Forum Moderators: open
I think what google counts and shows is not the same. Still.
Actually I don't care. Sites that link to me bring traffic and not just page rank.
I think Google is deliberately mixing us a bottle here.
Toolbar info has been worth zip for months now.
Backlinks checking gone the same way.
I ignore them and use Alltheweb for link checking now.
Actually who cares!
Both are down for me but I've stayed well placed or moved higher in the SERPS.
I think I'll take SERP positioning over PR and Backlinks any day of the week.
Mine are showing a 90% difference.
Couldn't agree more - I wouldn't worry about PR & backlinks either - concentrate on the SERPS
What the heck does that mean?
Backlinks and PR are two of things that create the serps. What the serps are is basically irrelevant. What matters is creating the "stuff" that leads to the serps. They aren't just pulled out of a hat. Understanding and strategizing around backlinks and PR are two of the key elements of ranking well for non-straightforward search terms. People who don't worry about them are surely people who are missing a ton of secondary and tertiary traffic.
Oh really?
Gee, it's not the links that are driving traffic to my site, it's my sites position in the SERPs.
You can look at it however you want to. In my opinion, people might as well give up on the Green bar and backlinks because I think Google has purposely made those results inconsistant. What matters, is the consistancy of the SERPs.
No normal user alive EVER looks at PR or Backlinks. Only we do, who cares what they say becasue they are wrong. What matters is where your site shows up.
Granted, don't go and stop getting links and adding content. By all means do that on a daily basis, just don't obsess over what is displayed because it is probably wrong.
Watch were you are in the SERPs to get a better idea of what is being counted or not.
as the case may be.
I have never given a stuff about PR and rarely look at it for any sites, but still have sites high in the SERPs, many at #1 or #2.
Try also: link:yourdomain.com and link:yourdomain.com/ variations too (and again with and without the www as well).
A1) Write a long email to Google, explain to them what an assett your web site is and that you deserve to be treated better (include your star sign and make a joke about Harvard).
A2) Write to Sergey at Google, let him know that Google's algo is broken (also include a joke about Russia).
A3) Talk to people here. Whip yourself up into a state of near hysteria (don't make any jokes, act really serious).
A4) Look at where you are in the SERPs, not what link: and the boogiebar says. Understand that link: and boogiebar are the last members of Google to know what is really going on. Relax (and make jokes about people that panic).
lol, well done.
link:http://www.mysite.com/history
and
link:http://mysite.com/history
but I'm getting a huge difference between
link:http://www.mysite.com/history
and
link:http://www.mysite.com/history/
with the former just being a few internal links and the latter being all the links.
Looks like I need to take a look at my internal links and make them consistant.
Hmmm, looks like history/ gets the same backlinks as history/index.htm
BTW I did find the backlinks on the unrequested updated tool bar.
And gee if you have no clue about why something is the way it is you are a helpless rubber toy in raging ocean. Only caring where you sit in the serps is beyond pointless. Good webmastering involves getting good rankings in the serps. The clueless who stumble onto good rankings are still clueless, and would surely do better if they had some idea of *why* they rank well.
What your actual rank is simply a by-product or good work or dumb luck. There are a lot of tools to help us do good work, and only those who want to rely on luck will ignore tools.
And the point again is not even about ranking #1 or #2 on some terms. Backlinks and PR aren't that important for main/principal terms. The information they offer is critical for seconday and tertiary searches. You want people visiting your site from hundreds of obscure variations on your keyword/focus. And linking and PR matter alot when anchor text is not in the mix.
You are absolutely right!
My point was that lately, lets face it the PR and backlinks have been very flaky at best.
You and I both know that the correctly worded backlinks make a big difference.
With the new update method, I've noticed seeing SERPs change (in my area at least) based on ongoing work, yet the PR or backlinks don't change. This tells me that backlinks are in fact being counted way before they are shown.
The last few times the backlinks have changed, there has been practilly no change in the SERPS because the change has been taking place all along.
So, yes it is good to look at the backlinks every now and then to get a baseline of where your at (even though it is really iffy at best) but the time should be better spent on analyzing where your at in the SERPs and what you did prior to any movement up or down that took place.
I have seen many posts like: "I've got a higher PR and more backlinks, but I'm getting my rump kicked".
PR means nothing any more, at least the PR the toolbar is displaying so that is pointless to watch.
A good Webmaster will look at ALL things that influence rank and not just get tunnelvision on one thing. Yes, backlinks play a major part, but there are many other factors that go into how the SERPs play out.
One thing is for sure, change is inevitable, the sooner newer Webmasters learn that, the better off they will be.
ALL things that influence rankand what are the
many other factors that go into how the SERPs play out
I agree with mrGuy that PR and links isn't everything. Some sites have a high PR and #links and do not rank better than others. However, I guess this is due to BadRank. If PR is high, but BadRank is high too, you will rank differently than without a high BadRank.
Yes, but even then there are huge, critical lessons to be learned by examining backlinks. I had a page that was underperforming, and by looking at backlinks it was easy to see why. Google had simply miscalculated on this page and was missing 90% of the backlinks (with the recent change they are now showing about the correct amount). By examining the backlinks I saw that the underperformance of this page in the serps was totally not anything for me to do anything about. It was just one of Googles data glitches that would work itself out, and did. If I would not have looked at the backlinks I might have changed the page title or text or devalued the page in my plans, or even spent time trying to pump it up. All those actions would have been flailing around aimlessly in the dark were it not for the examination of backlinks and diagnoses of the real problem.
Frankly, studying backlinks is more impiortant now when things are a bit flaky.
This is also true when looking at other people's sites where you are not very familiar with them. I looked at one site that was grossly underperforming and the entire story was told in the backlinks, with the link pop spread out between two essentially duplicate pages. The webmaster might be wondering why there isn't more PR and anchor text pop, but the answer is right there in the backlinks.
1000 links all containing the same anchor text may raise a flag and a possible penalty.
I'v got a PR3 beating a PR6 and a bunch of PR5s for a competitive phrase. Up until last month, if you did a check on my PR3 site it would show ZERO back links.
Confusing? Not really. I had plenty of low PR links with good anchor text which don't show when you check backlinks on Google.
More importantly, I haven't believed anything the Toolbar has told me for months now. As previously stated,Page Rank and back links do not appear to be accurate as reported.
I ask myself 'why would Google want to provide information useful only to SEO's?'
Its a bit like the conjurors hand waving in your face whilst his other hand does the manipulation.
All IMHO, of course.
I know the answer to the question I asked because it is my site and I know what my competitors are doing. Sure I look at their backlinks, but I also spend a fair amount of time checking out their site structure. If their doing something that works, I want to know about it.
If low PR links are making the difference and not showing, up how is watching the backlinks going to tell me anything if I can't see them? It's not!
Yes, links and anchor text are very important, I never said they were not, however there are 100's of other factors that go into Google's algo.
Some people will differ in opinions and that is all right by me.
You do whatever floats your boat and I'll do what ever floats mine.
Occasionlly, I'll pass some info I've observed onto the board for others to take at face value.
The original question was:
I was just checking my backlinks and the PR change and noticed the sites i did reciprocal links with gone, but sites that linked to me on their own still there. Is this the death of Reciprocal linking? Anybody else seeing this?
In my opinion, no there is no death to reciprocal linking.
[edited by: mrguy at 6:03 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2003]
