| 2:40 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Some sites try getting links to pages other than the homepage because they are harder to detect by the competition. |
Shhhh...don't give away trade secrets ;-)
That has been one of my secret weapons for a long time. A good way to get alot of deep links is to identify 4-5 similar themed sites, write a good article that would interest their users, then contact them to see fi they would like to link to it. You'd be surprised how many webmaster have contacted me after having their rankings IMPROVE after linking to one of these articles ;-) It's a win-win.
| 9:27 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'd always thought Alltheweb just showed all sites that had the URL in the coding somewhere, whether it was a link or not.
i.e. www.example.com being mentioned in the text.
I'll research this and get back to you unless someone else has already done this. There is just no way our site has as many backlinks as Alltheweb is stating. Our site is "mentioned" on about that many sites, but not all of them are linking to us. Alot of people removed the links to us in their articles when they got scared they'd lose their precious PageRank!
| 1:13 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
-We all seem to turn to Yahoo and Alltheweb to see our backlinks, and they do seem to me to be pretty accurate and fresh.
My own guess would have to be that Google has REAL problems-
Well Google i guess has no problems ,Google is not your dad or mom ,Google never sign a contract with all of you SEO's about changes in serps and PR,so why you are moaning? is it because your job is just you- or a bunch of unemployed students working 24 hours a day 7 days in a week to send emails to PR6+ pages asking for links exchage ,creating new pages ,writing several diferent areas content?crossliking those pages? just to gain a high PR? I believe the Google blokes are not stuped ,aux contraire! aux contraire!like good old Del boy used to say ,they know better as we all know.And by the way we all here webmasters and SEO's we are just typical "ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES" just to believe that next year we will be all millionaires
God bless the Trotters.
sign by a Peckham boy
| 4:26 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Seo's should not be confused with horses, horses are saddled with a whip happy jockey on their back, but the horse knows it can't win. Where as an seo is saddled with a whip happy webmaster on his back who does't know he can't win; you plonker -;
| 3:48 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|...I am unable to see any backlinks from good old "dmoz"... |
Try link:http://dmoz.org. It shows "about 262,000."
For quite a few years, Google showed only shown PR4 backlinks or higher. Once upon a time they used to show all backlinks.
When the "-link" command was working (this displayed the backlinks in PageRank order... highest first), I noticed some very high PR links coming into a client site. These stopped displaying about the same time the "-link" command was disabled, even though the links were still there. I think Google stopped showing these links to hide them from researchers.
More recently, for probably the same reason, they did a 180, for a while showing only Toolbar-PR4 backlinks or lower... or something like that. Recent Google backlink displays have been all over the map, but I haven't really paid attention because I started using Yahoo for backlink research. I think someone suggested Google was showing random results, but I haven't seen anything higher than a 4.
It's generally understood that Google counts all the backlinks, displayed or not.
| 4:24 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I just stumbled across a site with PR7 showing in the tb but zero, and I mean not even one, backlinks showing Any Ideas? |
That is odd! I haven't seen an example of zero links on a site with any PR. But the toolbar PR hasn't been working properly ... or at least it hasn't been working in the same way as it has in the past for a while but Google only ever showed a sampling of the links to any given site anyway. I guess anything is possible!
|Recent Google backlink displays have been all over the map, but I haven't really paid attention because I started using Yahoo for backlink research. |
That's the most sensible thing I've read about the Google toolbar display in a long time. If its not working, shrug it off and find the info you want elsewhere. ;)
| 5:28 am on Oct 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|That's the most sensible thing I've read about the Google toolbar display in a long time. |
Thanks, but it wasn't about the Toolbar display. It was about the backlink display. ;)
With the Toolbar display, there's just been a long overdue update. The update followed shortly after some major spidering activity, so I don't think Google is simply playing with us. There is something else going on. While the newly displayed PRs are pretty much what I'd been expecting on sites I observe, there were some anomalies here and there... new pages not getting quite the same PR of established equivalent pages on the same site.
It's too soon, I think, to be able to predict patterns. I'm sure that Google doesn't want the PR display to be the main reason for sites to link to each other... and it's probably a good idea to learn to evaluate sites independently of that green bar.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) |