hi guys, its unbelievable to see the pr of google.co.uk..Its N/A.i am speechless.what you guys think??
They are futzing with some things most likely. I caught this earlier http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020956.html good place to get real info as well by the way. Nigel
Don't worry about which Google domain has pr or which one is not. They have multiple DCs so sometimes this may happen during synchronization.
Why at any point would you think that Google actually has a PR 0? Even if it was there for weeks, would you really actually believe it?
very amazing!!!! google toolbar showing "no page rank available" I have heard google is changing their entire Algorithm. They are concentrating nowadays in "google caffeine" the newly developed Algorithm.
well. if PR was so important, what do backlinks, on page optimizations and all other SEO procedures mean and where do they fit-in in the larger scheme of things, by the way? Google search rankings don't go by anyone of them but a timely combination of so many things such as good content, a link from a high ranking/reputable site, onpage optimization etc and the list is long. Yes, we need good PR to impress upon other webmasters but does it mean anything to ordinary web surfers who probably don't have a clue about it? There are widespread misconceptions like this one; example, .info domains are not good for SEO but http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&num=100&newwindow=1&q=PR+checker&btnG=Search should dispel it at least. By the way why should Google have any PR, for that matter? After all not many of us are going to search for "google"!
Page rank is overrated and Google is starting to say so publicly. Today I read that Google has removed page rank from Google Webmaster Tools. Here is a statement from a Google Webmaster Trends Analyst Susan Moskwa.: "We've been telling people for a long time that they shouldn't focus on PageRank so much; many site owners seem to think it's the most important metric for them to track, which is simply not true," says Moskwa. "We removed it because we felt it was silly to tell people not to think about it, but then to show them the data, implying that they should look at it."