How much are internal pages worth for google PR?

[ntnguyen]

Nothing.Well it seems so!http://www.aoaforums.com/ has about 23,000 internal pages indexed by google. All linking to the home page, which has only a pr of 5. Granted, the site has few inbound links from other sites. But should'nt those 23,000 links sum up to something? The main forum is dynamic but it also has an archive of static versions available. So almost every page was counted.What gives?I think the highest you can get with just internal links is a PR5Its like a limit or something.I suspect you are right, darkset. This is really bad because I think this actually devalues the worth of original and useful contents of a site.I wonder if "allinurl:" gives the link count or if "link:" is a more accurate measurement? "link:" only gives 216 links...Even if all pages link to the main page, remember that pages do not "vote" 1 PR to their links. First, the dampening factor reduces the vote to 0.85 or a page's PR, and then it is divided by the number of links on the page. Therefore, they are splitting the PR quite a bit to outbound links, and what is left does not concentrate on a single page. Their headers alone have several links, and the footer has a dozen more.It would be logical to cap the PR of a site from internal links only, because google wants to see popularity around the web front different networks linking to each other. I wonder if subdomains are counted separately from the main site?I don't think, link: gives you better measurement. After the last update link: is all messed up. Before that link: would only return pr4+ sites linking to you. Now it shows only some arbitrary pages that defies any logical pattern. Even some pr4 inbound link pages are missing. But anyway, one thing you are right about. The linking or navigational structure of that site is seriously flawed. The domain url is redirected, the archive pages do not have a link to the domain/home page etc. etc.Quote:I have gone back and looked at that site a couple times ... and I have to agree!The linking or navigational structure of that site is seriously flawed.The footer links are wrapped in <form tags, most of the links are dynamic, and a whole raft of other bad SEO. They are lucky to have PR at all.I just hate evaluating individual sites here when there is a forum for that purpose.link:www.domainname.com is flawed. I have noticed that some time back. Nothing is happening or consistent with using link:I wonder what google is doing to it.Its weird to know that something that was working, isnt working no more...What appears to be the best measurement of incoming links? "allinurl:" returns a lot, but I don't know if they are counted. I was trying to develop a method to recursively scan links to a site, to estimate the actual PR of the site, but if I can't get logical results, it may not be worth the effort. Plus, not all links returned are in an anchor I think.There is nothing flawed with link: command. This is exactly what Google intended.There are dozens of programs out there that were searching backlinks, not to mention thousands of people doing SEO. What was the burden on their servers?Now links have to be found the old fashion way ... visit sites.Quote:I think altavista has a good spread for the link comand.brings up even more than the allinurl in google for me.Quote:Quote:quantumcloud wrote:Quote:hi