Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

PageRanking

What is PageRank?

PageRank is a numeric value that represents how important a page is on the web. Google figures that when one page links to another page, it is effectively casting a vote for the other page. The more votes that are cast for a page, the more important the page must be. Also, the importance of the page that is casting the vote determines how important the vote itself is. Google calculates a page's importance from the votes cast for it. How important each vote is is taken into account when a page's PageRank is calculated.
PageRank is Google's way of deciding a page's importance. It matters because it is one of the factors that determines a page's ranking in the search results. It isn't the only factor that Google uses to rank pages, but it is an important one.

How is PageRank calculated?

To calculate the PageRank for a page, all of its inbound links are taken into account. These are links from within the site and links from outside the site.

PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn))

That's the equation that calculates a page's PageRank. It's the original one that was published when PageRank was being developed, and it is probable that Google uses a variation of it but they aren't telling us what it is. It doesn't matter though, as this equation is good enough.

In the equation 't1 - tn' are pages linking to page A, 'C' is the number of outbound links that a page has and 'd' is a damping factor, usually set to 0.85.

We can think of it in a simpler way:-

a page's PageRank = 0.15 + 0.85 * (a "share" of the PageRank of every page that links to it)

"share" = the linking page's PageRank divided by the number of outbound links on the page.

A page "votes" an amount of PageRank onto each page that it links to. The amount of PageRank that it has to vote with is a little less than its own PageRank value (its own value * 0.85). This value is shared equally between all the pages that it links to.

From this, we could conclude that a link from a page with PR4 and 5 outbound links is worth more than a link from a page with PR8 and 100 outbound links. The PageRank of a page that links to yours is important but the number of links on that page is also important. The more links there are on a page, the less PageRank value your page will receive from it.

If the PageRank value differences between PR1, PR2,.....PR10 were equal then that conclusion would hold up, but many people believe that the values between PR1 and PR10 (the maximum) are set on a logarithmic scale, and there is very good reason for believing it. Nobody outside Google knows for sure one way or the other, but the chances are high that the scale is logarithmic, or similar. If so, it means that it takes a lot more additional PageRank for a page to move up to the next PageRank level that it did to move up from the previous PageRank level. The result is that it reverses the previous conclusion, so that a link from a PR8 page that has lots of outbound links is worth more than a link from a PR4 page that has only a few outbound links.

Whichever scale Google uses, we can be sure of one thing. A link from another site increases our site's PageRank. Just remember to avoid links from link farms.

Note that when a page votes its PageRank value to other pages, its own PageRank is not reduced by the value that it is voting. The page doing the voting doesn't give away its PageRank and end up with nothing. It isn't a transfer of PageRank. It is simply a vote according to the page's PageRank value. It's like a shareholders meeting where each shareholder votes according to the number of shares held, but the shares themselves aren't given away. Even so, pages do lose some PageRank indirectly, as we'll see later.

Ok so far? Good. Now we'll look at how the calculations are actually done.

For a page's calculation, its existing PageRank (if it has any) is abandoned completely and a fresh calculation is done where the page relies solely on the PageRank "voted" for it by its current inbound links, which may have changed since the last time the page's PageRank was calculated.

The equation shows clearly how a page's PageRank is arrived at. But what isn't immediately obvious is that it can't work if the calculation is done just once. Suppose we have 2 pages, A and B, which link to each other, and neither have any other links of any kind. This is what happens:-

Step 1: Calculate page A's PageRank from the value of its inbound links

Page A now has a new PageRank value. The calculation used the value of the inbound link from page B. But page B has an inbound link (from page A) and its new PageRank value hasn't been worked out yet, so page A's new PageRank value is based on inaccurate data and can't be accurate.

Step 2: Calculate page B's PageRank from the value of its inbound links

Page B now has a new PageRank value, but it can't be accurate because the calculation used the new PageRank value of the inbound link from page A, which is inaccurate.

It's a Catch 22 situation. We can't work out A's PageRank until we know B's PageRank, and we can't work out B's PageRank until we know A's PageRank.

Now that both pages have newly calculated PageRank values, can't we just run the calculations again to arrive at accurate values? No. We can run the calculations again using the new values and the results will be more accurate, but we will always be using inaccurate values for the calculations, so the results will always be inaccurate.

The problem is overcome by repeating the calculations many times. Each time produces slightly more accurate values. In fact, total accuracy can never be achieved because the calculations are always based on inaccurate values. 40 to 50 iterations are sufficient to reach a point where any further iterations wouldn't produce enough of a change to the values to matter. This is precisiely what Google does at each update, and it's the reason why the updates take so long.

One thing to bear in mind is that the results we get from the calculations are proportions. The figures must then be set against a scale (known only to Google) to arrive at each page's actual PageRank. Even so, we can use the calculations to channel the PageRank within a site around its pages so that certain pages receive a higher proportion of it than others.

NOTE:
You may come across explanations of PageRank where the same equation is stated but the result of each iteration of the calculation is added to the page's existing PageRank. The new value (result + existing PageRank) is then used when sharing PageRank with other pages. These explanations are wrong for the following reasons:-

1. They quote the same, published equation - but then change it

from PR(A) = (1-d) + d(......) to PR(A) = PR(A) + (1-d) + d(......)

It isn't correct, and it isn't necessary.

2. We will be looking at how to organize links so that certain pages end up with a larger proportion of the PageRank than others. Adding to the page's existing PageRank through the iterations produces different proportions than when the equation is used as published. Since the addition is not a part of the published equation, the results are wrong and the proportioning isn't accurate.

According to the published equation, the page being calculated starts from scratch at each iteration. It relies solely on its inbound links. The 'add to the existing PageRank' idea doesn't do that, so its results are necessarily wrong.

[TOP]

Internal linking

Fact: A website has a maximum amount of PageRank that is distributed between its pages by internal links.

The maximum PageRank in a site equals the number of pages in the site * 1. The maximum is increased by inbound links from other sites and decreased by outbound links to other sites. We are talking about the overall PageRank in the site and not the PageRank of any individual page. You don't have to take my word for it. You can reach the same conclusion by using a pencil and paper and the equation.

Fact: The maximum amount of PageRank in a site increases as the number of pages in the site increases.

The more pages that a site has, the more PageRank it has. Again, by using a pencil and paper and the equation, you can come to the same conclusion. Bear in mind that the only pages that count are the ones that Google knows about.

Fact: By linking poorly, it is possible to fail to reach the site's maximum PageRank, but it is not possible to exceed it.

Poor internal linkages can cause a site to fall short of its maximum but no kind of internal link structure can cause a site to exceed it. The only way to increase the maximum is to add more inbound links and/or increase the number of pages in the site.

Cautions: Whilst I thoroughly recommend creating and adding new pages to increase a site's total PageRank so that it can be channeled to specific pages, there are certain types of pages that should not be added. These are pages that are all identical or very nearly identical and are known as cookie-cutters. Google considers them to be spam and they can trigger an alarm that causes the pages, and possibly the entire site, to be penalized. Pages full of good content are a must.

What can we do with this 'overall' PageRank?

We are going to look at some example calculations to see how a site's PageRank can be manipulated, but before doing that, I need to point out that a page will be included in the Google index only if one or more pages on the web link to it. That's according to Google. If a page is not in the Google index, any links from it can't be included in the calculations.

For the examples, we are going to ignore that fact, mainly because other 'Pagerank Explained' type documents ignore it in the calculations, and it might be confusing when comparing documents. The calculator operates in two modes:- Simple and Real. In Simple mode, the calculations assume that all pages are in the Google index, whether or not any other pages link to them. In Real mode the calculations disregard unlinked-to pages. These examples show the results as calculated in Simple mode.

Let's consider a 3 page site (pages A, B and C) with no links coming in from the outside. We will allocate each page an initial PageRank of 1, although it makes no difference whether we start each page with 1, 0 or 99. Apart from a few millionths of a PageRank point, after many iterations the end result is always the same. Starting with 1 requires fewer iterations for the PageRanks to converge to a suitable result than when starting with 0 or any other number. You may want to use a pencil and paper to follow this or you can follow it with the calculator.

The site's maximum PageRank is the amount of PageRank in the site. In this case, we have 3 pages so the site's maximum is 3.

At the moment, none of the pages link to any other pages and none link to them. If you make the calculation once for each page, you'll find that each of them ends up with a PageRank of 0.15. No matter how many iterations you run, each page's PageRank remains at 0.15. The total PageRank in the site = 0.45, whereas it could be 3. The site is seriously wasting most of its potential PageRank.

Example 1

Now begin again with each page being allocated PR1. Link page A to page B and run the calculations for each page. We end up with:-
Page A = 0.15
Page B = 1
Page C = 0.15

Page A has "voted" for page B and, as a result, page B's PageRank has increased. This is looking good for page B, but it's only 1 iteration - we haven't taken account of the Catch 22 situation. Look at what happens to the figures after more iterations:-

After 100 iterations the figures are:-
Page A = 0.15
Page B = 0.2775
Page C = 0.15

It still looks good for page B but nowhere near as good as it did. These figures are more realistic. The total PageRank in the site is now 0.5775 - slightly better but still only a fraction of what it could be.

NOTE:
Technically, these particular results are incorrect because of the special treatment that Google gives to dangling links, but they serve to demonstrate the simple calculation.

Example 2

Try this linkage. Link all pages to all pages. Each page starts with PR1 again. This produces:-
Page A = 1
Page B = 1
Page C = 1

Now we've achieved the maximum. No matter how many iterations are run, each page always ends up with PR1. The same results occur by linking in a loop. E.g. A to B, B to C and C to D. View this in the calculator.

This has demonstrated that, by poor linking, it is quite easy to waste PageRank and by good linking, we can achieve a site's full potential. But we don't particularly want all the site's pages to have an equal share. We want one or more pages to have a larger share at the expense of others. The kinds of pages that we might want to have the larger shares are the index page, hub pages and pages that are optimized for certain search terms. We have only 3 pages, so we'll channel the PageRank to the index page - page A. It will serve to show the idea of channeling.

Example 3

Now try this. Link page A to both B and C. Also link pages B and C to A. Starting with PR1 all round, after 1 iteration the results are:-
Page A = 1.85
Page B = 0.575
Page C = 0.575

and after 100 iterations, the results are:-
Page A = 1.459459
Page B = 0.7702703
Page C = 0.7702703

In both cases the total PageRank in the site is 3 (the maximum) so none is being wasted. Also in both cases you can see that page A has a much larger proportion of the PageRank than the other 2 pages. This is because pages B and C are passing PageRank to A and not to any other pages. We have channeled a large proportion of the site's PageRank to where we wanted it.

Example 4

Finally, keep the previous links and add a link from page C to page B. Start again with PR1 all round. After 1 iteration:-
Page A = 1.425
Page B = 1
Page C = 0.575

By comparison to the 1 iteration figures in the previous example, page A has lost some PageRank, page B has gained some and page C stayed the same. Page C now shares its "vote" between A and B. Previously A received all of it. That's why page A has lost out and why page B has gained. and after 100 iterations:-
Page A = 1.298245
Page B = 0.9999999
Page C = 0.7017543

When the dust has settled, page C has lost a little PageRank because, having now shared its vote between A and B, instead of giving it all to A, A has less to give to C in the A-->C link. So adding an extra link from a page causes the page to lose PageRank indirectly if any of the pages that it links to return the link. If the pages that it links to don't return the link, then no PageRank loss would have occured. To make it more complicated, if the link is returned even indirectly (via a page that links to a page that links to a page etc), the page will lose a little PageRank. This isn't really important with internal links, but it does matter when linking to pages outside the site.

Example 5: new pages

Adding new pages to a site is an important way of increasing a site's total PageRank because each new page will add an average of 1 to the total. Once the new pages have been added, their new PageRank can be channeled to the important pages. We'll use the calculator to demonstrate these.

Let's add 3 new pages to Example 3 [view]. Three new pages but they don't do anything for us yet. The small increase in the Total, and the new pages' 0.15, are unrealistic as we shall see. So let's link them into the site.

Link each of the new pages to the important page, page A [view]. Notice that the Total PageRank has doubled, from 3 (without the new pages) to 6. Notice also that page A's PageRank has almost doubled.

There is one thing wrong with this model. The new pages are orphans. They wouldn't get into Google's index, so they wouldn't add any PageRank to the site and they wouldn't pass any PageRank to page A. They each need to be linked to from at least one other page. If page A is the important page, the best page to put the links on is, surprisingly, page A [view]. You can play around with the links but, from page A's point of view, there isn't a better place for them.

It is not a good idea for one page to link to a large number of pages so, if you are adding many new pages, spread the links around. The chances are that there is more than one important page in a site, so it is usually suitable to spread the links to and from the new pages. You can use the calculator to experiment with mini-models of a site to find the best links that produce the best results for its important pages.

Examples summary

You can see that, by organising the internal links, it is possible to channel a site's PageRank to selected pages. Internal links can be arranged to suit a site's PageRank needs, but it is only useful if Google knows about the pages, so do try to ensure that Google spiders them.

Inbound and Outbound links

Examples of these could be given but it is probably clearer to read about them (below) and to 'play' with them in the calculator.

Questions

When a page has several links to another page, are all the links counted?

E.g. if page A links once to page B and 3 times to page C, does page C receive 3/4 of page A's shareable PageRank?

The PageRank concept is that a page casts votes for one or more other pages. Nothing is said in the original PageRank document about a page casting more than one vote for a single page. The idea seems to be against the PageRank concept and would certainly be open to manipulation by unrealistically proportioning votes for target pages. E.g. if an outbound link, or a link to an unimportant page, is necessary, add a bunch of links to an important page to minimize the effect.

Since we are unlikely to get a definitive answer from Google, it is reasonable to assume that a page can cast only one vote for another page, and that additional votes for the same page are not counted.

When a page links to itself, is the link counted?

Again, the concept is that pages cast votes for other pages. Nothing is said in the original document about pages casting votes for themselves. The idea seems to be against the concept and, also, it would be another way to manipulate the results. So, for those reasons, it is reasonable to assume that a page can't vote for itself, and that such links are not counted.

[TOP]

Dangling links

"Dangling links are simply links that point to any page with no outgoing links. They affect the model because it is not clear where their weight should be distributed, and there are a large number of them. Often these dangling links are simply pages that we have not downloaded yet..........Because dangling links do not affect the ranking of any other page directly, we simply remove them from the system until all the PageRanks are calculated. After all the PageRanks are calculated they can be added back in without affecting things significantly." - extract from the original PageRank paper by Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.

A dangling link is a link to a page that has no links going from it, or a link to a page that Google hasn't indexed. In both cases Google removes the links shortly after the start of the calculations and reinstates them shortly before the calculations are finished. In this way, their effect on the PageRank of other pages in minimal.

The results shown in Example 1 (right diag.) are wrong because page B has no links going from it, and so the link from page A to page B is dangling and would be removed from the calculations. The results of the calculations would show all three pages as having 0.15.

It may suit site functionality to link to pages that have no links going from them without losing any PageRank from the other pages but it would be waste of potential PageRank. Take a look at this example. The site's potential is 5 because it has 5 pages, but without page E linked in, the site only has 4.15.

Link page A to page E and click Calculate. Notice that the site's total has gone down very significantly. But, because the new link is dangling and would be removed from the calculations, we can ignore the new total and assume the previous 4.15 to be true. That's the effect of functionally useful, dangling links in the site. There's no overall PageRank loss.

However, some of the site's potential total is still being wasted, so link Page E back to Page A and click Calculate. Now we have the maximum PageRank that is possible with 5 pages. Nothing is being wasted.

Although it may be functionally good to link to pages within the site without those pages linking out again, it is bad for PageRank. It is pointless wasting PageRank unnecessarily, so always make sure that every page in the site links out to at least one other page in the site.

[TOP]

Inbound links

Inbound links (links into the site from the outside) are one way to increase a site's total PageRank. The other is to add more pages. Where the links come from doesn't matter. Google recognizes that a webmaster has no control over other sites linking into a site, and so sites are not penalized because of where the links come from. There is an exception to this rule but it is rare and doesn't concern this article. It isn't something that a webmaster can accidentally do.

The linking page's PageRank is important, but so is the number of links going from that page. For instance, if you are the only link from a page that has a lowly PR2, you will receive an injection of 0.15 + 0.85(2/1) = 1.85 into your site, whereas a link from a PR8 page that has another 99 links from it will increase your site's PageRank by 0.15 + 0.85(7/100) = 0.2095. Clearly, the PR2 link is much better - or is it? See here for a probable reason why this is not the case.

Once the PageRank is injected into your site, the calculations are done again and each page's PageRank is changed. Depending on the internal link structure, some pages' PageRank is increased, some are unchanged but no pages lose any PageRank.

It is beneficial to have the inbound links coming to the pages to which you are channeling your PageRank. A PageRank injection to any other page will be spread around the site through the internal links. The important pages will receive an increase, but not as much of an increase as when they are linked to directly. The page that receives the inbound link, makes the biggest gain.

It is easy to think of our site as being a small, self-contained network of pages. When we do the PageRank calculations we are dealing with our small network. If we make a link to another site, we lose some of our network's PageRank, and if we receive a link, our network's PageRank is added to. But it isn't like that. For the PageRank calculations, there is only one network - every page that Google has in its index. Each iteration of the calculation is done on the entire network and not on individual websites.

Because the entire network is interlinked, and every link and every page plays its part in each iteration of the calculations, it is impossible for us to calculate the effect of inbound links to our site with any realistic accuracy.

[TOP]

Outbound links

Outbound links are a drain on a site's total PageRank. They leak PageRank. To counter the drain, try to ensure that the links are reciprocated. Because of the PageRank of the pages at each end of an external link, and the number of links out from those pages, reciprocal links can gain or lose PageRank. You need to take care when choosing where to exchange links.

When PageRank leaks from a site via a link to another site, all the pages in the internal link structure are affected. (This doesn't always show after just 1 iteration). The page that you link out from makes a difference to which pages suffer the most loss. Without a program to perform the calculations on specific link structures, it is difficult to decide on the right page to link out from, but the generalization is to link from the one with the lowest PageRank.

Many websites need to contain some outbound links that are nothing to do with PageRank. Unfortunately, all 'normal' outbound links leak PageRank. But there are 'abnormal' ways of linking to other sites that don't result in leaks. PageRank is leaked when Google recognizes a link to another site. The answer is to use links that Google doesn't recognize or count. These include form actions and links contained in javascript code.

Form actions
A form's 'action' attribute does not need to be the url of a form parsing script. It can point to any html page on any site. Try it.

Example:

Click here

To be really sneaky, the action attribute could be in some javascript code rather than in the form tag, and the javascript code could be loaded from a 'js' file stored in a directory that is barred to Google's spider by the robots.txt file.

Javascript
Example: Click here

Like the form action, it is sneaky to load the javascript code, which contains the urls, from a seperate 'js' file, and sneakier still if the file is stored in a directory that is barred to googlebot by the robots.txt file.

The "rel" attribute
As of 18th January 2005, Google, together with other search engines, is recognising a new attribute to the anchor tag. The attribute is "rel", and it is used as follows:-

link text

The attribute tells Google to ignore the link completely. The link won't help the target page's PageRank, and it won't help its rankings. It is as though the link doesn't exist. With this attribute, there is no longer any need for javascript, forms, or any other method of hiding links from Google.

[TOP]

So how much additional PageRank do we need to move up the toolbar?

First, let me explain in more detail why the values shown in the Google toolbar are not the actual PageRank figures. According to the equation, and to the creators of Google, the billions of pages on the web average out to a PageRank of 1.0 per page. So the total PageRank on the web is equal to the number of pages on the web * 1, which equals a lot of PageRank spread around the web.

The Google toolbar range is from 1 to 10. (They sometimes show 0, but that figure isn't believed to be a PageRank calculation result). What Google does is divide the full range of actual PageRanks on the web into 10 parts - each part is represented by a value as shown in the toolbar. So the toolbar values only show what part of the overall range a page's PageRank is in, and not the actual PageRank itself. The numbers in the toolbar are just labels.

Whether or not the overall range is divided into 10 equal parts is a matter for debate - Google aren't saying. But because it is much harder to move up a toolbar point at the higher end than it is at the lower end, many people (including me) believe that the divisions are based on a logarithmic scale, or something very similar, rather than the equal divisions of a linear scale.

Let's assume that it is a logarithmic, base 10 scale, and that it takes 10 properly linked new pages to move a site's important page up 1 toolbar point. It will take 100 new pages to move it up another point, 1000 new pages to move it up one more, 10,000 to the next, and so on. That's why moving up at the lower end is much easier that at the higher end.

In reality, the base is unlikely to be 10. Some people think it is around the 5 or 6 mark, and maybe even less. Even so, it still gets progressively harder to move up a toolbar point at the higher end of the scale.

Note that as the number of pages on the web increases, so does the total PageRank on the web, and as the total PageRank increases, the positions of the divisions in the overall scale must change. As a result, some pages drop a toolbar point for no 'apparent' reason. If the page's actual PageRank was only just above a division in the scale, the addition of new pages to the web would cause the division to move up slightly and the page would end up just below the division. Google's index is always increasing and they re-evaluate each of the pages on more or less a monthly basis. It's known as the "Google dance". When the dance is over, some pages will have dropped a toolbar point. A number of new pages might be all that is needed to get the point back after the next dance.

The toolbar value is a good indicator of a page's PageRank but it only indicates that a page is in a certain range of the overall scale. One PR5 page could be just above the PR5 division and another PR5 page could be just below the PR6 division - almost a whole division (toolbar point) between them.

[TOP]

Tips

Domain names and Filenames

To a spider, www.domain.com/, domain.com/, www.domain.com/index.html and domain.com/index.html are different urls and, therefore, different pages. Surfers arrive at the site's home page whichever of the urls are used, but spiders see them as individual urls, and it makes a difference when working out the PageRank. It is better to standardize the url you use for the site's home page. Otherwise each url can end up with a different PageRank, whereas all of it should have gone to just one url.

If you think about it, how can a spider know the filename of the page that it gets back when requesting www.domain.com/ ? It can't. The filename could be index.html, index.htm, index.php, default.html, etc. The spider doesn't know. If you link to index.html within the site, the spider could compare the 2 pages but that seems unlikely. So they are 2 urls and each receives PageRank from inbound links. Standardizing the home page's url ensures that the Pagerank it is due isn't shared with ghost urls.

Example: Go to my UK Holidays and UK Holiday Accommodation site - how's that for a nice piece of link text ;). Notice that the url in the browser's address bar contains "www.". If you have the Google Toolbar installed, you will see that the page has PR5. Now remove the "www." part of the url and get the page again. This time it has PR1, and yet they are the same page. Actually, the PageRank is for the unseen frameset page.

When this article was first written, the non-www URL had PR4 due to using different versions of the link URLs within the site. It had the effect of sharing the page's PageRank between the 2 pages (the 2 versions) and, therefore, between the 2 sites. That's not the best way to do it. Since then, I've tidied up the internal linkages and got the non-www version down to PR1 so that the PageRank within the site mostly stays in the "www." version, but there must be a site somewhere that links to it without the "www." that's causing the PR1.

Imagine the page, www.domain.com/index.html. The index page contains links to several relative urls; e.g. products.html and details.html. The spider sees those urls as www.domain.com/products.html and www.domain.com/details.html. Now let's add an absolute url for another page, only this time we'll leave out the "www." part - domain.com/anotherpage.html. This page links back to the index.html page, so the spider sees the index pages as domain.com/index.html. Although it's the same index page as the first one, to a spider, it is a different page because it's on a different domain. Now look what happens. Each of the relative urls on the index page is also different because it belongs to the domain.com/ domain. Consequently, the link stucture is wasting a site's potential PageRank by spreading it between ghost pages.

Adding new pages

There is a possible negative effect of adding new pages. Take a perfectly normal site. It has some inbound links from other sites and its pages have some PageRank. Then a new page is added to the site and is linked to from one or more of the existing pages. The new page will, of course, aquire PageRank from the site's existing pages. The effect is that, whilst the total PageRank in the site is increased, one or more of the existing pages will suffer a PageRank loss due to the new page making gains. Up to a point, the more new pages that are added, the greater is the loss to the existing pages. With large sites, this effect is unlikely to be noticed but, with smaller ones, it probably would.

So, although adding new pages does increase the total PageRank within the site, some of the site's pages will lose PageRank as a result. The answer is to link new pages is such a way within the site that the important pages don't suffer, or add sufficient new pages to make up for the effect (that can sometimes mean adding a large number of new pages), or better still, get some more inbound links.

Miscellaneous

The Google toolbar
If you have the Google toolbar installed in your browser, you will be used to seeing each page's PageRank as you browse the web. But all isn't always as it seems. Many pages that Google displays the PageRank for haven't been indexed in Google and certainly don't have any PageRank in their own right. What is happening is that one or more pages on the site have been indexed and a PageRank has been calculated. The PageRank figure for the site's pages that haven't been indexed is allocated on the fly - just for your toolbar. The PageRank itself doesn't exist.

It's important to know this so that you can avoid exchanging links with pages that really don't have any PageRank of their own. Before making exchanges, search for the page on Google to make sure that it is indexed.

Sub-directories
Some people believe that Google drops a page's PageRank by a value of 1 for each sub-directory level below the root directory. E.g. if the value of pages in the root directory is generally around 4, then pages in the next directory level down will be generally around 3, and so on down the levels. Other people (including me) don't accept that at all. Either way, because some spiders tend to avoid deep sub-directories, it is generally considered to be beneficial to keep directory structures shallow (directories one or two levels below the root).

ODP and Yahoo!
It used to be thought that Google gave a Pagerank boost to sites that are listed in the Yahoo! and ODP (a.k.a. DMOZ) directories, but these days general opinion is that they don't. There is certainly a PageRank gain for sites that are listed in those directories, but the reason for it is now thought to be this:-

Google spiders the directories just like any other site and their pages have decent PageRank and so they are good inbound links to have. In the case of the ODP, Google's directory is a copy of the ODP directory. Each time that sites are added and dropped from the ODP, they are added and dropped from Google's directory when they next update it. The entry in Google's directory is yet another good, PageRank boosting, inbound link. Also, the ODP data is used for searches on a myriad of websites - more inbound links!

Listings in the ODP are free but, because sites are reviewed by hand, it can take quite a long time to get in. The sooner a working site is submitted, the better. For tips on submitting to DMOZ, see this this DMOZ article.

Comments and suggestions
Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Please post in the forum if you have any.

Economic recession in the world

These days everybody is talking about some recession. However most of them don’t know much about it. Just they know that the world economy is suffering from recession. Today I will discuss what exactly economic recession is. If I refer any economics book, there I will see that the word ‘recession’ means reduction of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) for at least two quarters. Let’s see the official meaning of recession from the United States-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). It defines economic recession as “a significant decline in the economic activity spread across the country, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.”
There is one more term called depression which is more severe than a recession. Depression is the extreme case of recession, a depression is normally characterized by abnormal increases in unemployment, restriction of credit, price deflation or hyperinflation, shrinking output and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations, mostly devaluations. The most well-known depression is the Great Depression of 1929 that affected most of the economies in the world for around ten years. The depression began during the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
But let’s forget the depression, focus on recession, better say the latest recession which has created troubles in our lives. The most important reasons for economic recession of 2008-2009 are high oil prices, high food prices, and a important credit crisis leading to the bankruptcy of large and well established investment banks like Lehman brothers as well as commercial banks in many nations around the world. These fluctuations in world economy has caused increased unemployment, high price rises etc. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has predicted that at least 20 million jobs will have been lost by the end of 2009 due to the crisis – mostly in “construction, real estate, financial services and the auto sector” – bringing world unemployment above 200 million.

In the early 1920s Germany experienced one of the most severe inflations of all time.1 The inflation was not apparent in 1920, but began showing up in 1921. Thereafter it got steadily worse until it came to an abrupt halt at the end of 1923. At its worst in the second half of 1923, prices rose more than fivefold each week
Some idea of the magnitude of this catastrophe can be seen in table below. During 1920 and early in 1921 the signs of inflation were mixed. The price of food was increasing, but the price of dollars in terms of marks (the mark was the name of the German currency) was dropping, and so were the prices of products bought from the United States. However, the signs of inflation were unmistakable in the next year, from mid 1921 to mid 1922. In this period prices increased about six fold--that is, it took six marks at the end of the period to buy what one mark would have bought at the beginning. But this rapid inflation, greater than any yearly inflation in the history of the United States, was only a prelude for what was to happen.

MEASURES OF GERMANY HYPERINFLATION
Percentage Change in Various Measures of Inflation
Dates Internal Prices Price of Dollars Cost of Living*
Feb 1920 to May 1921 4.6% -37.2% 39.2%
May 1921 to July 1922 634.6% 692.2% 417.9%
July 1922 to June 1923 18094% 22201% 13573%
July 1923 to Nov 20 1923 854,000,000,000% 381,700,000,000% 560,000,000,000%
*food until June 1923, thereafter based on all items. These data were calculated by the Statistical Bureau of the Reich. All data are from The Economics of Inflation: A Study of Currency Depreciation in Post-War Germany by Costantino Bresciani-Turroni (Augustus Kelley), pp. 30, 33, 35-6.


From the middle of 1922 until the middle of 1923, prices increased by over 100 times. Measured by the price of food, prices were 135 times higher at the end of the period than they were at the beginning. Measured by how many marks it took to buy a dollar, prices were 222 times higher. Yet even this horrid inflation was mild compared to what happened from July to November of 1923, when prices increased by somewhere between a million and a billion times their previous level.
The rapid increase in German inflation can be seen in the postage stamps that were issued during this period. (See the picture below.) In 1920 the highest valued stamp issued was for four marks. In 1923 the denominations were changing so rapidly that the post office could not design new stamps fast enough and resorted to using old dies and then overprinting them with new values. The highest value reached in 1923 was for 50 billion (50,000,000,000) marks. A great many of these stamps must have been issued and bought, though not necessarily used, because very few of the almost 200 varieties of stamps issued from 1921 to 1923 have more than.minimal collector's value. Also, stamps that were post ally used during the period have a higher collector's value than stamps that were never used a pattern that is quite unusual.

Inflation hurts some people but helps others by redistributing wealth and income. Buyers, for example, are hurt by higher prices, but offsetting this is the gain that the producers get from the higher prices. People on fixed incomes will suffer, as will creditors, who are owed fixed amounts of money in the future. On the other hand, those making fixed payments, such as most debtors, will benefit. The German hyperinflation illustrates the redistribution that inflation causes in a dramatic way. It eliminated the value of all life insurance policies and all savings left in banks. When life insurance policies were paid in 1923, the value of the check was usually worth much less than the stamp used to post the letter. The hyperinflation eliminated all debts that existed prior to 1921. For example, the value of German mortgages in 1913 measured in U.S. dollars was about $10 billion; in late 1923 these mortgages were worth only one U.S. penny.
By 1924 the inflation had radically redistributed the wealth of Germany. The segment of society that was hit the hardest seems to have been the middle class. The poor had little wealth to lose while the rich were often able to get their wealth into forms not adversely affected by inflation. Wealth held in foreign bank accounts, gold and precious metals, and land maintained value.
If redistribution were the only effect of inflation, one could argue that it is not a serious problem. Since for every loser there is a winner, society as a whole may break even (if this redistribution is not seen as being too "unfair"). However, inflation also makes ordinary decisions more difficult to make, and it causes people to change their behavior. The changes in behavior, which cause social losses, are again dramatically illustrated in a hyperinflation.
Coping with a situation in which prices could double in a day meant changes in the way people organized their financial affairs. Wages were paid daily or several times a day, and the whole family would immediately go out and spend the money before it lost value. In The Black Obelisk, a novel set in 1923, Erich Maria Remarque describes this practice:
"Workmen are given their pay twice a day now--in the morning and in the afternoon, with a recess of a half-hour each time so that they can rush out and buy things--for if they waited a few hours the value of their money would drop so far that their children would not get half enough food to feel satisfied."2 Getting rid of money was the key to financial survival since it lost its value so quickly.
Merchants eventually found that they could not mark up prices as fast as they were rising.
"So they left the price marks as they were and posted (hourly) a new multiplication factor. The actual price marked on the goods had to be multiplied by this factor to determine the price which had to be paid for the goods. Every hour the merchant would call up the bank and receive the latest quotation upon the dollar. He would then alter his multiplication factor to suit and would perhaps add a bit in anticipation of the next quotation. Banks had whole batteries of telephone boys who answered each call as follows: '100 milliarden, bitte sehr, guten Tag.' Which meant: 'The present quotation on the dollar is 100 billion marks, thank you, good day.'"3
The great inflation led to a large waste of society's resources. Just coping with the rapid change required resources--the extra bank clerks that Bopp mentions are but one example. Talented people no longer tried to earn money by productive activity, but sought ways to stay ahead of inflation, an activity unlikely to have any social benefits. Fortunes were made by those who speculated on the continued worsening of inflation. People who borrowed heavily almost always did well.
People dislike inflation because it redistributes in ways they consider unfair, because it forces them to take actions to protect them, and because it makes decisions more difficult to make. Decisions to buy, sell, or invest are based on a person's knowledge of what normal prices are and this knowledge of normal prices is based on remembering past prices. With inflation, a person must remember not only past prices, but also the dates of those past prices, and then must try to compute what their present equivalents would be. Because our mental capacity to handle large amounts of information is limited, and because inflation requires us to handle more information in order to make decisions, inflation, even when it is perfectly predicted, reduces our ability to make good decisions. People like stable prices because they minimize the cost of making economic decisions.
The German hyperinflation came to an abrupt end in November of 1923. The man who received credit for this achievement was named Hjalmar Schacht, the new currency commissioner of the Weimar Republic. In his autobiography he mentions a little poem that indicated his popularity among common folk:
"Wer hat die Mark stabil gemacht,
Das war allein der Doktor Schacht."
This can be loosely translated as:
Who could make the mark stable?
Only Hjalmar Schacht was able.
He was less popular with those who borrowed heavily on the assumption that prices would continue to rise. Stabilization led to large losses for them, and in some cases unmade huge fortunes that inflation had built.The German hyperinflation is an example of a major economic catastrophe, one that cries out for explanation. Did some defect in the economic system cause this disaster? Was it accidental, due to an unlikely combination of circumstances? Was it due to error on the part of government policy makers? Can a society take steps to insure that a similar disaster does not happen to it? These are important questions, questions that economists have spent years studying. However, the German hyperinflation is an example of only one type of economic disaster. Another type was illustrated in the United States during the 1930s.

World economic recession & Bangladesh
World economic recession is going on since 2007. The main reason of this recession is the crisis of mortgaged loan of USA which has started in housing sector where sub prime were lending
verily. The economists known two prime reasons of this recession one is sub prime lending & another is hysterical credit default. Its also true that, this world recession increasing also for ecological disaster e.g. fire of Australia & draught in California. Many people lost their jobs & back to their country as the starting of this recession is in America. About 6 lakhs & 51 thousands people lost their job in February 2008 & in January this number was 6 lakhs 55 thousands. To face this problem many companies cut their workers. Almost 1 crore people of the world lost their job in 2008.

The effect of this recession is coming in small companies. On 26 January 2009 heavy machinery company CATARPILLAR, Medicine Company FIZER, Telecom Company SPRINT NEXTOR CORPORATION & Infrastructure Company HOME DIPO took decision to cut their workers. Bankrupt companies are increasing in number in USA. The export market of China fallen on because of Banking crisis and many people are losing work. In Japan, Spain, England, Russia, Germany, Mexico, Latin America and also Caribbean's countries contracted their job market. Bangladesh is not free from this recession. It’s telling that 3 million people can loss their job of Bangladesh in this year, side by side poverty is increasing here. This recession affected on our export. According to export development bureau during last 7 months the exporting of raw jute decreased 15.20%, jute goods 19.80%, leather 31.80% & refrigerated foods 5%.

BGMEA said their export decreased in January by 4.98% in February by 17.58% as our cloth mostly goes in USA & Europe so it greatly affects our industry. This recession greatly affected our manpower export as well. In the meantime Malaysia, Kuwait, Dubai, & Saudi Arabia returned back our workers. Malaysia cancelled the visa of 55 thousands workers. All the countries who are importing our manpower are going to cut our workers.

Whenever this world recession affected in our manpower exporting it also affects our payment. It is shown that the income from payment decreased 250 crore in February than January 2009 from Middle East. This recession also greatly affected our industry where jute, sugar, spinning mills are about to die. Our textiles are also falling in danger. From the 80 mills of jute products 17 are fully stopped, 11 of these mills are working incompletely & other mills also are in the way to stop. Out of 25 lakhs workers, 1 lakhs labor has lost their job in spinning mills, 50 thousands labor are jobless. The unsold goods of spinning mills are tk 30 thousands crore. To protect this recession government, already took many steps. Our minister went to Malaysia to save visa of 55 thousands labor. Prime minister went to Saudi Arabia to solve the problem of Bangladeshi workers.
Finance minister A M A Muhit declared a motivation package. This package is of 3424 crore tk where 13% is for export, 43% for agriculture, 18% for power, 11% for food & 15% for agriculture loan.

In this package there is no motivation for RMG sector which is urgently needed. Though almost all economists welcomed this package but they said there is no definite guidance there.
Its true that this package is not enough to check our problem but it is a motivation package. It
requires more steps. We think this package will be implemented perfectly & Bangladesh will be succeeded to free from this constant recession.

Bangladesh announces stimulus package for economic recession
Finance Minister MA Muhith has declared the long awaiting motivation package to fight economic recession in Bangladesh. Finance Minster said that the package is not all. Government is also giving tax rebit and banks will give more credit support to the businesses.
The package was appreciated by the economists but to business leaders it falls short of opportunity, specially the garments sector feels that it was neglected in the package.
The Daily Star in its editorial urges the government to reach the target sector in time. A Star Analysis says it is a wise first recession step. Motivation package also puzzles the leather industry. Primary Textile Sector also urge the government to extend the motivation to the textile industries. MA Muhith, Minister for Finance said that necessary modifications will be made to relieve the grievances and said spinners will be included in the package. Recession is already creped into Bangladesh and now it is time to see how effectively the package could help in struggle the recession.

Surviving the Great Recession

Jyoti Rahman explores how the budget can be tailored to weather the global financial crisis By the time this piece is read, the first budget of the Grand Alliance government will have been finalized. At the time of writing, it is not clear what the budget entails in terms of policy details. However, macro-economic conditions and outlook facing our policy-makers are relatively well understood.
The budget will be brought down as the world economy passes through the most turbulent times since the era of silent movies. Pundits are calling the current slump the Great Recession -- perhaps not as dire as the Great Depression, but far worse than any recession since. The IMF's forecasts for the world economy are discussed first in this article. Then the focus shifts to Bangladesh: how have we managed thus far, and what are the forecasts for 2009-10? While Bangladesh has proved remarkably resilient thus far into the recession, a slowdown is nonetheless expected.

More importantly, there are good reasons to think that the world economy will have markedly different contours when this recession ends, and our ability to grow strongly in the post-recession world may well require carefully crafted policy support. These are briefly explored in the final section.

World economic outlook

In late 2007, a number of large American and European banks were found to be in difficulty because of exposures to the worsening housing market in the United States. At that time, the cognoscenti view was that such difficulties would, at most, lead to a moderate recession in the US and some other advanced economies.

Then things changed dramatically in September 2008, when a large American bank (Lehman Brothers) failed and the largest American insurance company (AIG) was bailed out by the US government. In a matter of days, credit flows dried up and financial markets worldwide stopped operating as perceived counterparty risks spiked. In a matter of weeks, trillions were lost from global stock markets.

No economy with external links -- large or small, rich or poor -- was spared. Confidence slumped. Households in the rich world stopped spending. And then the financial crisis hit the docks in the last months of 2008. Industrial production and trade plummeted. The world economy shrank by an annualized rate of 6¼ per cent in the last quarter of 2008, and then by a similar magnitude in the first quarter of 2009.

While the crisis started out from the US housing market, the US economy hasn't been the worst hit.

Page-7

Singapore and Hong Kong have declined by 10 per cent or more, similar contractions are being experienced by Germany and Spain, while smaller European economies are shrinking by double digit rates. The developing economies have done slightly better, but only just.

By any reckoning, this has been the sharpest synchronized slowdown the world economy has witnessed since World War II. The IMF forecasts the global GDP to shrink by 1.3 per cent in 2009 -- the first contraction in the post-war era. Advanced economies are expected to suffer the most -- the US is expected to contract by 2.8 per cent, the euro area by 4.2 per cent, Japan by 6.2 per cent.

The developing world will not be immune. China is expected to grow by 6.5 per cent in 2009, India by 4.5 per cent -- both half their 2007 rates. Major South-East Asian economies are collectively expected to record no growth at all this year. Developing Asia is expected to grow by only 4.8 per cent, compared with the 10.6 per cent recorded in 2007.

Chart 1 shows economic growth in major advanced as well as key Asian economies. Chart 1 also shows that relative to our neighbors, Bangladesh is not expected to suffer as much. The IMF expects Bangladesh's economy to grow by 5 per cent in 2009, a modest slowdown from the 2007 rate of 6.3 per cent.