tedster
msg:3991249 | 11:06 pm on Sep 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Totally agree - it's been a long time coming, but related sites are now much more related in topic, rather than some spastic collection of loosely interlinked sites in an odd cluster that does not give a user any value.
|
julinho
msg:3991555 | 12:54 pm on Sep 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I wonder:
1) how Google improved this part of the algo (maybe a deeper analysis of searchers' and surfers' behaviors, rather than a simple link graph analysis);
2) how this improvement may affect rankings (e.g., the ranking power passed by a link could be proportional to how closely related the linked pages are).
|
Seb7
msg:3991755 | 5:14 pm on Sep 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Has Google also gone and reduced the amount of links shown on the 'link:' page?
|
physics
msg:3991856 | 8:06 pm on Sep 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Wow, I may actually start using that feature instead of just laughing about it :)
|
remove
msg:3991858 | 8:13 pm on Sep 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I have to say, I'm impressed by this improvement. While they're at it, they ought to fix "link:" next, because that's long returned pathetically incomplete results.
|
tedster
msg:3991860 | 8:23 pm on Sep 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Google's not going to "fix" the link: operator. They give much fuller link data in your WebmasterTools, but that's for the verified site owner - and that's intentional. They are just not going to surface large amounts of link data for people to research any website at all.
|
Hissingsid
msg:3992095 | 9:32 am on Sep 19, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| tedster They give much fuller link data in your WebmasterTools, but that's for the verified site owner - and that's intentional. They are just not going to surface large amounts of link data for people to research any website at all. |
|
Even what is shown in Webmaster tools is only 30% of the links in my case. What would be interesting would be if we could work out on what basis the selection for link: and in Webmaster tools is selected. Are those selections indicative of something? Cheers Sid
|
aristotle
msg:3992118 | 10:38 am on Sep 19, 2009 (gmt 0) |
In my Webmaster Tools, the lists of external links used to show about 60% of them, but the number has been steadily dropping in recent months and is now down to about 20%. There doesn't appear to be any logic as to which links are selected to be shown, but it isn't a random sample because typically half of the links to a given page could be from a blog roll. I suspect that Google is intentionally restricting this information even to the site owners themselves, to prevent them from using it to evaluate the success of their various artificial link-building efforts.
|
Hissingsid
msg:3992755 | 7:38 am on Sep 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I've always analysed my top 10 competition backlinks and on page profile. I'm now wondering if I should be doing the same for my top 10 related sites. If the #1 result deserves its place as I think it is in my case ;-) then IMO the related: search actually produces a better top 10 than are returned by standard SERPS. It could be a good way of producing a new search engine technique. First find the best site/page for a search then find others that are similar. Someone from Google recently let slip that they would like to move towards providing one correct answer to a search. This would be better, one correct answer and 30 similar ones, take your pick. Cheers Sid
|
|
