Forum Moderators: open
The index page for this archieve has a PR of 5 (main index is PR6). All the newsletters for 2001 and 2002 have a PR of 2 but all pages for 2003 have a PR of 0.
2003 newsletter have been indexed by Google, infact the May 2003 one has our highest rank!
So why no PR?
- Could it be too many links (30ish) on our PR5 index page?
Or flash "NEW" on top of the PR display.
Talking about PR has anyone else noticed that a popular Google Dance tool has had their home page go from a PR6 or 7 to PR0?
Look carefully at the URL, it has changed and is now a redirect to the new one.
Dave.
if your newest one is ranking the highest ever, then who cares if you have a PR1 or a PR10?
And of course there are problems with people not wanting to link to PR 0 sites.
I also agree on the point that PR toolbar should be able to help webmasters in distinguishing good sites from bad penalized sites, so that the innocent won't get hurt by this paranoid and the bad guys were disclosed.
Lastly, if PR toolbar were to be displayed, it should be accurate and updated as a righteous responsibility of a netizen to the public and web community. It would totally be unfair and dishonest if an inaccurate PR were assigned by Google for new sites as well as old ones as this may lead to "faulty discrimination".
I really wonder at the future of the Google toolbar when I think that, in all the time since its creation, Google hasn't come out with a Mac version yet... or any other support, such as server-savvy Linux? I must check that last note...
There are a lot of arguments here which seem to be warped by the 'computer object and existing technology and what to do with it' ideal - forget that for a second and let's go back to logic. If someone enters a room and he sees that on one side there's a group of people standing below a sign "good or established" and on the other side is a group of people labelled "bad or new", who's he going to go talk to? We have to look at it from the viewer's viewpoint. The Google PR system is definitely not fair in that respect.
I think the toolbar is great, but I hate the green bar. I vote Google zap it. It definately does more harm than good - to Google and users.
I second that!
In the mean time, are there any good ways to convince people that I haven't been labelled as a 'bad neighbourhood' simply because the toolbar shows my page as PR0?
I have tried offering my stats to people to show that google still gives me traffic, but they don't seem to want to see them, and they don't accept that being at number 1 for a certain key phrase is proof. Banging my head against the wall doesnt seem to help either ;)
Dont get all bummed out if you have a PR0. Just work hard and keep linking ... you will get the back links you need.
After you get some PR then go back to the people that didnt respond the first time around and ask nicely again.
A little bit of patience and dedication goes a long way.
brad
This would help users in various ways:
1) We would know who NOT to link to - who NOT to support. These FFA-type sites will slowly lose users and dissappear from the SERPs and our lives leaving room for more quality sites and services.
2) As soon as we see a visible PR for a site (even if it's 1), it will in turn tell us that the site has been indexed by Google. If there's a PR0 on the site, then the gray will simply stay put until a PR > 0 is established.
3) This would also benefit Google, as they would not have to list any page that's grey barred... there'd be no reason to. Let's face it, if you have a home page with a PR1, then, really, how beneficial could the internal content of such a site be? If a page within a site with a higher pagerank is listed as PR0, then there are still several things that can be done to adjust that - but if the effort is not put forth, then it really might NOT be worth indexing.
4) Googly Webmasters will have a way of gauging their site's popularity the minute they see a PR pop up for their new site, and will then be able to build content and inbounds accordingly.
I've never had a site premiere with a PR of less than 3 until recently...now all I get is a white bar and it's crippling the progress of several projects because people want to see results, not a reason of why their page cannot pull in link partners.
Gus
BTW, I'm skeptical about the who penalty thing. What is the latest concensus on linking into a penalized site? Is it just the linking page which is penalized or the entire linking domain? Then how about domains linking TO the linking domain, and other domains linking to the domains linking to the domain linking the penalized site...? There would have to be a dampening effect like with PR or that would mean "one bad apple" eventually spoils the whole internet if it's not cut off? Maybe that's why G's PR bar is broken lately, they accidenly incubated a penalty virus not realizing it would eventually infect the whole index with PR0's <lol>. If that's the case noone should ever link ANYONE since the effect could be many domains away and possibly take a number of dances to propogate back? The GOOD site you link TODAY could get PENALIZED next dance for linking a bad site which was good until it linked a bad site who a long time ago linked another...
It's just like what they say about STD's? When you sleep with someone, you're sleeping with everyone they ever...
Link on dudes,
Mike
Is it just the linking page which is penalized or the entire linking domain?
If it were on a per domain basis I would think the whole of geocities would be banned by now.
TJ
...I think you've hit the nail on~the~head : )
A possible solution could be to display PR3/PR4 for new sites and display the actual PR after a lapse of say 6 months
I've been saying the same for the last months, but I think people don't like it much.
Anyway, it seems that problems with the "dissapeared" PR are being solved with this Fritz Update, or at least they are solved for me: my new pages created in April now show the correct PR.
I am seeing non-zero PRs on my two sites on and off today. I think from now onwards the new sites will have to wait for maximum about 6 weeks at PR0 before being upgraded to actual values. Still the problem of getting links with PR0 during that period will probably remain.
>> People just need to know that new pages start out at zero...
Googleguy, how are we supposed to resolve this tidbit with the bad neighborhood issue? There is nothing to distinguish a new site from a penalized site.
seriously. GG. You know this is the burning question. You can't label ‘penalized’ and ‘new’ the same way, while warning us to stay away from penalized. In the programming world this would be called… inelegant, to say the least.
This is causing big problems for the webmaster community. You could fix it... very easily. Will you? We're asking nicely.
Penalized means "not in the index" somebody else said.
Now this is what happened to me:
I put links from one of my sites pointing to my mother company's site (always on the bottom of the site, about 1000 links altogether)
Result: home page that is being linked to dropped from 4-5 to 0, inner pages kept their PR. But: the home page that now has PR0 still shows in the upper ranks of SERPS.
This has happened about 2 months ago and hasn't changed ever since. I removed all of the possibly offending links and they don't seem to be in the cache any more.
What do you think, is it penalized or not - if so, should I try to get it back to normal, writing to "canossa"?
BTW, anyone ever notice the correlation between alltheweb and Google? We show pretty darn comparable number of Backlinks on both for a wide range of pages, BUT they are totally different sets of links! Is there any advantage to submitting those found on one, (but not the other) to the other?
not saying it's any of the people posting in this thread. just that i've seen it.
google should go to a system where they display a check or a happy face in the toolbar if the site has any pr at all, and nothing if it doesn't. pr0, since it is more likely pr.013233, or something like that, would still get a star or happy face, but penalized sites would not.
let searchers and other true linking partners determine 'how' relevant the site is, and not webmasters what have enough time on their hands to go link farming.
i have a pr8 site that i don't link to some of my other site for no other reason than that they are not relevant. silliness.
I wonder why Google made the PR system in the first place. I don't see it since I'm on Mac but I do see the chaos caused by its... shortcomings.
no problem with hiding the toolbar altogether. Also, I don't have to inflate my ego showing high PR (doing that with my '57 MB :) ) but: I want to offer my hard work to people who'd like to make their web sites more visible.
Those guys use the toolbar - and they will have heard that a company selling SEO related help with PR0 is ... somewhat ... suspicious, don't you think?
A pagerank of one would be more appropriate for new pages and zero for banned perhaps with grey bar for not indexed.
I link to PR 0 sites, although reluctantly(Obviously i'd prefer to trade links with an established site). Over the past 3 months I have accepted link exchanges with about 5 PR 0 websites. After looking over a site to make sure it's a "quality" website, I check the PR. If it's a 0 than I immediately search for its URL in Google. If the URL is in Google, than obviously the website is not banned. Simple, huh?
Two of those times the websites were not in Google, I than did a domain check to see how old the domains were. Both were brand new domains that were just registered recently.
Three months later all of those sites are in google, one now has a PR 5 - and two of those links now supply me with 3-5 times more traffic than I give them!
To me giving my vote to a PR 0 website is an investment in their future. We all start out at zero. How do you know the site wont one-day become a PR 7 authority site in its field?
I agree that it's lousy how long Google appears to be taking to update PR for newer pages and websites, but webmasters who refuse to link to new websites when it's so easy to check to see if they're banned .... are just as big a part of the problem.
A pagerank of one would be more appropriate for new pages and zero for banned perhaps with grey bar for not indexed.
I agree. Sounds reasonable.
But to make it easier and not screw up the numbering system, a simple greybar for not indexed/new sites....and a 0 for banned would be perfect.
