The PR is almost all about incoming links and their quality. Thus, an accurate page rank determination requires detailed knowledge of the page rank of each an every back-linked page. It would therefore be a formidable task to calculate the page rank of a high profile site such as cnn.com.
Statistically, however, if you have many incoming links, they tend to have the same rank distribution (many low quality links and fewer high quality links, and so forth). So in principle, we could try to estimate the page rank using just inbound links to a site. Moreover, since the PageRank is logarithmic in the inbound links, we could for example approximate it as:
![]() |
Figure 1 - Actual PageRank vs. inbound site links, for 120 random site. The horizontal scale is logarithmic. The nearly linear slope implies that the google PR is logarithmic as well. The linear fit gives a base 8 or so.
The linear fit has a slope of 1.12 (which implies a PR unit increase every factor 7.8 increase in the inbound links). By comparing the fit to the actual PR data, one finds that the standard deviation in PR is 1.2 PR units, and also that about 82% of the sites have a predicted PR which is the correct one or +/-1 PR unit.
Figure 2 - Histogram of the Predicted PR minus the actual PR for 120 random sites. We see that in just over 50% of the cases, the predicted PR the same as the real, while in an extra 40%, it is within one PR unit of the real value.
The standard deviation obtained with the improved fit is only 0.85, and 91% of the sites have a predicted PR which is the correct one or +/-1 PR unit. It is probably impossible to obtain a notably better fit with the data I use. To improve the PR prediction, one would in principle require more data, such as the actual PR of the back-linked pages.
Here is a calculator to estimate the PageRank of any site you wish.




Interesting Prediction
We do feel our site is underpredicted by Google PR. It is
www.LookInTheAttic.com
Your algorithm gives us a PR of 5, whereas we are stuck at a PR of 3 for nearly two years, although are traffic and sales have greatly increased.
Not sure why this is? It is somewhat strange!
Any insights?
JC
Quality! you need quality!
The current tool does not take into consideration the quality of the links, it just assumes that you have a typical distribution of links in terms of quality. However, in your case, you most likely have many low quality links, and less high quality links for an average site with a PR of 5, in fact, your site is in the bottom 10% or so of the sites in terms of quality of links.
If you had the same number of links, but their quality distribution was average, your PR would have been 5 and not 3.
Quality Links
That makes sense - is there any way you could assist us in this endeavor? It seems like you know a lot about the Google PR system. Please contact me if you are interested.
Thanks,
John
Not Really, cannot help.
There are a few things you can do with you site (e.g., make sure all the pages link to each other well), but you cannot avoid the number one necessity... good quality links. With this I cannot help you much since I don't deel with commercial sites (my experience is with science related ones only, like mine).
Good luck with you endeavor.
Nir
Temporarily down due to bad links
Hi!
What's the meaning of "Temporarily down due to bad links"? How did your algorithm get the information that my website (EapTips) has bad links and what are these bad links?
Thanks!
Saverio
Thanks for sharing
Wow, wonderful content. Thanks for sharing. Learned a lot