homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 493 message thread spans 17 pages: < < 493 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >     
Google PR Update

 12:06 am on Jul 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Noticed changes in PR for sites of mine right now! Finally!



 8:17 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google Data center update PR

toolbarqueries.google.com ok yet yet yet yet yet yet


 8:28 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

One thing to understand is that the pagerank of the pages that link to you is considered in calculating your page's pagerank. More weight is given to those pages that are themselves highly ranked.

If a single PR 6 page links to you, and you don't have any pages that link back to it, your page will move to PR 5. You can get to be PR 5 by having pages with lower PR link to you, but it takes more of them. I don't know the number, but it would be something like 10 PR 4 pages, 100 PR 3 pages and so on.

In general, each time you increase one step in pagerank, it gets ten times harder to get to the next level.

When Google displays your backlinks, it only tells you how many there are and where they are. If you want to see their effect on your pagerank you have to visit each page. You also have to cancel the effect of cycles, or link loops.

Now this says that reciprocal links don't effect pagerank and I think that's true. But I still think reciprocal links effect position in the SERPs, because more than pagerank is taken into account. Making a wise choice for the link text you ask your link partners to use has the effect of googlebombing and can drive up your position for a particular keyword.

It's also important to understand that all that's really known about the PageRank algorithm is what's published in Google's patent. I'm as sure as I can be that the PageRank google actually calculates is based on the algorithm in the patent, but is not actually identical to it. After all, they have to constantly work to stay ahead of the Black Hat SEOs, so I'm sure most of what goes into PageRank now is kept secret.

There's three main pieces of advice I have for you:

1. Advertise in such a way that those who click your ads are likely to give you links.

2. Devote your time to developing quality content.

3. Improve your site design and navigation so you can retain visitors. If a visitor doesn't like the first page of your site that he lands on, give him a good reason not to hit his Back button. Encourage him to explore the rest of your site instead.

The PageRank algorithm as described in the patent is explained in excruciating detail here:

Wikipedia on PageRank [en.wikipedia.org]

Click the link to see the "Simplified" version and you should get an idea of how it works.


 9:14 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Michael...that's the theory, yes. But read the posts. These aren't ignorant newbies you are talking to here. Pagerank is broken. It DOESN"T work according to your guidelines. New pages getting high pr's that are only a few days old? NO links? I have a site that the index page is rated lower than all the interior pages and they have NO links. The index page is the ONLY one with links pointing to it and I have some pr 4's and 5's pointing at it and it has a pr1. Evidently google isn't recognizing any of them but that still doesn't account for the interior pages ranking higher. There are just too many contradictions to the theory listed here.
Even the serps in google are busted. I can do a very specific search on a regional product and get returns from several states away that have NOTHING pointing at them or containing the region specification to bring them up. I have no such problems in yahoo or msn.


 9:47 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I imagine that Google is using the toolbar PR queries to guide them towards increasing a page's position. I don't know whether this is used in the pagerank or not. If enough people have downloaded the toolbar and then used the pagerank feature, google will know all the URLs users are visiting. If google finds that a low-pr page has become popular, then I expect it will increase its position.

I don't know if that explains the behavior you are seeing, but I imagine it explains some of it.


 9:56 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just now entered this thread and it is too long to get through all the messages, so I am not sure what i noticed was not already discussed.
Anyway, here it is: PR for Google directory pages seems to be broken. Most of them actually have zero PR and are not to be found in the Google index. What is more striking is that PR of the main categories ranges from 8 to 0!. Society, Recreation and Health is have PR0, Science has PR1 and Kids have PR2 (even with future pagerank).
I wonder how valid is the PR of any site or site pages if Google has messed up the PR for its own Directory. PR fro DMOZ, however, seems to be OK.


 10:40 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK - I just read enough Google bashing in this topic to finally warrant a response.

To all of you who incinuate (sp?) you know the true inner-workings of the "corporate" (you might say "evil") world, for the benefit of everyone else, PLEASE keep them to yourself.

FACT: Google went public because it had to: it had grown so big and its revenues so high that the SEC and the US Justice Department were going to force it to disclose its books (which is the only real reason to stay private). They would lose nothing by going public, and gain substantial capital with which to do extra good works (like digitizing the worlds libraries, searchable tv broadcasts, and the many other new services out recently or coming out soon).

FACT: Google is STILL the same company they were when private. The only change is that now many OTHER people are making money off owning their stock (for now).

FACT: Google has been touted and is well known for being the renegade corporation who is intent on maintaining its level of ethical conduct specifically when dealing with public ownership (the founders had a several page memo notifying shareholders of the moral and ethical goals and their intent to maintain them eventhough they were now publicly owned in their IPO filing... absolutely unHEARD of).

And last, but not least... Google got to where it is (I'm pretty sure it's the single largest corporation, in terms of value, in existence...) by providing fair and quality search results. The fact that they have made so much money is explicitly BECAUSE they do NOT receive ANY income from their search results themselves, whatsoever.

For those of us who ARE experts in the corporate world, please leave the bogus conspiracy theorizing to the millions of websites and forums dedicated to just that.

On a good note, we had a sandboxed site (no PR, no backlinks) get bumped to a PR 4 with many backlinks. Thus, I seriously DOUBT that PR is "broken."

Besides, they're not the only game in town.


 10:51 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

"On a good note, we had a sandboxed site (no PR, no backlinks) get bumped to a PR 4 with many backlinks. Thus, I seriously DOUBT that PR is "broken."

Yea. but it's not broke!..lol...Take your whole comment..go back about 80 years and substitute "GM" for google. And that is a load of guano about the justice dept. They wouldn't be able to force google to do a thing. They are not a monopoly. They have just become the leader in se's. They can bark at google but they really have no bite. However, now that they ARE public...books are open. Why do you think they have been doing so much patenting lately?


 10:54 pm on Jul 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Promis: there seems to be something wrong with Google Directory. I'm in DMOZ, in the Google Directory listing for my category, but my site doesn't come up for the search terms. Also my index PR has gone down. I just think they've screwed something up somewhere with the directory.


 12:53 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"index page is the ONLY one with links pointing to it"

Like the other post, this is nonsense. You have an index page, and then have other pages on the domain that you don't link to?

One more time, PR doesn't care about where links come from. Links fromn your own pages are links.

In terms of an index page having lower PR than internal domain pages, this can happen genuinely due to internal linking that is either deliberate or inept. It also seems to happen sometimes the first PR cycle that a new domain goes through, with Google seemingly assigning an arbitrarily lower PR to the index page. All cases I've seen have corrected themselves next update.


 12:57 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Google Directory PR is all bungled with directory.google.com pages sometimes showing the PR while google.com pages sometimes showing it.

[directory.google.com...] PR0
[google.com...] PR7


 1:23 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

steve, of course I understand linking..I am saying that all OUTSIDE incoming links are pointed at the index page. None point to mysite.com/widgets.html aqnd the site is 14 months old.


 1:34 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's the toolbar acting glitchy with those hardware directory categories. Click on a subcategory, then click back and you'll see PR in the toolbar. It's been happening for days, depending on where the page is linked from.


 2:19 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Texasville, there is no such thing as OUTSIDE in terms of PR. What you wrote was not true. Sometimes others who misunderstand PR make similar posts. The fact the internal pages don't have links from other domains means nothing, in terms of PR.


 2:46 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay Steve, explain to me..why does a 6 week old sitemap have a pagerank of 2 and an index page with a lot of content have a 1.


 3:02 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

there is no such thing as OUTSIDE in terms of PR

To further this, you can actually 'fool' Google into thinking that pages other than index.html (or whatever) are the main page from your site if you link to it more that you link to your true index page.

index.html gets 10 links from other pages of your site and has links to 10 other pages on your site.

page2.html gets 200 links from other pages of your site and has links to 10 other pages on your site.

When PageRank is passed from other sites to your index page, that PageRank is then passed (let's say at the rate of 15% of the total - not exactly correct, but close enough to be understood, without doing an indepth explanation.) to the 10 pages your index page links to, their PR is passed to the pages they link to, and so on...

So, if your index page links to page2.html, it gets 15% of the PR from the index page. Then if the other nine pages your index links to also link to page2.html it gets 15% of the 15% they have been passed also... Where things get out of proportion is with the rest of the 200 links passing their PR to page2.html instead of back to the index where people would like it.

Conclusion: The index page has the most PR coming in, but basically only passes out PR to other pages on the site and never gets very much back. Another page on the site has more inbound links (from within the site itself) that are passing more of the PR from within your own site to it, and therefore becomes 'more important' and has a higher PR.

The numbers are not exact, and the math is not complete... even for a small site this takes more brain power than I am allowed on Sundays... but for those who do not understand the process this should lend some clarity.

Not directed at anyone in particular, just elaborating to help clarify how what appear to be anomalies could be accounted for.



 3:47 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The following advice won't help anytime soon, but will help in the long run: develop deep links. That will make your site's traffic, PR for all its pages and long-term stability much more robust. Don't count on your homepage's high pagerank to maintain your internal pages' positions in the SERPs. Promote each individual page separately.

I have always encouraged links to specific pages on my site rather than just to my homepage. Several of my pages have their own entries in DMOZ, several of them are popular among one group of readers or another who link directly to them, and I've paid for sponsored links to some of my content pages, not just to my homepage.

The result of all this seems to be that I am not experiencing the devastation that so many of you are experiencing. I know that the PR of the index to my content (not my homepage) went from 5 to 6 a few days ago, the PR of some other pages went from 4 to 5, and the traffic to my main revenue-earning page increased about 15% at the same time my pagerank went up.

I've been terrified it would all fall apart after reading so many reports of devastation here at webmasterworld, but so far my site has held firm. My only explanation is that I have many deep links.

Now, asking for deep links now won't help you anytime soon, but it will definitely help in the long run, during the next update or the one after that. Better to start now than wait. Hanging out at webmasterworld complaining that Google is robbing us all is not going to make your business prosper. Developing quality content, encouraging inbound links, and judicious investments in advertising are what's going to save you. No one's going to reward you because you were unfairly victimized, only if you do what it takes to recover from it. Have some dignity, folks!

Now, I agree it was not in anyone's best interest for Google to go public. But they were forced to, and in any case they have. Sure they've got problems. I see two outcomes: either Google solves its problems, maintains its market share, and deserving webmasters continue to get lots of referrals from Google, or Google will collapse, but then the public will move towards other search engines when they realize Google can't serve relevant results, and then we will all get good traffic from other search engines.

As long as we can all find some way to ride out the valleys we will still get to enjoy the peaks.

The web can't abide a vacuum. We will always be getting search engine referrals. They might not always be from Google.


 3:52 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seeing significant changes in SERPS tonite--- and new backlinks tonite.


 4:20 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

easy to get inner page with higehr pr than home.

(1) get your root and an index.htm page indexed, by having links to index.htm, and having random content appear on them which makes them appear different. one will ahve a higher pr than the other.

(2) cock up your home page html, so it gets a pr penatly.



 4:47 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb, on my end both directory urls still have PR0. Also how to explain the PR1 and PR2 of some main categories?

Brian, my site is still in the directory on a PR0 page like most of its subcategory pages but my site PR has remained the same. Gone down in SERPS significally though without change in TBPR.


 6:06 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Okay Steve, explain to me..why does a 6 week old sitemap have a pagerank of 2..."

Anything older than about four weeks has pagerank.

"and an index page with a lot of content have a 1."

Content has nothing do with pagerank.

Your above questions try to relate two unrelated things to pagerank. Neither factor comments on pagerank, nor in a comparison.


 7:38 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sitemap PR 2 index PR 1 - More links from your pages point to the site map than the index.

Google directory listings - the PR listed for pages (sites) in the directory is not from the same dataset as tool bar PR - They are often different, and have been for quite a period of time.

Directory Pages - The directory appears to display PR closer to a 'normal' site now. That means if the directory was not entirely in the Google index (notice the grey bar categories), the pages that are not indexed since the Directory update (recent) do not have PR and are not included in the directory PR. This will negatively impact the tool bar PR for the actual pages of the directory just as it would a 'normal' site.

Sites/pages with 0 PR out ranking sites with a higher PR. If these pages are indexed shortly before or any time after the last PR update for the tool bar, but are linked to from a PR 7 index (or other) page. Their PR can be assumed to be somewhere around a 6. Just because you don't see it in the tool bar does not mean it is not there.

Sites with high PR not ranking, and now their PR has dropped. Hmmmm.... this is the first PR update since Bourbon isn't it? Many of the people who say their PR has dropped in this update are also the same people who were having their sites drop in the results during Bourbon aren't they? (Insert logical inductive reasoning here.) Looks like your PR may have dropped a while ago...

Other sites that have dropped PR by a notch. Are there more sites/pages indexed now that before? Did Y! drop from a 10 to a 9? Did the metric maybe need to be changed, so that 11 was not as acheivable, making PR harder to achieve across the board?

The tool bar is only a snap shot. The tool bar is not acurate for any period of time. The tool bar is acurate for a single period of time on a single day. The tool bar is not acurate. The tool bar is only a snap shot. The tool bar is not acurate. The tool bar is only a snap shot.


Real PR is calculated continuously, except for during an exceedingly large update where the PR servers are taken offline to help calculate and populate the update - AKA Bourbon.


 9:22 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

No PR displayed atm (UK)


 10:36 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)


no, that doesn't ring true with me.

I lost out badly in Bourbon and my PR has stayed at 6.

although it's possible it's gone from a 6.8 to a 6.2 I suppose.


 10:49 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Has page rank rolled back now?

I'm seeing old page rank again. Lots of PR0 pages etc that have yet to be assigned their rank.

This was bound to happen when we finally got a 7, lol


 10:59 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I haven't read the whole thread but I'll share this:

On a multitude of sites that I control and/or have access to PR is behaving exactly as it should. Not broken, not screwed up, no anomalies

At least two fairly experienced webmasters I've been talking to about their current PR don't seem to have the vaguest idea about what it is, how it works, what doesn't work, and what can influence PR. I'd recommend reading up a bit of the theory first if you feel you've been hard done by.

1. Read about how you get PR, how PR is shared among all the outgoing links on the page, about the logarithmic nature of the beast, and how the growing number of websites/pages affect the existing PR distribution.

2. Get a "feel" for PR. A PR5 is not necessarily one point down from a PR6. You could have dropped from a PR 6.00001 to a PR 5.9999. And that could be caused by something as simple as some of your IBLs losing 0.0001 of PR themselves.

3. Realise the canonical issues. Your PR could be split between the www and non-www versions of each page. Numerous threads in WW on that.

4. Are your links mainly link exchanges? Google could be devaluing link exchanges as not being natural linking patterns. They could also be giving less value to links from links.htm/php/asp pages

5. There are a million ways webmasters can prevent a link from passing PR to your site. They can shroud it in js, rel=nofollow it, meta tag a no-index, robots.txt a Google block to the page... etc etc. They could also devalue the link just by bunging 140K(?) of text above it to prevent Google seeing the link, adding tons of other links to the page, or linking to you via an exit.cgi. Have you checked all your your IBLs for all those tricks lately?

6. There could be a 302 hijack issue affecting your site. Have you checked recently?

7. If your default page is index.htm but used to be default.htm Google could be seeing them as two different pages (especially if you've got incoming links to yoursite.com/index.htm and yoursite.com/default.htm). If, on a Windows server, your Blue-Widget.htm is being linked to using both blue-widget.htm and Blue-Widget.htm Google could be seeing them as two different pages. (Even I screwed up on this one!). There are tons of other factors.

I'd suggest researching all these issues first before moaning about being stabbed in the back, having salt rubbed in your wounds, or having penalties applied to your "well established", "fantastic", "painstakingly created", or "great content" site. Haven't found the reason? Look again more carefully. It's more likely it's something you've missed rather than a toolbar error (though I concede that the toolbar is not infallible).


 11:30 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a PR4 with no backlinks listed on G


 11:41 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd suggest researching all these issues first before moaning about being stabbed in the back, having salt rubbed in your wounds, or having penalties applied to your "well established", "fantastic", "painstakingly created", or "great content" site. Haven't found the reason? Look again more carefully. It's more likely it's something you've missed rather than a toolbar error (though I concede that the toolbar is not infallible).

Before you start bashing people's posts (as you did in that paragraph), perhaps the sensible thing to do would be TO indeed read all the posts FIRST (as you admitted you did not) before posting a comment like that!

When people have done absolutely nothing and have seen their PR6 sites go to PR3 or worse in matter of hours; seen a one page site a few days old with not a single incoming nor outgoing link and not found in a single SE, match the now dropped PR of that of a 9+ year old site with hundreds or even thousands of incoming links and hundreds of internal links found at the top of all SE's; and, identically laid out sites with the same linking structure and links on the same host and server where one site may have dropped 2 spots and the other site stayed the same; etc., etc., something is NOT RIGHT.

There's always someone that's been unaffected and that thinks there is nothing wrong, and thinks they have all the answers before reading a thread--just like on the Bourbon thread. YES, what you pointed out could be VERY VALID and useful, but don't make comment such as that demeaning many on a thread with a condescending attitude that we are all stupid and haven't checked things. If you'd READ all of this you'd see something IS WRONG. Whether it's the toolbar itself, or the "math" or "algo" behind it, who knows. But something is wrong.


 11:42 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have observed that some of the sites that offer me link exchanges actually do block the search engines from seeing the link. If one naively clicks these links, one finds one's own pages, but PageRank doesn't increase.

I have found that the sites that do this tend to be well-designed and very aggressive about exchanging links. For example, the email they send requesting link exchange is either machine-generated (looks like spam) or obviously hastily written by some low-paid employee who maybe gets paid by the inbound link.

The link they have given me on their site may even have its own page, with a nice screenshot of my homepage. Very impressive - and because I know to check, the page on which my link falls might even have respectable PageRank. You do know that's what counts right? Not the PageRank of the site's homepage. A good sign of a link exchange offer that's best not followed up on is one bragging of their homepage's PageRank.

Looking closer by hovering my mouse over my link, on the less-cleverly-designed pages, my URL shows up like this:


Submitting the URL parameter "u=http://www.victim.com/" tells the rd.cgi web application software to do a redirect to [victim.com...]

None of the search engines see that as a link and so it will contribute neither to your PageRank nor your position in the SERPs. However, the thief will gain handsomely from the PageRank you have unwittingly given them.

If my link looks OK when I hover the mouse, I then do a "View Page Source" to see how its coded. It helps to do a Find for my domain name. To avoid being ripped off, my link has to look just like this:

<a href="http://www.example.com/">Widgets</a>

There are ways of shrouding a link but making the link appear normal when hovering the mouse.

Now, I have been taken in by a few of these. There's no shame in being uninformed when one starts out, but I have found that as my reciprocal link pages have themselves grown in PageRank, the offers to swap links have grown increasingly aggressive. That's where I started inspecting the links they gave me before posting theirs, and just ignoring emails from the scammers.

The best links others have given me - not simply links on high PR pages, but links that actually generate referrals, you know because live humans actually clicked them? You do remember that's what links were originally for, don't you? So that web surfers could click them? How quaint! - these links are almost entirely found on some completely plain half-baked looking page of Just Some Guy who happens to like my site.

And is completely unaware that his homepage is PageRank 6 because of his detailed instructions for building your own Gasoline Powered Toaster. You see, his site is, and has always been, a labor of love. He has quality inbound links, whose PR is passed on to me, because of others who share his passion. He neither possesses the Google Toolbar nor has the first clue as to what PageRank is all about.

I've contemplated either writing or buying some kind of reciprocal link management software. Lord knows it's a lotta work to go through my email and post all the links, and if I don't get to them right away, people get pissed and take my link back down. But frankly, I think it's better that way. It keeps me honest, to do my links by hand, and I've come to understand that I have to make my link exchange a priority, because many of the links people have given me are what ultimately enabled me to Quit My Job for AdSense.

The funny thing is, that many of these sites that are spamming me and trying to steal my PageRank, they are often my direct competitors in my brick-and-mortar business, yet I'm way ahead of them in the SERPs for keywords relating to our businesses. Maybe because I came by what I have through honest, hard work.

I'll tell you a funny story that I'm reminded of here:

I visited Rome on vacation back in '97. My high school friend that I went to see (she's an English teacher there - poor as a churchmouse but happy as a clam 'cause she gets to live in Rome) warned me very adamantly to keep a sharp eye out for pickpockets.

I walked around behind the Vatican one day. Most of its perimeter consists of a high, featureless wall. The street I was on was completely deserted.

A young woman with a smile on her face approached me. She did not speak English, but kept saying something insistently and repeatedly. In her hand she held a large coin which she alternately held out to me and then kissed with her lips.

I figured she was just begging. I give when I can but I disliked her agressiveness, so I looked away and hurried on ahead up the street.

I felt her press up against my left side. I realized instantly what that meant, and shoved my hand in my pocket, where I found her hand already on my wallet.

I pulled her hand out and ran away, back the way I came to where there were more people around.

She sent me an email the other day. It seems she has found office work for a dot-com. I knew it was her because the subject of her letter was Link Exchange. Her company's homepage was not simply PageRank 6, but expected to reach 7 very, very soon!

Thank you for your attention.


 11:44 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Has page rank rolled back now?

I'm seeing old page rank again. Lots of PR0 pages etc that have yet to be assigned their rank.

This was bound to happen when we finally got a 7, lol

Not for me on my end. I'm still seeing the same asinine backwards PR's on my sites. :(


 11:50 am on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)


Michael, that looks like a 302, did you run the actual URL through the header check? A couple of months back I found a few linking to me using that method or similar and they were 302 hijacks. I asked them to change it and thankfully they did.


 12:16 pm on Jul 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint, nah, don't need to read the full thread. It looks exactly like the one at the last PR update, and the one before that, and the one before that. Except that this time there are even more issues that could be causing PR "leakage" and more issues that lots of webmasters are not aware of. My money says not everyone here is aware of all the issues I pointed out.

>> their PR6 sites
Of course you meant PR6 homepage. ;)

>>in matter of hours
Sounds very dramatic. But tPR is not updated daily. If you've been losing PR you've probably lost it bit by bit over a longer time frame than a few hours. But, put that way, it doesn't sound as catastrophic.

>> seen a one page site a few days old with not a single incoming nor outgoing link and not found in a single SE, match the now dropped PR of that of a 9+ year old site
Age has no bearing on PR, age has no bearing on PR, age has no bearing on PR. Just because the new page has no obvious IBL that doesn't mean Google hasn't seen one somewhere. That this now matches the PR of a 9 year old site has nothing to do with the price of fish.

>> identically laid out sites with the same linking structure and links on the same host and server where one site may have dropped 2 spots and the other site stayed the same
It's about IBLs. Dropped 2 spots could look exactly like dropped 1.1 spots. And, at the lower PR levels, dropped 1.1 spots can easily be caused by values of IBLs changing. At the higher PR levels it's unlikely that the second site has identical IBLs to the first from every single every page the first site has an IBL... and no other.

I sympathise with anyone who's leaked PR this update but less emotional responses and more proactive searching for the hole is a sensible way forward.

>> that thinks there is nothing wrong, and thinks they have all the answers
I find it exciting that I have more questions than answers. And, I'm open to the possibility that there is a problem with tPR. However, if you've already found your answer - i.e. that the toolbar is broken - then there's nothing you can do, it's not your fault and the best course of action is to sit back and see if it rights itself. :)

This 493 message thread spans 17 pages: < < 493 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved