PageRank, yes, demonstrably. GrapeRank, not even close. Read this, if you haven't yet:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uqqjemjv9cx2unpde4s59e86a

> PageRank suffers from several well known methods of attack, most notably the link farm.

> Unfortunately, there is no immediately obvious way to incorporate mutes, reports, or other arbitrary sources of data into the PageRank algorithm

> if you try to modify PageRank to design a centrality algorithm to address its shortcomings and to implement a certain set of desired characteristics, you'll eventually hit upon something more or less like GrapeRank

> - There needs to be a generalizable, clearly defined protocol to incorporate any source of data, not just follows, mutes and reports. For GrapeRank, that method is called intepretation.

> - There needs to be a clearly defined protocol to design different metrics with different meanings. One metric to identify health care workers, another metric to rate skill level in some particular activity, etc.

> The GrapeRank algorithm was designed specifically with these considerations in mind.