Incredible PR5 Site - Must See!!1!eleven!1!

[mike]

I hate even bringing up anything to do with PR and all that, but sometimes I run into stuff with such a 'what the hell?!' factor that I just can't help myself.

For example:
I was trying to go to Google's video site and mistakenly typed in googlevideo.com instead of video.google.com.

At first I was just a little surprised that somebody other than Google owned the domain. Then I read their disclaimer about being non profit and all that and found that somewhat amusing. But when I looked at the PR and saw a big fat 5, I literally laughed out loud.

Here's a page with no content -there are literally 25 lines in the whole HTML document, they have no inbound links (ok, 6), and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce why this non-commercial, non-profit site exists.

But they have a PR 5.

Anybody want to take a stab at explaining this?

[scanmonkey]

One good link can get you a PR5. Kind of amazed that Google would not have jumped all over googlevideo.com

googlevideo.com has a nice link here. Wondering if it is a mistake.

[kgun]

Is it different in Norway? Google toolbarrank = 0.

[StephenR.]

Could be the datacenters are just realigning right now kgun. It's a 5. Yep, one good link can give you that inflated PR value.

[southplatte]

Maybe google has a way of placing value on traffic or unique traffic that is not necessarily tied to inbound links? I bet they may have a way to determine the amount of traffic a site gets, and if this site is typed in often and gets really high traffic, maybe that's a factore. Not that I know anything, but who knows about google and their capabilities??

[effisk]

You might want to try this query instead of the google link: query as suggested in the first post:
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com...&bwmo=d&bwmf=s

This is the explaination.

PS: just so you know, Yahoo Site Explorer gives much better results for that kind of queries than Google. The link:, site:, etc. commands are being restricted by Google for a few reasons that have been widely discussed on the internet before.

[greeneagle]

effisk - please expand and cite - Good call Mike..

Ken

[williamc]

Mike, it only takes one link from a pr6 site to get a pr5. Or several links from pr5 sites even for that matter.

The site also has a few 301 redirects aimed at it from domains with links.

[timmathews.com]

That is very strong. I am curious how long G will let them have the domain before a cease and desist comes?

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

effisk - please expand and cite - Good call Mike..

I would have thought everyone selling SEO services knew googles link: command only showed around 5-10% of the links they actually know about by now. Guess I was wrong in your case.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by timmathews.com

That is very strong. I am curious how long G will let them have the domain before a cease and desist comes?

That, right there, is a far better topic. :)

[bj]

Geez, I have well over 800 incoming that Goog acknowledges (over 28k incoming according to that yahoo tool) and a pr of 6. Somehow this doesn't seem quite fair. :)

[commanderdave]

The contents of the page are outside of the body /body tags. Meaning in an old browser, this information wouldn't even been visable. Sloppy or forgiving? It makes me wonder what I could get away with.... hmmmm

[williamc]

Originally Posted by bj

Geez, I have well over 800 incoming that Goog acknowledges (over 28k incoming according to that yahoo tool) and a pr of 6. Somehow this doesn't seem quite fair. :)

Get one link from a PR8 page with less than 40 links on the page, you will hit PR7 next update without a problem.

[nottheusual1]

Google is very active in the Domain Name Dispute/UDRP arena. Here's what they've been up to at WIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/search/query.htm...&charset=utf-8

Just having the bogus WHOIS info (googlevideo.com's are obviously BS) will constitute a registration in bad faith, and the first two legs (similarity and use rights) are real easy when you are Google.

Disclaimers are worthless - they tend to show that you were already aware of the mark owner's rights.

Also, since they put the "google" bit in the front claiming non-commercial use won't work. WIPO UDRP panels have always frowned on this.

That's why "walmartblows.com" was transfered (and the fact that "blows" doesn't translate well to other languages, so there may be initial interest confusion) and "ihatewalmart.com" or "crappywalmart.com" won the complaint and stay up.

But, then all it takes is ONE LINK that you get ONE PENNY from and the site is now commercial, so it won't matter.

If you aren't aware of the UDRP and the things that are being done to domain name owners, get educated because you are subject to it as the result of registering your domain (you agree to arbitration in the service agreement, you know - that button you always agree to but rarely read).

Good thing is that there now exists an arena to tackle typo- and domain-squatters..... If you have $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 to do it.

Bad thing is that it is the perfect forum to let large businesses run roughshod over most of the rest of the world - they have the money and the lawyers.

Other good thing is that the complainant has to prove all 3 legs - similarity, rights, and registration/use in bad faith. All the respondent has to do is disprove 1 of the 3.

Another good resource for UDRP stuff (although they no longer seem to keep it current) is

http://www.udrpinfo.com

And, speaking from current (like right at this moment) experience, it is not a fun thing to go through responding to a UDRP Complaint. It leaves scars.....

[jtracking]

if there ever were to be a buyout of the name from google there would be a lot of not so complimentary sounding link text towards it.

[shoi]

PR is zero here (in UK)

[internet-engine]

I just went to the site (from the midwest US) and I see a PR of zero. I'm using an updated Google tool bar. Do you think that matters?

[craigmn3]

Anyone can put google in their urls with out fear or impunity from The big G

Perhaps the name of this site was Go Ogle Video


Just a thought

[jawn_tech]

I think it will be a short lived site. Google will be on them before long, if they haven't started already.

Google seems to take their trademark very seriously, and I doubt its 'non-profit' status impresses them.

Despite the fact Google.com was registered AFTER Googles.com.

As for taking a stab at it -- due to the way it was "thrown together", and only seems to have one viable high PR link, I think someone is testing the waters as an experiment. The purpose of the link was just to get Google's attention. In other words, maybe a legal experiment -- or to prove a point.

[Seminole386]

I am guessing they switched the page after is was spidered. I could not find the site on Google or Yahoo so could not check the cached version.

[StephenR.]

Originally Posted by commanderdave

The contents of the page are outside of the body /body tags. Meaning in an old browser, this information wouldn't even been visable. Sloppy or forgiving? It makes me wonder what I could get away with.... hmmmm

Interesting catch commander...

[DrTandem1]

I suspect that Google has already issued the cease and desist. If you look at the cite in the archives:

http://web.archive.org/web/200502021...deogoogle.com/

You will see that it is merely a skeleton, now. Probably removed the commercial aspects of the site to improve their position for a domain dis