For months, my index page consisted of,A table element that formed a header image using background-images,An image linking to the index,The date,The word "Patience" in an H1 element below the table.For the longest time, this pretty much empty page was a PR4.I removed everything other than the H1 element with the word "patience" in it, it dropped to a PR1Removing that table element, that contained only an image & the date is the only alteration I made.What the heck happened ?PR is a function of backlinks only, and is not affected by the content on your page. The only way that I can see PR being indirectly affected by the changes you make on page is if you remove links to pages that themselves confer PR back to that page. I can't see that kind of thing leading to such a big loss though.Not knowing the details, I would suspect that it's just coincidence that you made a change and your PR went down at the same time.An image linking to the indexAs inCode: [ Select ]From what i have seen you only need one link, Internal or external, To the index to give a PR of 3.hooperman wrote:Quote:meman wrote:Yes, and it is simply confirming what I said (ok, google said it first! ).If you want the original PR equation, go here http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.htmlThe bit you are interested in is the bit that says
R(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))....i.e. PR is a function of backlinks only.hooperman wrote
efeinaty should read things before quoting them.I think that the first paragraph of Google's explanations are explaining the algorithm functionally, and the second paragraph is what results. Personally I think Google has triumphed over Yahoo! largely by embracing SEO's, rather than making things harder for them, by making a 'good SEO' someone that makes 'good sites'. People are far more likely to link to good sites. Good sites, are much more likely to link to great sites. The fact that PR is solely a function of backlinks is actually pretty well agreed upon, as confusing as Google's language might be on the site.But PR alone is basically meaningless in the grand scope of things anyhow, so it doesn't really matter. ok, someone needs to fix the name algo of their spam bot.
R(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))....i.e. PR is a function of backlinks only.hooperman wroteefeinaty should read things before quoting them.I think that the first paragraph of Google's explanations are explaining the algorithm functionally, and the second paragraph is what results. Personally I think Google has triumphed over Yahoo! largely by embracing SEO's, rather than making things harder for them, by making a 'good SEO' someone that makes 'good sites'. People are far more likely to link to good sites. Good sites, are much more likely to link to great sites. The fact that PR is solely a function of backlinks is actually pretty well agreed upon, as confusing as Google's language might be on the site.But PR alone is basically meaningless in the grand scope of things anyhow, so it doesn't really matter. ok, someone needs to fix the name algo of their spam bot.