| 5:56 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing the backlinks updated for most of my sites. I am searching here at 220.127.116.11
| 8:49 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yes we also see a backlink update
what about a PR update?
| 8:55 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No PR update yet here in Spain.
June 23 seems like a lifetime ago.
| 9:01 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our backlinks increased by over 30% this time... odd!
| 9:17 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My guess is that we will not be seeing a PR update for a very long time yet.
Forget PR guys.
| 9:26 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We've gone from a PR6 to a PR7 in the Google directory.
So in my opinion there has been a PR update, however it is not visible on the toolbar!
| 9:27 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In the last two months I have gone from 60 to 19 to 17 backlinks and with this update I am back to 19.
One backlink that I know was dead when the original 19 list was posted is still in this list. I conclude that this isnt an update.
| 10:20 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If there was a backlink update, what does it tell us?
| 10:36 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My real interest is that since these bad backlinks have showed up my position has also been deteriorated.
I think there is a chance Google may actually be using these backlinks. If they update the backlinks to something like a full complement and my position doesnt improve then I'll start experimenting with the backlinks. Moving links away from the footer area and increasing the relavancu of the linking pages.
| 11:04 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I think there is a chance Google may actually be using these backlinks |
Matt, you have to try to see beyond your own website(s). Millions of websites were completley unaffected by this new show of useless backlinks.
Of course, "you could be right" or it could just be a coincidence.
| 11:18 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have only considered it a posability.
Its not all that likely but I can't completely ignore it.
I know that my backlinks have reduced to about 25% of what they were. I have also heard that some sites have noticed no change in backlinks. This may or may not account for many sites not changing position. Who knows?
| 11:35 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For my site this is the first link update, I have got 100 plus links as back links out of which only 4 links from external sites all other links from my own same domain. Is google fooling us intentionally? This is kidding.
| 12:08 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have been tracking my backlinks closely. They went down 20% in Google yesterday even though I have added backlinks the past few months. My PR and rankings stayed about the same.
The quality of backlinks showing up in G is the same odd ones that have been there for a few months. I've been using Y to track them.
| 12:49 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My home page PR was 6 and now is 0 as of today. All other pages on site are same as before.
Do you think this is temporary? The PR is still white, not greyed-out and I have no reason to think my site would be penalized for any reason.
Would an upcoming PR update cause this?
| 12:59 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the thinking up to this point was that PR would be updated around the last week in September as this would fit with the quarterly BL update that GG hinted at!
The fact that PR has been updated in the directory seems odd if they aren't going to transfer this to the toolbar! Any theories on what will likely happen?
| 3:00 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just wait a few days. It always happens like this. First backlinks and then PR.
| 3:24 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK, this is really strange...
one of my adw0rds ads is showing as a backlink!
Yep, when I use link:***.com in google (18.104.22.168), a single site is listed (many high PR links not listed). I check the cached version of that site and search for my link. The only place it shows up is in the google ads*nse box running on that site. Never seen this before.
| 3:48 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
w00t! Jumped from 212 to 297 backlinks. No PR change. I had 3 backlinks after last PR update so I'm dieing to see the next PR update (like everyone else ;-) )
| 5:41 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On one of our sites our BL count went up. Another I haven't seen any change... which is unfortunate as I've been doing some major link campaign on it. Perhaps the links are just too new for G to count.
Is Google still showing only lower PR backlinks? If so, it might be a reason I’m not seeing some of then newly added quality links. Could also be a reason that some people are seeing a “loss” of backlinks, especially if those linking sites had their PR go up internally.
No matter what I'm not seeing any change in the SERPS and that's what really matters.
| 7:00 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am delighted for those whose BL count rose from the dead so to speak.
One site for which I now have over 5,000, shows the manificent total of 7, down from over 100 a week ago.
Maybe the fact that the vast majority of these are one way, and using the 2 word site name as the anchor, has had an effect.
We shall see.
| 7:13 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Could someone please shed some light, is this new set of backlinks showing useful links or is it still showing the junk links that Google had started showing a few months back?
| 7:41 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Imaster, it's "slightly improved" BL. Still a long way from the Google of yore.
| 7:50 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing some new links, but a ton of quality established links to me aren't showing in any backlink searches I do.
My conclusion is that this is still the junk back-links search that Google has given us webmasters to purposefully make it harder to search for backlink partners based on who is linking to the top sites for a given SERP.
| 8:02 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
egomaniac just go and look on yahoo for backlinks. Google knows they are there they do not show them all. I have almost 2000 on yahoo but google decides to only show 315. I am still #1, 2 or 3 because the ones that are not showing definately are counting
| 9:05 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I can safely say my backlinks have changed.
To say they had been updated would suggest they were up to date and reflected the actual links to my pages - so I definitely wouldn't call them updated!
As far as I can tell there is absolutely no useful information in the backlinks from my point of view.
I'm not really very excited about the PR update either.
| 9:25 pm on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That’s what I am struggling with; changed from what? Once they went into the program of disinformation with the back links, it seems difficult to make any sense of what the change means. Did they change the disinformation, what they count, what you have, or is it just a by product of something else?
It's all very confusing.
| 2:42 am on Sep 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
google reports back that we have lost over 300 backlinks when doing the link: command.
however it seems we have improved on our main keyword phrase.
If this is the case hope they continue to decrease the amount of links they are showing for us, hopefully we will improve on more terms :-)
| 2:50 am on Sep 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I put up a new site about 2 months ago. pr0 right now. Now when I type link:sitename
An internal page of mine is showing up as a link?
Nothing else. I have exchanged some links and got listed in some high pr directories those are not there.
| 3:34 am on Sep 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, there's been a backlink update such as it is. It's still a total joke, so save yourself some grief and ignore it.
To get a real idea of your backlinks in G, Brett's method,
is still best.