Is PR affected by country ?

**easycash** · 08-29-2006, 11:13 AM

Could somebody confirm or shoot down the theory that a PR of
a website is ranked differently by the domain name's country.

If I have for example

domain.com and domain.com.au, they both have the same amount of backlinks and same quality links do the same amount of traffic etc etc etc, should they both have the same PR.

If the PR's would be different, then why and which would be better to have ?
(for PR reasons)

**chrishirst** · 08-29-2006, 02:31 PM

NO PR is not affected by anything other than LINKS

some links pass more PR than others.
The toolbar display is a bag of crap and is never, has never and never will be accurate or up to date.

And toolbar PR should be ignored by any sane and reasonable person !!!!!!

</end rant>
Thank You

**ashu@webnewtons** · 08-30-2006, 07:22 AM

Hi,
Not really .. but it depends on data center of google.

It might be affected, if you search your site with domain name .co.uk in google.uk

say .. co.uk site might come top in google.co.uk campareed to .co.in sites

Thanks

**WebCreations** · 08-31-2006, 08:56 AM

The general content/quality of the site affects PR too.
But the main factor is good quality links.

**chrishirst** · 08-31-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

The general content/quality of the site affects PR too.

No it doesn't

the only way content has any effect on PR is if you have good content that people are willing to link to.

**ashu@webnewtons** · 09-01-2006, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

No it doesn't

the only way content has any effect on PR is if you have good content that people are willing to link to.

Yaah of course, you are right!

**StickNoBills** · 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easycash

domain.com and domain.com.au, they both have the same amount of backlinks and same quality links do the same amount of traffic etc etc etc, should they both have the same PR.If the PR's would be different, then why and which would be better to have ?(for PR reasons)

In theory, both the sites should have the same PR given that one site is the exact replica of the other but for the domain names (age of which should be the same too). But that's theory! Empirically, there is a good chance that both may have a different PR considering the grey area of how algo chooses to consider/ignore (maybe by the relevance of content) the number of backlinks to a site. We should also take into account that the search-spider may crawl one site first and the other later. So it's important to understand that it's only after a "healthy period" of time the PRs will converge.

Other points to thinkover are:
1. PR is a universal attribute of a page.
2. For a global or country-specific search, it's still the same PR that is used. The only difference, so far as my knowledge goes, is that for a country-specific search, there will be less competition for your PR and hence may show up higher in SERPs.

**StickNoBills** · 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

No it doesn't the only way content has any effect on PR is if you have good content that people are willing to link to.

Chris, my two cents

(Correct my if I am wrong)... While content has not direct role to play in the calculation of the PR, I think, it has a healthy role to play when it comes to deciding whether or not a link should be considred as a backlink first.

For instance, an educational site getting a backlink from a PR-5 adult site may not weigh as much as a backlink from another educational site with PR-5. If this is true, then content does have a role to play in the process.

**ADAM Web Design** · 09-01-2006, 10:50 AM

In the case of the original question, that would depend on if you were regionally targeting a market (in this case, Australia). If that's the case, then the .au would be of more value.

Mind you, the best thing you could do if you own both domains is to 301 redirect the one to the other (I'd go .com to .com.au) and avoid any possibility of penalty.

**gringo** · 09-01-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickNoBills

Chris, my two cents

(Correct my if I am wrong)... While content has not direct role to play in the calculation of the PR, I think, it has a healthy role to play when it comes to deciding whether or not a link should be considred as a backlink first.

For instance, an educational site getting a backlink from a PR-5 adult site may not weigh as much as a backlink from another educational site with PR-5. If this is true, then content does have a role to play in the process.

If I have an adult content site, I can link to whom I please. If it makes sense for me (and my visitors) to include a link on my adult page to an educational page (actually aren't they both educational?) then I will. Why shouldn't PR be conferred in this way? PR has nothing to do with relevance, it relates to popularity.

It may be that the non related link doesn't provide as much benefit as far as rankings are concerened, but I see no reason why PR won't be passed.

**northbeach23** · 09-01-2006, 01:21 PM

A big no! PR does rank differently in different places.