the blogging community when things like this happen and it’s hit innocent blogs like yours and mine as a result…but at least the blog posts that *are* filled with paid for content are now (or soon will be) religated to zero and innocent content can be shaken out again properly and re-ranked over the next few months…
I don’t think anyone could reasonably have expected for Google to just sit by and watch this taking place under their noses…It’s another “Kane and Lynch”…
December 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I’m curious to know how they can differentiate pay per post content from normal content? Have they identified a black list of subjects/topics?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Apparently there are two signs, one is a trackback ID on the URLs the posters must link to in their articles (at least one per post) and the other is a that participants must host a bit of code (to allow stats to feed back to the advertisers)…turn-key for Google…
December 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Guys,
wondered if you’d comment on this. You may/not (not bothered anymore) noticed that NJobs page dropped from 9/10 to 8/10 and then substantially down to 5/10. At which point we pulled the sponsored ad words! How long before they re-assess the sites which dropped and have conformed to google by dropping adwords do you reckon?
You up town for beers at any point?
Cheers
Andy
December 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
5/10? Holy Cow! At least the site still features on the first page of ’science jobs’ results. Sometimes those folks at Google like to show us one thing but actually mean another, however it could be that you’re holding your own without high PR because of the nature.com high link factor. Worrying all the same though. I should correct you on the Ad words mention, you actually mean text links which ‘might’ sometimes have been paid for
I keep trying to get up town but its tough when you start your journey in the sticks at 6pm!
December 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
You know what I mean. I heard there may be some drinks being organised by a mutual friend/colleague to celebrate their pending wedding. Hope to see you then.
Any idea when our pals at google are likely to alter rankings back up now we’ve got rid of the paid/not paid for links?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Well if they’re being organised best we all get informed
I’m afraid PageRank updates can vary, anything from monthly to every 90 days or more…