homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.108.167
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: 104 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Backlinks appear to have been updated
Update of backlinks
LukeC




msg:166783
 5:35 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Backlinks - updated today in the UK

 

Kirby




msg:166784
 7:49 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Updated" is the wrong term to use with regard to Google's display of baclinks. This is just another seemingly random sampling.

steveb




msg:166785
 7:56 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Backlinks were aimlessly and ineptly moved around again."

Somehow that isn't as catchy as "updated".

The news is Google continues to deliberately do evil by serving up results it knows are wildly inaccurate.

Crush




msg:166786
 8:01 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

agreed steveb. One site I have 2520 links on yahoo and 372 on google...errr something wrong there

Liane




msg:166787
 8:16 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

The news is Google continues to deliberately do evil by serving up results it knows are wildly inaccurate.

I am not defending Google ... but having said that, what exactly is evil about what they are doing?

Firstly, Google have never shown as many incoming links as Yahoo. Prior to recent changes, they presumably only showed links which were PR4 or higher.

Now ... who knows what they are showing ... but I don't see any of it being "evil", just different.

My site received one new link since yesterday. Woopdedoo! Update ... who knows! Adjustment of the recent link update ... possibly. Did it have any affect on my site? NOPE.

Kirby




msg:166788
 8:27 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

More semantics than anything, but I think the point is why have a command that returns inaccurate or incomplete results? The links they show for one of my sites today is dramatically different than the links they displayed yesterday. Not new links, just a different set of links that have existed for a long time.

Still, its hardly being truthful. So if they arent being truthful, are they lying? Lying is not doing good, so therefore is it doing evil?

Bottomline - it just doesnt matter.

dvduval




msg:166789
 8:33 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

What is the purpose for Google to show backlinks at all?
And who would benefit by seeing the current sample?

steveb




msg:166790
 8:46 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"what exactly is evil about what they are doing?"

A search engine deliberately returns false results. Not a mistake, not according to a criteria (like before) but simply inaccurate, untrue results. I suppose a serial killer might not consider deliberate falsehood "evil", but how can anyone think publically offering up assertive ommissions is not evil according to Google's statments on the subject?

But that stuff really doesn't matter. The point is Google is serving up innacurate, deliberately false results. This marks a failure for it as a search engine, and a pointed repudation of its own philosophy.

[edited by: steveb at 8:56 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2004]

steveb




msg:166791
 8:49 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"And who would benefit by seeing the current sample?"

Experienced webmasters, spammers and otherwise, will benefit because novices will look at the returned results and waste time trying to draw conclusions from it. It's not some huge benefit, but its like Google has hidden the track shoes of a new guy in the race. The rest of us know where our shoes are already. The poor newbie is being sadistically tortured for no good reason.

lbobke




msg:166792
 8:58 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

What is the purpose for Google to show backlinks at all?

Setting aside all SEO-aspects of the backlinks results: wouldn't that be of interest to the average site-owner? After all, isn't it a rather flattering form of positive feedback if someone with a similar site is linking to you?

Now, SEO professionals who are trying to check reciprocal links are sure know good alternatives to Google, while those users who do not care about PR etc. will probably not be familiar with Googles way of counting backlinks.

And by the way: if such non-SEO users discover that another search engine has indexed much more backlinks for their site, wouldn't they think that the other search engine has the better results for other queries as well?

Personally, I believe that Google should either list all backlinks it can identify in its index, - or disable the corresponding command.

Laurenz

internetheaven




msg:166793
 9:39 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"what exactly is evil about what they are doing?"

I'm all for it! I spend hundreds of hours finding high quality, relevant web sites and then spend even more hours convincing webmasters that linking is okay and mutually beneficial.

Once I've done all the hard work, my competitors come in and go to every site I'm linked to from and cash in on all the man-hours I've put it.

There is no reason to have backlinks on a search engine, it's just a tool for SEO's so please, please get rid of it and make the playing field level. Can you hear me in the Yahoo forum?

GodLikeLotus




msg:166794
 10:55 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yet another complete waste of time. Google, why do you bother with this crap? What is the point? Most web users know nothing about backlinks. You (Google) appear to be more intersted in SEO's pushing their sites up the rankings than your actual search results.

Good results? What a joke, I could give you 1000's of examples (as most members here could) of searches that return irrelevant results with Google.

Question: Does anyone at Webmasterworld try and get positioning for keywords and phrases that are nothing to do with the subject of their sites? What would be the point?

I only wish someone in the media in a good position would take up this issue. I will happily supply keywords and phrases that return useless results on Google.

Crush




msg:166795
 11:18 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Once I've done all the hard work, my competitors come in and go to every site I'm linked to from and cash in on all the man-hours I've put it.

Well put. I have one guy that follows me like a fly.

steveb




msg:166796
 11:27 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Question: Does anyone at Webmasterworld try and get positioning for keywords and phrases that are nothing to do with the subject of their sites?"

Of course they do. That is the entire business model of some folks: rank something of general interest for anything they can, and then convert the traffic poorly but still profitably.

"What would be the point?"

Making money.

BillyS




msg:166797
 11:33 pm on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I only wish someone in the media in a good position would take up this issue. I will happily supply keywords and phrases that return useless results on Google.

No matter how hard Google tries, this forum is proof positive that some will alway be unhappy with the results. The Internet is the land of opportunity, if you've got the secret to good results then start your own search engine and put those bad boys of search out of business. I say go for it!

phpdude




msg:166798
 12:14 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

--novices will look at the returned results and waste time trying to draw conclusions from it.--

That's all right by me! Then all the fly by night so called SEO experts that keep springing up can keep chasing their tails while the experienced folks go about their business and ignore the change in back links.

I kind of think that's what Google has in mind.

The SERPS are pretty clean in areas I look at for both business and personal and quite frankly I never look at a sites backlinks when I'm just surfing for personal use and I don't know of one single person who does.

It's their engine and they can show what ever they want. If you don't like it, don't use it and don't try to get your pages ranked on it. It is as simple as that.

Use Yahoo or MSN since those are such superior engines! NOT!

Liane




msg:166799
 12:31 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

The poor newbie is being sadistically tortured for no good reason.

Aw comon ... the poor newbie doesn't have a clue what its all about and probably doesn't care anyway! We all know the results are screwed up and have been for some time. Why do you insist on torturing yourself by even looking at them?

The search results are what matter on any search engine. Use those as your gauge and stop worrying about the stupid toolbar!

The fact of the matter is that links do count, but keep track of them yourself and don't rely on Google to tell you their "search engine" value.

If the site doesn't have a gray bar, then it has "search engine" value. If the site has important information which is relevant to your site and is something your readers might be interested in ... then it has "real" value.

Google has taken away a favourite tool SEO's used to buy and sell PR. So they plugged the hole. What did you or anyone else expect? I was always amazed they showed this stuff to anyone in the first place!

Find some other way to game the engines. There can be no other (legitimate) reason you are so upset by this! Now tell me once again what you think is so evil about what Google has done, without worrying about the poor newbie. Could it be you are no longer able to put a "search engine $" value on a link from your site?

steveb




msg:166800
 1:13 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Now tell me once again what you think is so evil about what Google has done, without worrying about the poor newbie."

You may be selfish, and also not care about the quality of discussions on webmasterworld, but other people aren't so self-centered.

"Could it be you are no longer able to put a "search engine $" value on a link from your site?"

Wake up. As has been mentioned previously, Google screwing up their backlink display does *nothing* to anyone with some experience, and only semi-related increases the value of selling links.

Try to understand what is going on here. Knowlegable people, including those who do nothing but game the system, benefit greatly by Goolge taking a simple tool from the less experienced. Sophisticated seo's aren't hurt one microscopic bit by the idiotbacklinks. I don't see how that isn't plainly obvious to anyone.

The only reason to defend Google's display of innacurate information is if you are purely selfish. Sure, lots of folks here on webmasterworld make more money, and get less competent competition, because of the idiotbacklinks displayed, but it is just silly to think that is an objectively good thing.

Google has three things in place that attack newbies, and make money for experienced players:
lag time
pagerank display update delay and inaccuracy
garbage backlink display
Each of these make experienced people money, and act as an attack on newbies.

==

"It's their engine and they can show what ever they want."

Yeah, we know. The point is that a search engine is choosing to deliberately show innacurate results for this one thing.

wellzy




msg:166801
 1:53 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

The point is that a search engine is choosing to deliberately show innacurate results for this one thing.

That's exactly what they are doing. The backlink command was never put there for the average user. They have no clue what it is for. The only conclusion I can come to is that instead of removing the function they just screwed it up so it couldn't be used by webmasters (not that we can't use Y! for that).

wellzy

Liane




msg:166802
 3:56 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

You may be selfish, and also not care about the quality of discussions on webmasterworld, but other people aren't so self-centered.

I don't think I am either selfish or self centered. I simply don't agree with your point of view ... which I believe is permitted in any free society as well as on WebmasterWorld. Name calling is certainly not adding to the quality of this discussion.

I was always amazed they showed this stuff to anyone in the first place!

I simply don't feel there was ever any sensible reason for Google to show this information in the first place. It lead to the rampant sale of PR ... which I believe has done nothing but hurt the entire world wide web.

I am glad its messed up. Perhaps webmasters can get back to linking for the right reasons and "vote" for the best and most informative web sites by linking in a manner which makes sense to the end user.

Call it selfish or self centered if you wish ... its just how I feel about the whole, PR toolbar thing.

In my opinion, Google has done the newbies a favour in that they will (hopefully) build their sites based on common sense and link to those sites which make sense for their readers. Who knows, it may even put a stop to the wholesale trading of PR for spam and financial gain purposes!

The point is that a search engine is choosing to deliberately show innacurate results for this one thing.

This part I don't understand either and as noted in my original post, I am not defending Google! I am stating an opinion.

For the second time in as many weeks, I will now leave this discussion. Name calling has no place here.

Kirby




msg:166803
 4:24 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

>In my opinion, Google has done the newbies a favour

I have to respectfully disagree here. I deal with a ton of newbies in my niche and they tend to take Google TB PR and backlinks very serioulsy. The weeping and nashing of teeth in some niche forums where these newbies are is horrible. The cries of "Why has Google forsaken me - none of my new backlinks are showing?" and "Google doesnt see my links, so whats wrong with my website?" and similar concerns abound.

So while this sounds ludicrus and elementary, keep in mind that this forum caters to the professional webmaster. There are legions of others out there (who do you think hires all these SEO wannabees and pretenders?) who dont understand that this info is bogus and for whatever reason, they take Google at their word.

Stefan




msg:166804
 4:37 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Maybe someone could explain why Google feels a great need to include yoogoo.com as one of our backlinks. The last ridiculous version had it there, and the new ridiculous version of the backlinks still has it there. Google should just kill the entire link:www.whatever.com.... it's a joke and a total misrepresentation of reality.

steveb




msg:166805
 4:50 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

"this forum caters to the professional webmaster."

Even here there are multiple threads about high PR and no backlinks showing, etc., etc. Other forums are worse, where novices worry about penalties because of no backlinks (or for the past few months no PR).

Shurik




msg:166806
 5:32 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just a few minutes ego my PR got updated (shown on google toolbar) - from 0 to 4. Though i share the news.

The site is 3 month old, uses <iframes>, dynamic pages (all pages are aspx, about 800 of them), DHTML behaviors and other unadvised stuff.

Does it mean i'm out of the sandbox?

Green_Widge




msg:166807
 7:43 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Steveb:
Even here there are multiple threads about high PR and no backlinks showing, etc., etc. Other forums are worse, where novices worry about penalties because of no backlinks (or for the past few months no PR).

Shurik:
Just a few minutes ego my PR got updated (shown on google toolbar) - from 0 to 4. Though i share the news.
The site is 3 month old, uses <iframes>, dynamic pages (all pages are aspx, about 800 of them), DHTML behaviors and other unadvised stuff.

Does it mean i'm out of the sandbox?

LOL

steveb rests his case.

cabbie




msg:166808
 8:11 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Shurik,
there seems to have been another pr update perhaps which is unusually soon after the last one but it doesn't mean you are out of the sandbox.You will know you are out of the sandbox when you start getting good google referrals.
Cheers.

angiolo




msg:166809
 9:10 am on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just to add my two cents...

I just monitored the backlinks of some competitors..
I found new links, added in september (the "add date" was written in the link)! great.
Those links are placed in something like a niche portals.

I did not receive info about those links from Google web alert.

RoySpencer




msg:166810
 4:53 pm on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Home page went from 0 to 2,390 backlinks yesterday so, yes, I'd say there was an "event".

Essex_boy




msg:166811
 5:07 pm on Oct 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

No matter how hard Google tries, this forum is proof positive that some will alway be unhappy with the results. -- Theres being unhappy with the results because they do not show exactly what you want and then theres unhappy because they dont show you ANYTHING related to your search.

The latter example is why we are all getting upset.

dazzlindonna




msg:166812
 2:40 am on Oct 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

And now, backlinks have been UN-updated - i.e. rolled back to pre-update.

This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: 104 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved