Originally Posted by nixies78@yahoo.

If you had a home page with 1 million links all to pages that just link back, google will not index them all.

2 points:
1) How do you know this?
2) If there are undocumented exceptions to this darned equation ( ) how can you use it validly any argument?

1) How do you know this?

I've never seen it documented. But I have seen loads of example. You can see site all over that google has only party indexed. Loads of people have trouble getting their entire sites indexed.
Google admitted their was a logic to it, like they didn't like pages that had long variables in the URL. Since spammer had been creating huge automatically generated sites, google has to has some kind of cut off point. Also I read somewhere that their was a certain memory allocated to cach each page, and I persume 1 million links would make it to large.

Try it, see if it works.

2) If there are undocumented exceptions to this darned equation ( ) how can you use it validly any argument?

Not sure what you mean. Please could you expand.

The 1 million links rule you gave above does not feature in Brin and Page's equation. That's what I meant by 'undocumented exception'. What if there are other rules that google has imposed, that we don't know about? It means that the equation we've (or I've ) been playing with is not the real thing, and shouldn't be used to support anybody's argument. It's only there to give a flavour of what's going on.

I'm going to ignore it forthwith.

The 1 million links rule you gave above does not feature in Brin and Page's equation. That's what I meant by 'undocumented exception'. What if there are other rules that google has imposed, that we don't know about? It means that the equation we've (or I've ) been playing with is not the real thing, and shouldn't be used to support anybody's argument. It's only there to give a flavour of what's going on.

The equation works perfect well. If you have 1 million pages linking to one, you'd get a great PR. As for if google will index the pages that is not part of the calulation. The calulation is based on pages that are indexed. Pages that google chooses to index or not to index is seperate from the calulation itself.

I'm going to ignore it forthwith.

So do you mean you still believe PR doesn't leak?

Why would you take that stance? The equation doesn't address the reason why their are no unicorns either. It is still the most probable explanation.

To presume that outbound links do not leak PR just because we don't know every single thing google does, even though all evidence suggests it still uses the same underlining concept, seems crazy.

Their is no evidence to the contrary. What evidence it their to suggest that PR doesn't leak?

Just because we haven't figured out every single part of the theory of evolution doesn't mean creationism is factual.

Every expert and every document cited so far agrees. I would have though the burden of proof now lies with the 'PR doesn't leak' side of the argument.

I think you are right nixies78!

In certain circumstances, not all, if page A adds a link to page B then page A's pagerank is actually decreased. But this is limited to the case where some of the total pagerank conferred by A is 'given back'.

It's a small decrease, but a decrease nontheless.

Totally agree!

Good talking to you Gringo, I don't think I've put this much effort into a thread before, that was fun.

read here about this PR, and what it is: The importance of PR

Thanks adalmi,

another badly written 'article' that blatantly rips off Matt Cutts own blog.

Outrageous!

Yes probably that i am not English native, but SEO language is only one, and is easy understand what i explained in the blog.

As you can see all my articles are ORIGINAL.

Thx

What was the point of that post adalmi, this thread is about the how PR is calulated. Your article is off topic and you are citing it as a reference when you wrote it yourself.

It's not so much an article either it's more of a short moan that no one will swap links with you.