We are 5 out of 10! (1 Viewer)

peckface

approaching curve
Oct 3, 2004
2,357
#3
The company and site Google.com is worth about the same amont of money as Ford and Mcdonalds so I think such a rank is well deserved. :D
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#6
Maybe because juventuz's homepage has a lot of extrernal links.

So that may push the score down. On the other hand, most of the external links are for other fansites. So, if Juventuz wasn't part of the current fan network, then there won't be that many links point to this place....

the PageRank score is not a solid indication of the hits on a certain page either.


..............
I did a report on google's PageRank algorithm a couple of years ago for a senior seminar. So incase some of you are interested, here's the algorithm:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))
where:
• "PR(A)" is the PageRank™ score of an arbitrary page A.
• "PR(T1), PR(T2),…, and PR(Tn)" are the PageRanks of the webpages that contain a link to page A.
• "C(T1)" is the number of Forward links that page T1 contains, and so forth for C(T2) to C(Tn) respectively.
• "d" represents a damping factor. It is used so the PageRanks of the connected pages would not count as much in the ranking. "(1-d)" is used incase a webpage has no backlinks. "d" can be between 0 and 1 but is usually set as 0.85. Therefore, a page with no backlinks will have a score of 0.15 (1 - 0.85).
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#7
I should think each and every devised algorithm would be severly flawed given the complexity of what is the web. Understanding it is one thing, breaking it down into semantics another. I find Google's projects on web indexing and meta constructs very interesting but there is no right way to do this and for every method they come up with, there will always been a thousand other ways of looking at the problem.

To comment on website visibility, I'm very satisfied that a lot of people who seek material on Juventus are sent to this website, even though I never set out to achieve a certain number, this site has been vastly successful far beyond my imagination. And mostly through circumstance, partly through chance and to a very small extent through experience and ability.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#8
Well said, no doubt that there are many ways to look at and to solve the problem, specially with the web evolving all the time, but at this point in time, i could safely say, with the little research that I did, using PageRank(TM) to index pages, and google's meta data query search engine really is the best current way to provide search results and is the least "flawed" since it makes it very tough for page designers to boast their page by simply performing some sort of manipulation.


Great acheivment Martin. You should be proud.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#11
++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
Well said, no doubt that there are many ways to look at and to solve the problem, specially with the web evolving all the time, but at this point in time, i could safely say, with the little research that I did, using PageRank(TM) to index pages, and google's meta data query search engine really is the best current way to provide search results and is the least "flawed" since it makes it very tough for page designers to boast their page by simply performing some sort of manipulation.
Possibly. But if I understood your explanation correctly, PageRank is centered around page exposure to and from other pages (or is it site wise? in any case..). But that's still ranking based only on links. It says nothing about the quality that page has nor is it an estimate of how many people actually followed the links that point to it. Some pages can be seen by many but linked to by few, for instance. Back to quality, this of course is very difficult to establish, Google sets out to show you the pages that you will find most useful, a lofty goal.

Bottom line, every formula you could come up with would give a relative error of at least 300% IMO. :D

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
Great acheivment Martin. You should be proud.
It's quite nice, isn't it? :)
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#12
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++


Possibly. But if I understood your explanation correctly, PageRank is centered around page exposure to and from other pages (or is it site wise? in any case..). But that's still ranking based only on links. It says nothing about the quality that page has nor is it an estimate of how many people actually followed the links that point to it. Some pages can be seen by many but linked to by few, for instance. Back to quality, this of course is very difficult to establish, Google sets out to show you the pages that you will find most useful, a lofty goal.

Bottom line, every formula you could come up with would give a relative error of at least 300% IMO. :D
To and from other sites actually. I guess the word "Page" is confusing. "Page" actually referes to Lawrence Page, google's founder.

The algorithm is actually a bit more complex, clever, and usefull than you may think. You make a good point in that the number of links does not mean that people actually follow all those links, but the basis that a website is "well-linked" is good enough to show that it contains usefull content. Why would many people link to a site that is useless? Don't forget that the ranks of all the sites pointing to a specific site effect the rank of that specific site.

Saying that a site may be seen by many but linked by few (and thus you calim it may have a low rank) is a good point, but it doesn't hold water when you think about how the internet, a site's content, and the alrgorithm works. The people who accessed that page had to find that page somehow. If it isn't by another site, then it must be by directly entering the address. If so, then that's where the constant in ithe algorithm takes higher affect. If the page has many outgoing links, then that would surely mean that it's not a "source," but merely a "referer," and thus shouldn't be ranked that highly.

You may say that their goal is lofty, and to some extent i agree, because i know there are sites with certain content that i've come across, but i haven't been able to find using google. However, google's massive success suggests that they are comming close enough to their goal.


It's quite nice, isn't it? :)
Very much, but it can be A LOT better. :)

I'll leave this as an open suggestion. Call it a public(forum members acutally) project under your (or the mods') supervisions.
I'm sure there are loads of members who have some good suggestions (I have) to improve the juventuz site, the time to help (I did, not anymore though), and the will to go on maintaning it.

I don't know the latest developments on the sale of this place, but i'm sure some content and/or aesthetic improvements will help push the sale.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#13
++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++

To and from other sites actually. I guess the word "Page" is confusing. "Page" actually referes to Lawrence Page, google's founder.

The algorithm is actually a bit more complex, clever, and usefull than you may think. You make a good point in that the number of links does not mean that people actually follow all those links, but the basis that a website is "well-linked" is good enough to show that it contains usefull content. Why would many people link to a site that is useless? Don't forget that the ranks of all the sites pointing to a specific site effect the rank of that specific site.

Saying that a site may be seen by many but linked by few (and thus you calim it may have a low rank) is a good point, but it doesn't hold water when you think about how the internet, a site's content, and the alrgorithm works. The people who accessed that page had to find that page somehow. If it isn't by another site, then it must be by directly entering the address. If so, then that's where the constant in ithe algorithm takes higher affect. If the page has many outgoing links, then that would surely mean that it's not a "source," but merely a "referer," and thus shouldn't be ranked that highly.

You may say that their goal is lofty, and to some extent i agree, because i know there are sites with certain content that i've come across, but i haven't been able to find using google. However, google's massive success suggests that they are comming close enough to their goal.
Admittedly my comment was a tad myopic. Points noted. :D

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
Very much, but it can be A LOT better. :)

I'll leave this as an open suggestion. Call it a public(forum members acutally) project under your (or the mods') supervisions.
I'm sure there are loads of members who have some good suggestions (I have) to improve the juventuz site, the time to help (I did, not anymore though), and the will to go on maintaning it.

I don't know the latest developments on the sale of this place, but i'm sure some content and/or aesthetic improvements will help push the sale.
I don't think so.. :D Don't have the time or the will frankly.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#14
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++

I don't think so.. :D Don't have the time or the will frankly.
It actually may not involve much work by you.

I mean for example, the player profile section. I'm sure we have capable enough writers here to update the profiles.

It is kind of sad that a popular site like says, in the squad profiles, that "Alessandro Del Piero is only 26..."


Updating these little things makes a difference. Afterall, it would give some people here the chance to give back to the site and do/read/write about something they enjoy.

I'm not just directing this towards you. I'm just trying to kick start a movement. I'm picturing threads with submissions of updates and polls for members to choose the best submission.

.........

Worth a try... :)
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#15
Interesting that among all the pages you would choose the player profiles section. Interesting because we've had several of iterations where we welcomed submissions from the forum and with one or two exceptions we never got any. :)
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#16
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
Interesting that among all the pages you would choose the player profiles section. Interesting because we've had several of iterations where we welcomed submissions from the forum and with one or two exceptions we never got any. :)
:embarass: I don't recall them.. :)

Oh well, I guess I assumed too much...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)