Multiple PageRank Checker

Checking one URL was handy; checking dozens at once was a power tool. The multiple PageRank checker let you paste in a list of domains — up to twenty-five at a time — and see them all scored side by side. It was a favourite of anyone who managed more than one site. Here's what it did, and how bulk comparison works now that the score is gone.

What bulk checking was for

Scoring many URLs together answered comparison questions that a single lookup couldn't. People used it to:

• Compare a portfolio of their own sites at a glance and see which needed attention.
• Vet a list of potential link partners or directories before spending time on outreach.
• Size up competitors in a niche by lining up their homepages next to each other.
• Check a batch of pages after a marketing campaign to look for movement.

How it worked under the hood

Technically, a multiple checker was just the single checker run in a loop. For each URL you submitted, it queried the same Google Toolbar data feed, collected the 0-to-10 value, and arranged the results in a table. The convenience was in the presentation, not in any special data — it drew from exactly the same well as every other checker, which is why it stopped working at the same moment they all did.

Comparing sites today

Bulk comparison is still one of the most useful things you can do in SEO — the metric just changed. Instead of a single frozen number, modern analysis lines domains up across several dimensions at once:

• Referring domains — the count of distinct linking sites, which is the closest single stand-in for old PageRank.
• A third-party authority estimate — Domain Rating, Domain Authority, or similar, applied consistently across the whole list so the comparison is apples-to-apples.
• Estimated organic traffic and ranking keywords — often more revealing than any link metric, because they measure results rather than potential.
• Topical relevance — whether a linking site actually relates to your subject, which matters more than raw authority.

Most reputable SEO platforms include a batch-analysis view that reports these columns for a pasted list of domains — the spiritual successor to the multiple PageRank checker, with far richer data. We describe the landscape of those tools, without recommending any one of them, in what replaced PageRank.

A worked example

Imagine you're weighing up three sites to pitch a guest article to. In the old days you'd have pasted their homepages into a multiple checker and compared three PageRank numbers — say a 5, a 4, and a 4 — and probably picked the 5. Today the same comparison is far more revealing. Line the three up and you might find that the apparent "winner" has a big authority estimate but almost no organic traffic and links mostly from unrelated directories, while one of the "4s" has fewer links but every one from a respected publication in your field, plus healthy traffic and rankings. The richer comparison flips the decision — and you'd never have seen it from a single digit.

Reading a comparison sensibly

Whatever columns you compare, apply them consistently and keep them in proportion. Use the same tool for every domain so the scores are measured on one scale, weigh topical relevance as heavily as raw authority, and always sanity-check a flattering number against real-world signals like traffic and brand recognition. A comparison is a starting point for judgement, not a verdict on its own.

The lesson of bulk checking

The multiple checker taught a useful habit: never judge a site in isolation. A number only means something in context, next to its peers and competitors. That instinct is still exactly right — the modern practice of assessing authority is really just careful comparison with better inputs.