| 12:56 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Excellent work vitaplease, is a more comprehensive list than I have.
| 2:27 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This quite simply is the best news site on the web.
Nothing comes close.
| 2:31 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No TV channel comes close to the BBC. Nothing comes close to the BBC.
| 2:40 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
One culture site makes PR9.
Ministry of Culture sites all tend to lump together at PR7 or below.
| 2:44 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> most probably; Amazon (how do you check amazon.com PR when it redirects?)
From the Google directory, Amazon appears to be a PR 8
| 2:49 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looking at the directory entry, Amazon "only" appears to be an 8. This may be due to the fact that most links to them go to individual book pages, while other popular sites get most links to the homepage.
Oh, and btw: Could it be that you forgot Microsoft? ;)
| 2:55 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Tedster I guess that is a good way of checking redirected pagerank.
You need this [searchnerd.com] though to estimate it as mentioned and posted by Chris_R in this [webmasterworld.com] thread.
I would have guessed Amazon to have a minimum of pagerank 10 with all their affiliated inward links.
| 3:05 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
akamai, intel, lucent, real.com, reuters, sgi, salon, verisign
Looks like I'm bored, doesn't it? ;)
signio (aka verisign. Who said mirror sites can't rank high?)
w3c (now THAT's a surprise... ;))
www.cast.org/bobby/ (but NOT the homepage)
Ok, enough for today.
| 3:37 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> I would have guessed Amazon to have a minimum of pagerank 10 with all their affiliated inward links.
The Page Rank algo, at its origin, was a PAGE algo, and not a site algo. We may be seeing the resonance of that simple fact, even though Google certainly seems to include domain factors in it's current incarnation.
Was just browsing around Amazon and checking the toolbar. The Bestsellers page only had a PR1, but searching for Harry Potter brought up a page with PR4!
The homepage for any category seems to be PR0. I thought this was probably because it is personalized content, so I dumped my cookies -- still PR0. Guess Amazon operates on a business model that doesn't include SEO :)
| 3:41 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
too much internal interlinking and self-congratulary Amazon praise on the Amazon site.
I am taught here that Googlebot's PR calculator does not like that. Look for the Amazon webmaster hanging around here soon with a PR0 penalty question!
| 3:49 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
a few nines
| 4:16 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I went through the Google Directory for Major Companies > Publicly Traded
There were no other 9's or 10's, but 2 of the PR's we've listed here are fresher than what the directory shows. Apple was only a 9 in the Directory and Compaq only an 8.
| 5:48 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just tripped on over to Apple.com and found the toolbar to be grayed out. Hahahahaha. Maybe Michael Dell got on the phone to Google, huh?
| 5:52 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
just a word of caution on the BBC...standards have fallen dramatically and many things are reported as fact when they are completely unverified...the most extreme example being an article from the Onion which formed the basis of a story both on TV and (briefly) on the web site
| 7:46 pm on Mar 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yep the BBC gets it wrong on happenings in Malaysia too. I remember one day I spent all of it traveling around town. All peaceful and boring as usual. Got home and the BBC was reporting that "Kuala Lumpur is battening down after riots all over the city"
| 12:53 am on Mar 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|w3c (now THAT's a surprise... |
The cute thing is to compare the PR of
| 7:13 am on Mar 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
hstyri, the w3c.org is just a redirection to w3.org so w3c don't have their own PageRank.
| 10:21 am on Mar 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
On the BBC, I think all news organizations get it wrong sometimes, but the big plus they have is that they are not funded by advertising... hence their web site isn't stuffed with ads and diverts like some of the others. This is a big edge they have.
| 2:37 am on Mar 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|hstyri, the w3c.org is just a redirection to w3.org |
From where I'm looking both URLs return status 200, that looks like a mirror rather than a redirect.
| 11:24 am on Mar 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
checked with Amazon - as you did - and entered through an affiliate site whilst clicking on a book. You then get to the specific book page within Amazon 4 or 5 sub-directories deep with a pagerank in my case of 2. I then checked the "home" link - which wasn't a home link but again some page several layers deep. I guess it is their linking structure. Amazon.com does have 54000 backlinks worth listing (double count?)according to Google which could be enough for a PR10.
| 6:01 am on Mar 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 7:42 am on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just an update and an unusual PR9 site:
Some more government PR9 sites
Some more PR9 news sites:
elpais.es/ (finally a spanish one!)
salon.com/ (thanks Bird)
And this is the unusual one!
Only 1600 backward links (double count?)reported in Google and 3098 in Alltheweb.
The average Google backward links for a PR9 site is ca. 15.000 to 115.000 (doublecount?)
I think Google has donated Pagerank to a good cause...
| 8:28 am on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 3:28 pm on Apr 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well you are not alone if you lost a bit of PR with this update...
dropped from PR10 to PR9.
So far the PR 9 sites i saw that got demoted to PR8 are:
Ox.ac.uk (oxford university)
The PR9 universities I listed here. [webmasterworld.com]
salon.com seems to be greyed out..
It looks like the exclusive are getting more exclusive.
| 8:24 am on Apr 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Not only PR has dropped with this update but also Google's back link count of many of the happy few..(except for Google of course).
Apple.com - from 90.100 to 87.000
Adobe.com - from 116.000 to 112.000
Yahoo.com - from 1.020.000 to 960.000
Nasa.gov - from 87.000 to 82.900
Macromedia.com - from 44.600 to 44.200
Google.com - from 354.000 to 443.000
| 6:20 am on Apr 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nice tracking. I find it fascinating. Thanks for the updates.
| 11:48 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to post to an old thread but I was shocked that I could not figure out what it was about at all. I'm not usually that dumb!
'Sites with a PR10, PR9....etc.'
No mention of searches being performed to produce rankings.
Do web sites have an 'inherent page rank' based on certain criteria?
| 3:56 am on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
:) Click the "site search" link at the top of the page and search for:
Google "Page Rank"
You'll soon be drowning in information! It's a very popular topic around here.
| 4:02 pm on Jul 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I know this is an old topic.....
but thought I'd add one to the list:
and btw, and excellent program
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |