| 10:34 am on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
true backlink numbers are rarely shown by Google.
| 11:55 am on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Have you tried looking for backlinks in Yahoo, MSN, etc?
| 1:38 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Exactly as stated. Google will hide them on purpose so prying eyes cannot calculate and figure out exactly how a site is getting its rankings.
Ways around this are to check backlinks from other search engines. Yahoo, MSN, AltaVista.
There are tons of scripts out there that do this with ease. Market leap may be helpful.
There are even some excellent SEO type software's out there that are in the $70 range that do tons of calculations for you.
| 2:04 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think the link: command has shown all the results for quite some time.
I used a rusty brick PR calculation tool today and our website is predicted to go to PR10.
All of the other tests I ran seem accurate and logical... I would love to know if it's true! :-)
| 2:16 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I used a rusty brick PR calculation tool today and our website is predicted to go to PR10"
I must be dreaming
| 2:28 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
-I used a rusty brick PR calculation tool today and our website is predicted to go to PR10-
i can go to pr10 if i got links from every viagra site ,but what do i want?a high pr or a top 10 in serps?
| 2:33 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We are top for most phrases anyway.
PR is more of a status symbol is it not? or the icing on the cake.
Either way, I wish the link: command was accurate so I could check all the backlinks...
| 2:39 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
" I wish the link: command was accurate so I could check all the backlinks"
You can check all their backlinks by using Yahoo's link command.
| 3:14 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for all the great responses.
Yes, I had looked on yahoo and saw a bunch of links (500+) but what amazed me was that were none at all shown by G. I have often seen instances where G shows only a few backlinks (it seems usually those of lower quality), but never noticed a case in which there were none at all. Was this done manually? If so, why?
| 5:56 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have seen PR8's that do not show any backlinks, the sites were new, so a PR update must have occurred before a backlink update, these sites have shown backlinks just recently, but pr was showing for the last 2 months. They are getting all there PR from one place and even now google only displays 3 backlinks of a total of more then 3000. As PR and backlinks are both unreliable and often stale, my only conclusion is that new sites highlight this problem more then others.
| 8:07 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
May also have high PR links to internal pages of the site which then link to the index page thus giving the site a high PR.
| 8:18 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This site is at least 3 years old, so that won't apply, but good point.
I'll look into that.
| 9:12 pm on Oct 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oaktown would you sticky me the url I'd like to take a look.
| 12:07 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GodLikeLotus - if that were true then the inner pages would show as backlinks
The important thing to understand throughout all of this is Google does not show all (and in some cases any) backlinks for any site accurately - that was done by Google on purpose a few months ago at the suggestion of a member here to confuse the people who think they know what they are doing with SEO (but dont)
| 12:24 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>i can go to pr10 if i got links from every viagra site ,but what do i want?a high pr or a top 10 in serps?>>
You want the pr10 my friend, you will have no problem at all with "sales" even if on page #179
| 12:46 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>The important thing to understand throughout all of this is Google does not show all (and in some cases any) backlinks for any site accurately - that was done by Google on purpose a few months ago at the suggestion of a member here to confuse the people who think they know what they are doing with SEO (but dont) >>
Who says that, g? to confuse people lol,
seems to me that would confuse g themselves.
err, there are a couple of other se to look at, where link pop is very rewarding
So, some sites are selling pr9 links right now, even though I know and you know they are probably pr7..or are they prob a pr8/10.
Perhaps the guy who "told google how to confuse people" would know? Point being, you see a pr9 link for sale @ reasonable cost you will buy it, assuming you know what your doing -:
ps. nobody knows anything about seo anymore, there are good spammers and poor spammers, just like it always has been.
Take a look at the serps; I rest my case ;-)
| 11:11 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Marval - GodLikeLotus - if that were true then the inner pages would show as backlinks
Why would the internal pages show as backlinks if the whole backlinks thing is upsidedown?
You seem to state that backlinks are not accurate yet if they are internal links pointing at the index page then they should show up, why?
| 11:32 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
steve - I cant find the thread here - but it was posted here some time ago by G
"some" backlinks are still shown in the link: command so yes - you "might" see the backlinks from internal pages - especially if they were the only backlinks
as far as buying a PR based on what is on the toolbar - no I wouldnt - for that matter I wouldnt buy a backlink - but thats just me - its stupid when there are so many ways to get good backlinks without spending money - and of course then I would have to go through and install the toolbar again - which is a waste of my time
| 11:38 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oaktown, I think you'll find the site has a high PR from a single (or couple of) high PR backlink(s).
| 11:52 am on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, I had looked on yahoo and saw a bunch of links (500+) |
Remember, Yahoo doesn't see backlinks the same way Google does. Some things that Yahoo considers as a backlink is not consider one by Google. Also, Google is very specific about only contributing a link as a valid backlink in a certain way whereas Yahoo will contribute it to any page it can find no matter how many re-directs, frames or cloaks stand between it.
| 4:18 pm on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks to all for the great comments and suggtions. I guess the question I should follow up with is, "How does G decide which links to show and which to hide?" and equally important, "Why, in this case, did G decide to show none at all?"
It seems to me that a human hand HAD to be involved here. Or do I just need to have another cuppa?
| 6:04 pm on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would Like to also add that I am unable to see any backlinks from good old "dmoz" anyone know why dmoz backlinks are awol from google backlink showings?
| 7:04 pm on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a site showing 10 backlinks, 6 are DMOZ clones, not even a mention of the Google Directory. The DMOZ and Google Directory links are on PR5 pages.
I am totally lost here about this with Google. Can it really be that Google would develop their Toolbar with an option to show PR then just mess it all up to show unaccurate results? What is the point?
If Google are so paranoid about people being able to look at a sites backlinks that they are prepared to just mess things up: then why are their rivals not doing similiar things to mess things up for SEO's? 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.
| 11:43 pm on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There were always and will always be ways to hide PR links. It's just a matter of research and creativity. If you do it right, the competitors can't see anything.
| 12:44 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We have a home page almost like that only worse. It's showing only a PR4, with about a dozen backlinks, but scoring nicely among the PR7s in our search terms. Here's what happened.
We were in the middle of moving domain abc.com to xyz.com a few months ago when G was just starting all this new cr@% about not updating the toolbar and backlinks. We 301 redirected abc.com (PR6 with about 150 BLs) and abc.com/efg.htm (PR5 with about 50 BLs including Y! directory links) to an existing (over 5 years old) xyz.com (PR3 with 12 BL). G has apparently credited all or most of these 200 inherited BLs as far as serp rank calculation to xyz.com, but is not showing them calculated into the PR (which still shows PR3, as it did when only the 12 BL'd to xyz.com, and the 12 BLs plus a few new BLs - actually it just went up to PR4 last week). So here we are with a PR4 showing very few BLs coming up top 10 under VERY competitive terms.
I would say look for a high PR they recently redirected and just wait and watch for the PR/BLs to go up on the next cycle.
Another interesting observation in this: I wonder if G is artificially limiting the displayed PR climb in each cycle or time period. As I mentioned above, adding up all the redirected BLs and previous PRs for this domain, we should be at the very least at a PR6 or maybe (hopefully) PR7, yet it is displaying only a PR4 after the recent step up from PR3. In the past when we did this, the PR would jump within days. Personally I have no problem with this since the SERPs are good, but I'll bet anything it is another thing G is doing to limit blackhats who sell PR links, from bait and switching high PR pages (redirecting high PR to one page today until they sell links and then redirecting it to another tomorrow in order to sell that one (while the first of course plummets)). It would greatly sabotage those kind of swindles since the PR would take months to transfer. So be careful when buying high PR links and make sure the page is actually RANKING among PR9s instead of just showing a PR9.
| 12:51 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here are the results using the link command for a site that is almost 4 months old now.
Google Results -about 27 linking
Yahoo Results -about 20 linking
Alltheweb Results -of 349
My guess is google and yahoo apply some type of dampening filter while alltheweb are unfettered results.
I guess that none of these results are really reliable results to do any type of anaylasis with. So this site could indeed have enough inbound links to have a high pr but some type of dampening filter is being applied to the results You see.
| 10:27 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We have 20,100 links using alltheweb.com and only 2,050 using Google.
| 10:51 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the alltheweb backlinks have always shown way more than google - there used to be a very specific dampening factor that Google used to show backlinks - only those above a PR3 would show - until about 6 months ago - when they started this new way of showing backlinks. A search here for threads on this brings up loads of threads about that.
As far as why Google decided to do this -
this post tells it all around page 13
which leads to a thread I cant seem to find thread 24369 which is where googleguy actually confirmed the restructuring of the backlinks command
| 1:34 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's also possible that the site in question has lots of backlinks to inner pages. Some sites try getting links to pages other than the homepage because they are harder to detect by the competition. You could try the linkdomain: command in Yahoo!
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 (  2 ) > > |