this is strange.. It always thought the the subpages will also have the same PR too

No, I can not remember that subpages have the same rank as the frontpage. Even your scmv has another PR. From a SEO point, your homepage is (or should) be linked from every site, which gives a higher count on links.

is if your sub pages all link back to the home pages, then the subpages will have the same PR ?? Do, I understand that correctly Corisn ??

or does just nudge the PR a little bit because of the high counts on links ??

No wrong
The frontpage has a higher Pagerank, because all of your subpages link back to it.
If your pages all link to each other (what is a big NO!), in theory they should get the same PR.

I run a small site at baptism.co.nz (page rank 4) which has a section of poems and writings from it at baptism.co.nz/is (page rank 4) but all the individual poems such as baptism.co.nz/is/joy.html now have a page rank of 0 and don't even appear to be in the Google index any longer. They used to be there, and they used to have PRs that meant they got visits. What changed? I haven't done anything to the site, AFAIK.

I think they have altered the PR algo

Some Google pages have a lower PR than 4 weeks ago
/ig had a nine, has now a eight

Philipp,

what's with you and Apparent Galloping Accromania [AGA]? You run an English- language weblog, and pretty good one at that, but that doesn't give you the licence to redefine basic rules of the, ehmm, lingua franca of the Internet.

Specifically, you can not use —by and large— still- uncommon accronyms such as "PR0" and "SEO," short for "PageRank Zero(?)" and "Search Engine Optimization(?)," as both abstract descriptor; substantive; adjective; and derivative verb. All of which you employ in this single piece:

[...] they've not been down to PR0 [...] Tadeusz from Berlin, an SEO who also comments along here [...] what makes sense independent of SEO to file [...] one need not know much about SEO and just do [...] if Google would prefer SEO'd websites, as many, many good websites are not SEO'd [...] the main part of good SEO seems to be to identify bad SEO [...]

That is, you can not use and expect to get away with it. Q.E.D. = http://pda.en.wapedia.org/Q.E.D. ;-))

As for title of the post itself:

> High-PR Frontpage, But Other Pages Unranked?

Last time I remember, the English "PR" universally stood for "Public Relations," and not anything else. If you're so keen on accronyms, perhaps you ought to go the whole hog and adopt a w3.org- like scheme of "s22o" akin to their "i18n" (=internationalization, 20 letters to type, ergo "i"+"18"+"n"), etc.

Point?

Ian Feldman

The sub-pages ought to inherit some PR, e.g. at least be PR1 or so when the homepage is PR8... at least over a longer period of time.

> Specifically, you can not use —by and large— still-
> uncommon accronyms ... as both abstract
> descriptor; substantive; adjective; and derivative
> verb.

Why not? Why can't SEO mean Search Engine Optimized, Search Engine Optimizer, and Search Engine Optimization? :)

The fact is that Google's system is simply riddled with defects. All of this theorizing is interesting but I wish everyone would just consider the possibility that 1) Google does a horrible job of finding and ranking relevant content and 2) the nature and severity of the defects induces an element of unpredictability that makes optimizations for their system a pointless waste of time.

My site has been online for 10 years, has submitted a sitemap and they still are unable count how many pages are in my site. They have deleted at 989 bogus records (pages) that they associated with my domain name (floridata.com) and presented them on result screens with an IP address (216.203.152.232) not associated with our domain for over a year. These 989 page all had a higher rank than the "real" pages at floridata.com. To make it even stupider all of the links were broken and there was no content in the google cache so our actual content pages were ranked LOWER than the phantom content (with broken links)! After several weeks of effort I convinced Google support to at last deleted these records.

I believe there is additional bogus data associated with our domain: When I do a "site:www.floridata.com" Google reports: "Results 1 – 10 of about 43,500 from floridata.com " which is "the number of indexed pages". However Floridata has less than 5000 URLs (as described to Google via the sitemap)

"link:www.floridata.com" indicates that Google knows of "about 77 linking to www.floridata.com". Our site has been up for 10 years and is used by schools, museums and parks around the world – the "allinurl:www.floridata.com" indicates that "about 43,900" which means "Pages that refer to your site's URL for allinurl:www.floridata.com" – Google they are LINKING to my pages!

...and if anyone knows why, after submitting a sitemap, half (about 1000) of my pages have yet to even be ranked (according to their sitemap interface).

I repeat – The Google search system is defective. I completely reformated by site, did the sitemap, have tens of thousands of backlinks, have been onlne 10 years, NEVER advertise in anyway (online or off) and yet after two months now have yet to recover the traffic we lost on March 8, 2006 when Google referrals dropped 80%. Nothing I have done has had any effect on the number of referrers.

Pagerank is useless – on May 8 and 9 the number of referrals suddenly returned to pre March 8 levels – ironically the pagerank on our welcome page was 0 (it seems to usually 5).

I hope this helps warn off anyone thinking of spending large sums of money to optimize for such a disfunctional system. I also hopes it provides some insight into the mess Google is facing now.

I was not surprised to read that Google engineers have been allowed to spend 70% of their time on bluesky party-projects – which according to Forbes has now ended.

There are many more visible symptoms of these defects (which I understand are associated with the new 'Big Daddy' datacenter coming online).

The emperor has no clothes and Google Search is crippled – hope they fix it soon...

==>>"I repeat – The Google search system is defective"

you may have a point!!

===>>"the traffic we lost on March 8, 2006 when Google referrals dropped 80%. "

Can you provide a link to acertain 80% ??

Webmasters have been reporting crazy results from Big Daddy for some time.

Intralink did a check of the relevancy of search engine results and rated Google last of the big four: http://www.seoresourcecenter.com/

Actually Google's relevancy score bar is higher than Ask's in the graph, or am I missing something?

Nice job... spent 15 minutes writing an comment with references and all. Hit submit. and get the message "oops, don't use the word D-I-E-T in the post. No link back to edit it, back-link from browser killed the content in the form.

Short,
Yes, I know the issue, experienced it myself. Contradicts some statements from Matt Cutt. Google also more openly hostile against affiliates. various links to insider news sources where just swallowed by the "submit reply" button. :)

Cheers
Carsten

I think you're right, it is a little ahead of Ask. (I would also give it points on features and ease of use.) I guess I should have said "Google rated last of the big three."

I believe google just doesn't show the pagerank very well for every page, but that doesn't mean the page doesn't have a pagerank! All my sub-pages within my site have pagerank zero, but they do come up pretty high in google. Google just doesn't show us everything, they have secrets! But that really isn't something new.

The pagerank which is used when you search for something is *NOT* the pagerank which is reported via the toolbar.

> No link back to edit it, back-link from browser killed the content in the form.

I'm following-up per email to know your browser settings, as this definitely shouldn't happen... it's very bad.

BTW.. Thanks for getting back to me Philipp
Carsten