22 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
22 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is PR of the site a real PR9?

by gamefan
19 replies
  • SEO
    • |
The site is: fullaa dot com
I checked it in checkpagerank site, it is reported a real PR9. However, in digitalpoint, somebody said it's fake PR but no prove. Can anyone tell me how to prove it is fake PR?:confused:
Thanks.
#pr9 #real #site
  • Profile picture of the author hilarious89
    It can be....
    But is there any tool available on net by which we can identify which is fake PR? I am expecting google will create a tool by which we can identify if the PR is fake or not cause google only holds the copyright of PageRank.
    Signature
    My Archive :- A blog where you will get everything updated !
    Get Walkthrough Videos of Newly Released Games from Entertainment Discuss!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606625].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UMS
    Commonsense should tell you it is a non-legitimate PR9 page given that google.com is a PR9.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606627].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Originally Posted by gamefan View Post

    The site is: fullaa dot com
    I checked it in checkpagerank site, it is reported a real PR9. However, in digitalpoint, somebody said it's fake PR but no prove. Can anyone tell me how to prove it is fake PR?:confused:
    Thanks.
    I would recommend taking what "somebody on digitalpoint said" with a grain of salt. DNScoop says the Page Rank is valid; that site is 8 years old.

    http://www.dnscoop.com/

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606682].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      I would recommend taking what "somebody on digitalpoint said" with a grain of salt. DNScoop says the Page Rank is valid; that site is 8 years old.

      dnScoop - Domain Name Value, History, Stats Tool and Forums
      However, since there are zero links pointing to that site and links are what create PR - I'd say the PR is false, despite what DNScoop says.
      Signature

      nothing to see here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606743].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
        Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

        However, since there are zero links pointing to that site and links are what create PR - I'd say the PR is false, despite what DNScoop says.
        I clicked their link to check on the links to that site and it went to a now-defunct Yahoo Site Explorer. I suspect that's why it's saying there are zero backlinks; not because there really ARE no backlinks to that site. I do understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing until I realized that it's just about impossible for a site that old not to have even ONE link.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606760].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
          Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

          I clicked their link to check on the links to that site and it went to a now-defunct Yahoo Site Explorer. I suspect that's why it's saying there are zero backlinks; not because there really ARE no backlinks to that site. I do understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing until I realized that it's just about impossible for a site that old not to have even ONE link.
          I also checked with some other tools - not just by following the link on DNscoop.

          Not that I care one way or the other - but it's very unusual for a site with that PR not to show any links, so I would not consider it valid at this point.
          Signature

          nothing to see here.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606784].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
            Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

            I also checked with some other tools - not just by following the link on DNscoop.

            Not that I care one way or the other - but it's very unusual for a site with that PR not to show any links, so I would not consider it valid at this point.
            Yeah, the whole thing is really weird; that's for sure. I would think that a site that old would have at least several dozen natural backlinks. I've never seen that site before; not that that matters, but I'm curious now.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606804].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      I would recommend taking what "somebody on digitalpoint said" with a grain of salt. DNScoop says the Page Rank is valid; that site is 8 years old.

      dnScoop - Domain Name Value, History, Stats Tool and Forums
      LOL. Then I would take anything that DNScoop says with an even bigger grain of salt. Sounds like a complete POS.

      All you need to do is look at the backlinks. No way a legit PR 9 site is going to have anything less than millions of backlinks.

      You can also run it through something like SEOmoz's Opensite Explorer. When you see that the Domain Authority is only 18, you know it is nowhere near a PR 9. Doesn't matter how they faked it at that point, you know it is not legit. Move on.
      Signature
      Get the TIPS and STRATEGIES I use to HELP businesses GROW through SEO.
      Delivered to you each week!

      >>> Sign Up Now <<<
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6611806].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UMS
    The site does have some backlinks, that's not in question.

    I've seen quite a few cases like this where the site in question has a high PR and passes the usual PR fake tests, but clearly has a non-legitimate PR.

    If you look on Majestic SEO, you can see it has very few backlinks.

    https://www.majesticseo.com/reports/...exDataSource=F
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brad Stephens
    I would call this fake... If it is real, it turns the value of PR onto its head haha.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6607416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gamefan
    I used nearly all the tools on the web to check the pr of the site. They were all returned as VALID. The most weird thing is that all PRs of the inner pages of the site are N/A. So I doubt PR9 site has the valid PR. My question is :
    How to prove IT IS Fake PR ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6609442].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Surminga
    Apparently so, beware of it though, in my opinion I would not trust it fully
    Signature
    Surminga.com - SEO and Digital Marketing Agency

    Here are a few of our Blog's : Social Media Marketing Guide
    Or if you Fancy a Holiday? - Holiday Guide
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6609461].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gamefan
      Originally Posted by Surminga View Post

      Apparently so, beware of it though, in my opinion I would not trust it fully
      If the PR is fake and no tool on online to prove it. I can say all the PR checker tools are outdated.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6609481].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gamefan
    Originally Posted by MrMicroNiche View Post

    There is way people raise there PR temporarily very very black hat just to sell there site for a pretty penny so be worried
    Well, you may be right. I just want to look for the insight of the things. How did the site get PR9 and no online tool can prove it is Fake PR.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6609577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Bratcher
    Using SEOquake (a firefox extenstion), it says the PR is 2. You can check it yourself with any similar browser extenstion.

    Either way I can tell you with confidence it is not a PR 9 site. There are very, very few PR 9 sites. Under 200 in a sea of millions.
    Signature
    “The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” – Ayn Rand
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6609783].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gamefan
      Originally Posted by fatherflame View Post

      Using SEOquake (a firefox extenstion), it says the PR is 2. You can check it yourself with any similar browser extenstion.

      Either way I can tell you with confidence it is not a PR 9 site. There are very, very few PR 9 sites. Under 200 in a sea of millions.
      I checked it by newest SEOquake in Firefox, it shows up PR9.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6612156].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gamefan
      Originally Posted by fatherflame View Post

      Using SEOquake (a firefox extenstion), it says the PR is 2. You can check it yourself with any similar browser extenstion.

      Either way I can tell you with confidence it is not a PR 9 site. There are very, very few PR 9 sites. Under 200 in a sea of millions.
      It is PR9 if you used SEOquake to check it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6612165].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CBusiness
    It's not a valid PageRank 9.

    It's been redirected somewhere for some time. That is why the WayBack machine does not have layouts stored.

    http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fullaa.com
    Signature
    Buy YouTube Views, No Way! ! ! Force Youtube Videos To Go Viral. Contact Me For eBook or check my WSO
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6610289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    I suspect that the site was re-directed to a genuine PR9 site at one stage. This Google loophole is causing a massive upheaval in the domaining as well as the link trading business. You just cannot rely on the info: command or pagerank checkers anymore.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6612538].message }}

Trending Topics