{"id":2261,"date":"2026-08-31T13:50:41","date_gmt":"2026-08-31T13:50:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/internal-links-manager.com\/en\/?page_id=2261"},"modified":"2026-08-31T14:39:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T14:39:18","slug":"pagerank","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/internal-links-manager.com\/ar\/%d9%85%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d8%b5%d8%b7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%a7%d8%aa\/pagerank\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0628\u064a\u062c \u0631\u0627\u0646\u0643"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\u2190 Back to the glossary<\/a>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

PageRank<\/span><\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

4 minute read \u00b7 Updated 28 August 2026<\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
Definition<\/span>

PageRank is the algorithm Google was founded on: it weights a page by the links pointing at it, counting a \u0631\u0627\u0628\u0637<\/a> from an important page for more than one from an obscure page. Published by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, it treated the web as a graph and a link as a vote.<\/p>

The public toolbar score disappeared in 2016. The underlying idea did not \u2014 links still transfer standing, and that is exactly what makes internal linking work.<\/p><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The idea in one paragraph<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Imagine someone clicking links at random forever. PageRank is the probability of finding them on any given page. Pages that many links lead to are visited often; pages linked from those pages are visited often in turn. A page’s score is therefore a function not only of how many links point at it, but of how well linked the linking pages are.<\/p>

Two details of the original model still matter in practice. A page’s score is divided<\/strong> among its outgoing links, so more links mean less through each. And a damping factor<\/em> models the random surfer eventually giving up and starting somewhere new \u2014 which is why value fades as it travels rather than circulating forever.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Is it still in use?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Two things get conflated here. The toolbar PageRank<\/strong> \u2014 the green 0-to-10 bar \u2014 stopped updating in 2013 and was removed in 2016. Nobody can look up a page’s score today, and any tool claiming to show one is showing its own estimate.<\/p>

The concept<\/strong> is a different matter. Google has said publicly that PageRank-style link analysis remains part of ranking, alongside a great many other signals. What has changed is its share: in 1998 links were nearly the whole story; today they are one input among hundreds.<\/p>

For internal linking the distinction barely matters. Whether the mechanism is called PageRank or something newer, links between your pages still decide which of them a search engine treats as important.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What to do with it<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Nothing, as a metric. Everything, as a mental model. It explains why cornerstone pages<\/a> should receive many links and send comparatively few; why a link from a well-linked page is worth more than one from a forgotten corner; and why an orphan page<\/a> competes from a standing start no matter how good it is.<\/p>

It also explains what does not work. Because value is divided rather than reserved, nofollowing<\/a> internal links does not push more through the others \u2014 the share is simply lost.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

A short history of the score<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Google Toolbar showed a page’s PageRank as a green bar from 0 to 10 from 2000 onwards. It was a logarithmic scale, so the step from 4 to 5 was far larger than from 3 to 4 \u2014 a detail that most of the industry ignored while trading links priced by the number.<\/p>

That trade is precisely why it disappeared. A public score turned links into currency and produced a market for buying them. Google stopped updating the toolbar figure in December 2013 and removed the API in 2016.<\/p>

What replaced it in practice are third-party estimates \u2014 Domain Rating, Domain Authority, Trust Flow. None is PageRank; each is a vendor’s model built from its own crawl.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What the model gets right about real sites<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Three predictions fall directly out of the maths, and all three hold up on real sites.<\/p>

The homepage is almost always the strongest page.<\/strong> Every template links to it, so it accumulates more than anything else \u2014 which is also why adding more homepage links achieves nothing.<\/p>

Depth costs.<\/strong> Value fades as it travels, so a page four clicks out inherits materially less than one at two. That is the mechanism behind \u0639\u0645\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0642\u0631<\/a>.<\/p>

Reciprocity concentrates.<\/strong> A group of pages linking densely among themselves and back to one hub gives that hub a large share \u2014 the arithmetic behind the topic cluster<\/a>.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What it never accounted for<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Original PageRank is topic-blind. A link from a page about gardening counts the same as one from a page about the subject at hand, which is obviously wrong and was addressed by later work on topic-sensitive ranking.<\/p>

It is also position-blind: a link in a footer and a link mid-sentence carry the same weight in the raw model, whereas search engines have long distinguished boilerplate from body content. And it says nothing about \u0646\u0635 \u0631\u0627\u0628\u0637<\/a>, which carries most of the information about what<\/em> a target page is about.<\/p>

Which is the practical caution: PageRank explains how value moves, not whether a link is any good. Both matter, and only the second is under editorial control.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Going deeper:<\/strong> \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0644\u064a\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0634\u0627\u0645\u0644 \u0644\u0644\u0631\u0628\u0637 \u0627\u0644\u062f\u0627\u062e\u0644\u064a<\/a> turns the model into decisions \u2014 which pages should collect authority, and how to route it there.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
Related terms<\/span>