Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science Series II book series (NAII, volume 232)


The community structure in complex networks has been a popular topic in recent literature. It is present in all types of complex networks ranging from bio-molecular networks, where it reflects functional associations between proteins to information networks such as the The World Wide Web (WWW). The World Wide Web – a quintessential large complex network – presents formidable challenge for the efficient information retrieval and ranking. Google has reached its current position as the world’s most popular search engine by efficient and ingenious utilization of topological properties of this WWW network for ranking of individual webpages. The topological structure of the WWW network is characterized by a strong community structure in which groups of webpages (e.g. those devoted to a common topic) are densely interconnected by hyperlinks. We study how such network architecture affects the average Google ranking of individual webpages in the community. We demonstrate that the Google rank of community webpages could either increase or decrease with the density of inter-community links depending on the exact balance between average in- and out-degrees in the community.


Brookhaven National Laboratory Community Node Exact Balance Popular Search Engine Random Surfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Brin and L. Page, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins, Computer Networks 31, 11 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani and T. Winograd, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project (1998).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bilke and C. Peterson Physical Review E 64, 036106 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. A. Eriksen, I. Simonsen, S.Maslov and K. Sneppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 148701 (2003).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strictly speaking the selection of nodes sending links to the outside world is biased to those with higher values of K out and thus might be not representative of the whole community. This is not a problem in random scale-free networks where we can prove the absence of correlations between the out-degree of a node and its Google ranking. It remains to be seen to what extent the same statement holds in the real WWW [12].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabasi, Nature, 401, 130, (1999).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Maslov, K. Sneppen, A. Zaliznyak, Physica A, 333, 529 (2004).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Such a seed network can be created e.g. using a stub reconnection procedure described in M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. E 64, 026118 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Maslov and K. Sneppen, Science, 296, 910 (2002).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Park and M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026112 (2003).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Xie, K.-K. Yan, S. Maslov, in preparation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.New Media LabThe Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsBrookhaven National LaboratoryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics and AstronomyStony Brook UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhysicsBrookhaven National LaboratoryNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of PhysicsBrookhaven National LaboratoryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations