Ok, what you are going to see will shock the very daylight out of you.. Im sure every body knows about the infamous business.com? It was in the media for being sold for alot of money..

Well, google has decided to give them a PR of 0

http://www.business.com/ << Take a look.


Not only that, there is no cache or link record of the site.

its probably just temporary and that wouldn't afect the site very much..

Its been going on for a while I heard with business.com

something fishy is going on with google, Im telling you my friend..

http://www.w3reports.com/index.php?itemid=549

I have a PR of 4 but Im not in googles index since I opened my site over 4 months ago. I have over 220 backlinks in Yahoo... and Rank 2nd for a premium key phrase.. Google remains ignorant with my site

Originally posted by Postmaster
Well, google has decided to give them a PR of 0 What you're seeing is not a PageRank zero; it's no PR displayed at all -- sometimes called a "gray bar." A PR 0 would show the bar in white as usual, but with no green bar.

Don't believe everything you see. The toolbar display is a translated representation of PageRank; PR is not really a number from zero to ten, it's a probability vector with the sum of all PageRanks totalling one. In other words, not seeing a PageRank displayed on the toolbar doesn't mean there isn't a PageRank in use. In this case it not showing is probably related to how business.com's asp pages are being served.

It only affects the index page, so it's not true that "there is no cache or link record of the site." There are 184,000 pages (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=url&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=business.com&safe=images) from business.com indexed, and PageRank and cached versions work normally for every one of those internal pages that I've checked -- and even the index page is still ranking normally if you search for text from the page (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22browse+the+Internet%27s+largest+business+directory+of+companies%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&filter=0), which would indicate that internally PageRank is still in play with regard to that page.

And, the page is in fact cached; here (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Zrzt5s-k5sMJ:www.business.com/&hl=en) is the cached version spidered (as of right now) on 9/7.

Also, backlinks (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebusiness%2Ecom%2F) appear as they should.

In short, there's nothing "shocking" going on and no "freak show."

ahh ok, but some of the words I quoted were from an other forum hehehe

Originally posted by Postmaster
ahh ok, but some of the words I quoted were from an other forum hehehe Well, like I said before... don't believe everything you read. :)

BTW, that speculation that Google has the technical capacity to index only slightly more than four billion pages is more than a year old. You apparently found a rewritten version where someone put a more current date on it, but that idea surfaced in June 2003. It's pretty easily dismissed, if only for the fact that it's built on several mistaken premises: for example, that the technical documents referred to are describing the architecture at Google. In fact if the author had carefully read the document on the term vector database, he'd see that it's referring to a system built on the AltaVista index at the time. That is, it wasn't a live system that would grow over time, like Google, it was a snapshot of an index for which the developers knew what the size requirements would be.

For that reason it's not true that "it's clear that four-byte docIDs were used at one time" for Google's search engine, as the page linked to concludes. It's only clear that people employed at Google used four-byte docIDs for at least one project that was separate from the live search engine.

There's a wealth of information available in somewhat dated documents that were produced by Google engineers. But they have to read carefully, and they have to be taken in context. They provide clues as to how Google works, but they're not giving away any of the real, important secrets.

Maybe this:

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=27926