Marcia
msg:165301 | 5:40 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Great post, lorenzinho2. It's a lot nicer than how I would have put it, which is that Google is gaslighting SEOs. ;)
|
Dave_Hawley
msg:165302 | 6:30 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
From my exoperience Google has always been very sloooooowwww in updating any back link info. My last update was about 5-6 weeks ago and I'm not expecting another update for at least another couple of months. Perhaps they will now do it whenever they update their directory (about twice per year!). Dave
|
glengara
msg:165303 | 6:32 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
*Anyone buy this?* I might, apart from "but we (Google) know exactly which sites are linking to you..." ;-)
|
hitchhiker
msg:165304 | 6:41 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I'm running a wide scope of sites and from what I can see (by comparing the new ones to the old ones) G has just simply not 'updated' in about 2 months (approx).. New pages are being added, but the 'expected' response of changes in backlinking has not made a difference (IMHO/IMH range of sites) for a while.. - They've either dropped backlink/pr (-hmm no) or they just havn't updated it.
|
Marcia
msg:165305 | 7:08 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>G has just simply not 'updated' in about 2 months (approx).. They have_too updated backlinks, neener-neener! ;) You don't just simply move from hovering against the back wall sitting it out on the bench to up_to_bat, front_and_center at home plate without a backlinks update. It just doesn't happen that way. They haven't gone all the way, but they did update back-links at some point, though they may not want us to know they have. Hence the toolbar inconsistencies and inaccuracies. imho, of course.
|
plasma
msg:165306 | 9:19 am on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Updating backlinks for public display is not directly related to Google's core mission |
|
Wether G stops displaying backlinks or not: Other SE _do_ support it (even better)
=> It doesn't make a difference for SEOs
=> G won't stop displaying them. Last backlink update for me was about 3-4 weeks ago, nothing to worry about.
|
dvduval
msg:165307 | 1:17 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I believe I can safely say the last update of backlinks was on August 11 for all sites. I'm only talking about what is displayed, not what is actually being calculated. I have also found that new pages are not exactly getting swooped up in the daily fresh updates. I've been converting sites from cfm to php and the new php pages are nowhere and I'm still getting hits on expired pages. I think the freshbot is actually adding less than before.
|
union_jack
msg:165308 | 1:32 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I saw the backward links change at the end of September, How do I know? I renamed my links pages about 6 weeks ago and they changed at the end of September to there new names. IMO.. They just don't show all the links nowadays..
|
rfgdxm1
msg:165309 | 1:45 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>It's a lot nicer than how I would have put it, which is that Google is gaslighting SEOs. LOL. I've never known any normal surfer that used this feature. Thus, I can't imagine Google doing something where the only people to benefit were SEOs.
|
skipfactor
msg:165310 | 2:21 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I'm all fine with competitors not getting a complete cheat-sheet on the blood, sweat, and tears of ethical backlink/referral building, and I'm past the point of monitoring their reciprocals from other universes. Keep them guessing G.
|
Pricey
msg:165311 | 2:54 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Only having sites with < PR4 linking to me, I don't even get to see who links to me (unless I check ATW) ;)
|
lorenzinho2
msg:165312 | 4:04 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
"LOL. I've never known any normal surfer that used this feature. Thus, I can't imagine Google doing something where the only people to benefit were SEOs." I think that Google does LOTS of things that the vast majority of normal surfers don't know about, e.g. PR indicator, commands like "allinurl, link", calculator, backlinks, etc.
|
WebmasterFisherman
msg:165313 | 5:35 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Perhaps they will now do it whenever they update their directory (about twice per year!). |
|
You serious about that Dave_Hawley?
I have been waiting for my site that was listed in dmoz to appear at google directory for 2 months already.
When is the next directory update expected?
|
steveb
msg:165314 | 10:40 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Backlinks were updated the end of last month. The Google Directory pages were last updated over seven months ago.
|
kaled
msg:165315 | 11:07 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Whilst I agree that showing backlinks (to webmasters) is a low priority to Google, I am 100% convinced that the lack of apparent updates etc. it is entirely due technical problems. Not even Microsoft is so shoddy a company that it deliberately provides a poor service so why admirers of Google believe that they would do so baffles me. Kaled.
|
jbgilbert
msg:165316 | 11:11 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
dvduval I do believe is right.... Google freshbot is just not adding pages the way it used to. AlltheWeb is doing a much faster job than Google in this area. Could it be that Google's 4.5 billion indexed pages is about all she wrote for the short term? If so, Google is going to leave some real room for the new Yahoo conglomerate to chew on!
|
cabbie
msg:165317 | 11:19 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>I believe I can safely say the last update of backlinks was on August 11 for all sites. I'm only talking about what is displayed, not what is actually being calculated. wrong >>Backlinks were updated the end of last month. Yes
|
killroy
msg:165318 | 12:03 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Actually backlinks say a lot about a page, and can be a usefull research tool. Just use CiteSeer for a while (a must if you're interested in SE internals) and you will realize this. An I know Google engineers realize this as well. SN
|
Gus_R
msg:165319 | 12:54 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| I'm only talking about what is displayed, not what is actually being calculated |
|
I agree.
You can notice when pr changes at serps for new sites, can be anchor computing too.
|
Arnett
msg:165320 | 2:32 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| They have_too updated backlinks, neener-neener! ;) |
|
They "seemed" to have updated the backlinks. With what I don't know. I checked the backlinks for a top-rated site. A LOT of the links came up 404 not found. The backlinks may have been updated but they are old backlinks.
|
tigger
msg:165321 | 4:59 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
last time the links on my sites were updated was 24/09 so in theory next week we could see some movement.
|
hitchhiker
msg:165322 | 9:52 pm on Oct 19, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It seems we don't all update at the same time but.. As far as I can tell, on 12 seperate sites, with three seperate ages.. They HAVE NOT moved since August-Middle(ish) When I say 'Backlinks' I'm only refering to 'link:www.somedomainthatsnottaken.com' etc Can anybody here CONFIRM that they've seen a significant/permanent change in their site's backlinks since middle-late August.. (Those sites were PR6's and 5's)
|
plasma
msg:165323 | 10:11 pm on Oct 19, 2003 (gmt 0) |
End of September I had my last update.
backlinkcount grew and PR 4->5
|
bether2
msg:165324 | 10:46 pm on Oct 19, 2003 (gmt 0) |
My backlinks started changing on some data centers on 9/21. I don't recall how many days it took for this to propagate through all of the data centers. My PR changed at about the same time. Beth
|
jbgilbert
msg:165325 | 12:04 am on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Middle of August for me also. Frustrating ain't it.
|
plasma
msg:165326 | 12:06 am on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Middle of August for me also. Frustrating ain't it. |
|
[sing]Always look on the bright side of life[/sing] Before my September update the last update was months ago.
So maybe this month it's your turn.
|
Harris
msg:165327 | 1:56 am on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi, I am relatively new to all this so excuse me if I am posting this in the wrong place. In June, I did a link: search on Google to see how many web sites were linking to the site of a non profit org I help out. Google returned 56 links. I then did a search for the URL of the organization's web site and got a list of over 300 pages. I then made up a link page for their web site (they did not have one before) and waited for the bot to spider it. The link page contained over 300 links, all on topic. None of them required a link in return for linking to this organization. All of them are active. A new link: search on Google returned 23 links. I read a FAQ on Google, that link pages should not contain more than 100 links, so I split the links onto four pages, with 90 or less links on each page, and again waited for the bot to spider them. The link: search on Google still returns 23 links. The number of links on other search engines went up: Yahoo 179
Google 23
MSN 69
Altavista 136
Lycos/AllTheWeb 297 but not on Google. Most of the web site's pages show up in the top 5 to 20 hits in searches for their keywords, so I do not know if I should care. Just to complicate matters, I use a Mac, and do not have access to a PC, so the toolbar is not available to me. Any ideas about what is going on? Thank you,
Harris
|
steveb
msg:165328 | 2:47 am on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Questions like this are answered by scrolling back on the forum message list. [webmasterworld.com...] September 21 was the last update of PR and backlinks.
|
coconutz
msg:165329 | 3:23 am on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>September 21 was the last update of PR and backlinks. I'm hoping we'll see another change in the next few days. Wonder if G will ever update (and display) PR and backlinks as often as they update the search results.
|
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
