I’ve noticed (and so has Mittineague!) that there is a fairly common misconception around this place about exactly what PR is.
PR stands for Page Rank - therefore it applies to a page (not a site). A site can’t have a Page Rank. When people refer to their site as having PR they are usually talking about the PR of their homepage.
So before my mods have a stroke, let’s start talking about the PR of pages, not sites. 
Page Rank is actually a Google specific term and is an algorithm originally developed by Google founder Larry Page. It is named after him - (Larry) Page Rank. It would have been called that regardless of what it worked with - sites, pages, bananas or whatever.
It does still apply specifically to individual web pages though and not to web sites (but then search engines list individual web pages and not sites).
Very true.
My justification is flawed, my point still stands however!
in my opinion google ranks the pages of your site not the name of the site …there is a misconception that if you purchase a site with a high pr and redirect it to your page it will retain the pr of the site you purchase on the next pr …but it will not
Hi
Link exchange is the popular method of increasing page rank and generating maximum incoming traffic.
But i want to improve the traffic of my sites and wanna get good ranking in Google
Can anyone suggest any other means to get top 10 ranking in Google in short period of time.
<snip/>
Really? Care to explain why its against Google’s Guidelines?
You claim in your fake signature to be on SEO and you don’t know the answer to this question???
Yeah I just noticed that member posted the exact same reply here.
Expect a SP Admin to clean it up shortly…
Consider them cleaned up
What I wonder about is this
In particular this:
a site with a high pr and redirect it to your page it will retain the pr of the site
Is this all too common misapplication of the words page and site due to misinformation, just an inability to distinguish between what a site is and what a page is or what?
PR is useful to find the good site. If you have good PR it means your site is good. If you have good traffic you have good PR. So page rank described so many things.
No it doesn’t. Page Rank is a very specific Google algorithm for ranking pages based on the links to the page and the value of those links.
Nothing else apart from that goes by the name Page Rank. If you are using page rank to refer to anything apart from the algorithm named after Google founder larry Page then you are using the term incorrectly.
It’s a valuable information, I’ve noticed people searching for high PR blogs, seeing let’s say a PR6 one and adding a comment to a post. While they wait for a PR6 backlink they might receive a PR0 or N/A one, depending on what PR that very page is.
Sorry to burst your bubble Sarah but while your point of context is correct, your justification is totally flawed and incorrect (so this thread is redundant). You say a site can’t have a page rank, because PR only applies to pages… so what of single page designs (which use JavaScript, CSS3 or nothing other than careful positioning to mechanise the revealing of information), AJAX driven sites (that function on a single document) or Flash based designs who’s entire content is contained either within a single Flash file or (with alternative content) is held hidden away in the source code to give non-flash users an alternative experience. All four of those examples mean indexing relies entirely on ONE PAGE, all four mechanisms are exceptionally popular and probably buck the trend in many ways to what you may consider a conventional website - but are still a VERY common site in web design. Essentially if there’s only one page where all the information is visible to search engines but rotates to users unobtrusively (or obtrusively)… the PR will only apply to that document and thereby, the entire website. Therefore it’s wrong to say a site can’t have a PR, because it can, there’s no point discriminating against those who’s content is offered from the offset in preference to on a page by page basis.
Well spotted.
Alex, if a web “site” is a collection of pages, then by definition a “site” can’t have PR. Even if the site is a collection of 1 page.
But it’s a pretty pointless hair to split, I don’t know why you bothered.
How can a “collection” contain a single item? That totally violates the entire concept of what a collection stands for. I’m not trying to split hairs here at all, just pointing out that in certain circumstances, the use of PR in respect to a website can be entirely justified. I would hate for one of our loyal visitors to see an administrator correcting people on the basis of being politically correct when the implementation can entirely justify it’s use in the grand scheme of things.
That was your entire argument in your prior post. There you were arguing that if the collection of pages that make up the web site were in fact a single page then the Larry Page Rank algorithm applied to that single page would then effectively apply to the entire site.
Anyway a collection need not even have a single item in it in order to still be a collection. A collection can contain zero, one or ten million of whatever it is a collection of and still be a collection. After all a web site doesn’t cease to exist as a collection of web pages just because the site has less than two pages in it. A bucket doesn’t cease to be a bucket just because it has no water in it.
Larry’s algorithm is still only applied to web pages regardless of how many pages there are on a particular site. The algorithm is NEVER applied to a site. So even where the site consists of a single page the PR still applies specifically to the page and not to the site since if they add a second page that second page will have a different PR.
I’ve been a gold bullion collector ever since I saw James Bond in the Goldfinger Fort Knox scene. Guess how large my collection is so far.
You do learn something new everyday here. Who would have thought that Page Rank was named after larry page? Does this mean that Sergey Brin didn’t do anything worthwhile at Google as to not have a Brin-something named after him?
But yeah, I do agree that a site simply doesn’t have page rank Another misconception is that pages with higher page ranks tend to have higher SERP. True in some cases, but not necessarily a rule.
Oh come on! Anyone that actually KNOWS this stuff certainly wouldn’t be swayed by my original post.
I think what you’re doing is the absolute definition of splitting hairs… 
At the very least I’m pleased that the flaw in my logic has resulted in one of the more interesting threads that I’ve seen in this SEO forum for quite some time. I should make mistakes more often.
Even with a site that consists only of a single page the PR is associated with the page and not with the site. That can be easily demonstrated simply by adding a second page to the site.
Yeah, I think he’s debating the semantics, rather than the reality.