| 10:38 am on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The link operator is notoriously inaccurate. You are better just forgetting about it or using the equivalent on other SEs.
| 12:03 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google shows only about 5% to 10% of the links that they actually know about when you do a link: search.
| 12:11 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I saw on Google webmaster tool guidelines that they only show 'a sample' of back links.
I can only think that the main reason is to throw SEO attempts to copy a website that ranks high in the first place... What you think?
But since every other search engine doesnt do this the cause is lost - So the next thing would be to get other search engines to show 'a sample' for the better cause of ALL search engines. (Just like what they done with the no follow tags idea)
| 12:27 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is to thwart people's attempts at simply getting links from high-PR sites.
| 12:34 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Use AllTheWeb to search for backlinks. I find it very accurate.
| 3:08 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Makes sense, thanks guys.
| 2:01 am on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have not seen backlink update for my site for more than three months now. Is this normal? they used to do it every month.
| 8:29 am on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For my site (PR7), Google only shows links from very low PR pages. Most of them are less than PR4 and no PR6 or above shown (which I has many).
As a test, I have bought a site-wide link from a PR8 forum on late April. After previous backlink update, our Google backlink count increases from about 250 to 2000+. All listed links are forum pages with very low PR while high PR pages are not listed.
I suspect that Google only list backlinks that they don't count.
| 1:23 pm on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy posted here about a year and a half ago that Google did this on purpose at the suggestion of a senior member here to thwart attempts at figuring out which backlinks are worthwhile - to cut down on the SEOs that were buying backlinks and the sites that were selling them - very intentional
| 1:06 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have found that if you use link;www.yoururl.com using the semi-colon instead of the colon or their automated link finder, you will find a lot more of your backlinks.
| 1:28 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Googleguy posted here about a year and a half ago that Google did this on purpose at the suggestion of a senior member here to thwart attempts at figuring out which backlinks are worthwhile - to cut down on the SEOs that were buying backlinks and the sites that were selling them - very intentional
Can you cite the post where GG said that? Quite a few members here, including me, had commented that the link: command was problematic in that it was more useful to SEOs than anyone else. My main objection is that it was a tool to reverse engineer the algo. As a SEO, knowing myself what links Google knew about was a definite plus. I really doubt the link: command was that useful in knowing what backlinks to buy. If someone wants to pay me to find sites to buy links from, I know much better ways to find them than with the link: command.
| 3:06 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I remember the post as if it was made yesterday.
The discussion was about google not showing lower pr backlinks.
The poster suggested that google should show links no matter what the pr was and suggested that they return a sampling of the backlinks rather than all of them.
Google Guy thought it was a good idea and it soon became a standard practice for Google.
| 5:02 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If backlinks seen by SEOs is such a big bother, why EVEN show a sample, I wonder..
Just display a message like 'you never gonna know buddy, HEH HEH HEH'
| 10:17 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wish I could find it - but I remember it the same way - if memory serves it was almost as if GG was saying - see we do listen to your comments - it happened right after a pubcon where the member here had mentioned it I believe.
| 10:42 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
rfgdxm1 - I did find it on the web - I saw that it was at SES London when it happened and cant post the quote as its from another site - and cant access it here since the numbering system for the old forum changed and is unaccessible
| 10:36 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|thwart attempts at figuring out which backlinks are worthwhile - to cut down on the SEOs that were buying backlinks and the sites that were selling them - very intentional |
While GG did say that they changed the link: command to show more of a mix, and to allow lower PR sites to be able to see some of their backlinks, that last part of your sentence was totally your own (mis)interpretation.
While that might have been part of the reason that it happened, it certainly was not in the messages as I remember them.
| 4:18 am on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dave - as I remember we had quite the discussion about this - and you are correct - the last part was not something that Googleguy said - so I hope I didnt sound like I was quoting him here - as a matter of fact the quote exactly was:
"Google doesn't return all backlinks in response to a link: command. In the ancient days, it was because there was a finite amount of storage space on the machines that served link: requests. So we only kept the backlinks for the top N pages. Later as we moved to a different indexing system, we kept backlinks for the top M% of pages. This was helpful for important pages, but it meant that Mom and Pop sites with lower PageRank wouldn't have as good a chance to see their backlinks.
At SES London, DaveN had a suggestion. He said: why don't you give all pages an equal chance of seeing backlinks? That's good for users, who will have a greater chance of seeing backlinks for a given page, and it's especially good for smaller websites--they'd have a chance to see backlinks. It seemed like a good idea, so we implemented it. In fact, in order to give each page a better chance of seeing backlinks (instead of just the top M% of pages), we doubled the amount of backlinks that Google exports to the outside world. So users now have access to twice as much link: data as before; it's just not all the top PageRank pages.
... and ...
Given the large amount of data involved, and the fact that remarkably few people use the link: command, we don't show all backlinks externally, but we can access them internally."
The second part of my other reply was based on in-depth discussions members at this board had - and theorized as another reason that it made sense to do it at the time - and I thought for sure at one point GG actually agreed with that theory - again - I dont have access to the archives here as they dont show under forum 3 or 78 anymore
| 12:20 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a new website about 2 months old. Recently according to Google I had 47 inbound links pointing my website. When I checked it a couple of days ago, all these links were missing on Google. Then yesterday back again, now today gone!
My question. Is this a common? Why such a flux? Will things calm down when my site matures?
I Thank You in advance for your response.
| 1:02 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is not atypical.
My advice would be to forget all about Google's back link check. It doesn't work so it's not really worth bothering about.
| 1:10 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MR LAW said "I suspect that Google only list backlinks that they don't count. "
Lol ... that would be the PERFECT way the thwart seo backlink tracker. Yet ... In fact ... why not go one better and show only links from penalised sites ...
| 1:22 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"This is not atypical."
If this is not atypical. What might be the problem? It appears when the backlinks are listed I get much more traffic etc....however when they are gone everyting seems to die.
Again, this site is only two months old. I guess what I am trying to say is what should I expect from a two month old site? At this point where should this site be in regards to internet standards on successful websites?