This issue was actually brought to my attention by the client today, and it's an interesting one, albeit really obscure and out in left field.

Yes, Toolbar PageRank is useless, and yes, this question will help show that, so no, don't tell me that...I not only know that, I tell other people that. So let's just skip that part of things, okay? Good.

The site in question: www.hibiscusflorals.com

The external PageRank of the site, according to my pretty little big G toolbar, is 3.

Buuuuut...

http://www.google.com/Top/Shopping/F...Weddings/?il=1

No PageRank.

Now...there were link exchanges on that site when it was the prevailing mantra from the time it started in 2003 until about the end of 2005 (when I yanked them after a Googlewhack, the site was restored to the traffic levels I started it at when I rebuilt it in mid-2005). So that was a factor at one point, but has long since been removed (in case some of you find link exchange pages with Hibiscus links on it.)

They've never bought a link for SEO purposes, and haven't even bought an ad on any site for advertising purposes in the past two years.

So...no link exchanges, no ads or paid links of any kind.

Que te pasa? TP given for intelligent answers (not the prevailing SEO rhetoric.)

The pagerank shown in the toolbar and that in Google Directory are inaccurate to different degrees. You can find other discrepencies e.g. decorations-for-wedding.com, weddingflowers.bz, I stopped looking. Sometimes directory > toolbar and sometimes the other way round so I don't think your discrepency is related to that site.

Yeah, I noticed that it's an industry-wide thing too, gringo. I just used the site above as an example.

But what I don't get is...why the discrepancy? Where is the PR data coming from for the directory and why does it differ from that of the toolbar, when both originate from Google itself?

both originate from the real PR value, but are exported on different scales.

When you do a multiple PR check on all data centers do you get the same output?

I have seen Google write that the Toolbar PR may be out of date (I have heard figures in the region of 3 months).

Could it be that the Toolbar is a little old, and that the directory is using current PR?

It does seem a little odd that Google use different PR in different situations.

Originally Posted by ssandecki

When you do a multiple PR check on all data centers do you get the same output?

Indeed..........sometimes a site shows different PR in different locations just because of difference of datacentres.

It does seem a little odd that Google use different PR in different situations.

??

Useless toolbar PR display is a scale of 0 to 10.

Equally useless (if not more so) directory PR display is on a scale of 0 to 8.

What Hirst said about the uselessness. This isn't a discussion intended to answer anything of true significance (because Toolbar/Directory PR is a non-factor). It's just something that doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

both originate from the real PR value, but are exported on different scales.

Okay, that makes some sense (I thought I noticed something similar)...except that the directory values aren't within 1 or 2 of the toolbar values I'm seeing, and the "gap" isn't consistent (some are higher, some are lower, some are the same).

That's the part that I can't quite figure out. Would the effect not be roughly the same across the board?

OK here's my take on the situation:

Google employs umpa lumpa's (you know those dudes with the orange skin and blue hair) to maintain the PR system as we know it today. Of coarse they have to have an army of umpa lumpa's to work all the toolbars on different computers and then some to work the directory PR bars in fact every PR bar has an umpa lumpa assigned to work out how much PR each bar shows. This is were the inconsistencies start, we all know that PR is a figure worked out mathematically using a formula, well Umpa lumpa's are really bad at working out formulas, I mean have you ever seen an umpa lumpa trying to work out how much change he should get after buying 120 chocolate bars (short fat orange fingers are not good for adding up) anyway were was I...

Oh yes because umpa lumpa's can get into a flap when trying to workout what PR should be assigned to any given site. Google issued them with a small blue dice, which they use when they have a bit of a mental block. So unless you have a very simple site with a round number of incoming links like say 10 or 100 your PR is probably the result of a small blue dice thrown by an umpa lumpa (if it rolls off the table you get PR 0)

I would suggest getting a few more incoming links to bring the total up to the nearest round 100 - that should fix it.

OK it's not a perfect system but umpa lumpa's need work too.

Happy new year....this was my first post of 2008 (yes I've been drinking)

Ahhh, but here's an idea (since I've pretty well extracted whatever useful information I could out of this thread)...what if I took 100 Umpa Lumpas and put all of them into a geodesic condome and left them to take care of my PR needs for at least a year? Would I get PR10 and have the most popular site ever with unlimited traffic that I could sell ad space for at $1000 CPM?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The site in question: www.hibiscusflorals.com

The external PageRank of the site, according to my pretty little big G toolbar, is 3.

Buuuuut...

http://www.google.com/Top/Shopping/F...Weddings/?il=1

No PageRank.

I don't know how that's possible, according to *my* useless green bar, the directory link has no info available, and the first link is not even ranked at all. (So basically PR0 for both)

Hmmmm. So you're saying you see PR0 for the Hibiscus website? (I'm just clarifying.)

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Hmmmm. So you're saying you see PR0 for the Hibiscus website? (I'm just clarifying.)

Yep, both are basically showing up as PR0 for me.

Reading WPN for some strange reason and,

"I saw this, and thought of ..."

http://archive.webpronews.com/2008/0115.html

Oh good God. This isn't going to end well.

Good find, Hirst.

An interesting snippet:

"It seems Google used their real dataset for PageRank for the Google Directory export, forgetting that they are telling their millions of users lies on their toolbar with manual penalties, which until now had no visible proof."

"Google have the right to do whatever they like with their search engine, but this is another major demonstration of how Google are manipulating public and advertiser opinion."

Does Google really not have the right to not display their data in a way they choose? That would be a step toward no black and white photos allowed for my site...? Also don't Moody's and the S&P write reports every day meant to influence public and investor opinion? Why are there so many seos but no lawyers complaining about monopolies...?

Because lawyers are fighting for the interests of people who pay them (really their own, effectively, but via a third party) and SEOs are directly fighting for their own interests.

Personally, I don't care how they display anything as far as PageRank is concerned. It's a useless metric and they can do whatever they want with it. Since I posted this, the "problem has been corrected" so I care even less than I did before. It was just "interesting" to me, much in the way one of those Sudoku puzzles is interesting to some people.

I don't see this as a monopolistic practice, either. I see this as a countermeasure to dilute the effects of a false marketplace created through a free and inaccurate service that they supplied. It's all gotten beyond silly.