Forum Moderators: open
Just how current are the backlinks? My own pagerank dropped after Esmerelda. I have verified that the toolbar shows a PR of 4 or higher for pages with links to mine yet they don't show in the backlinks for my pages.
I find myself relying on AlltheWeb's URL inspector more and more for up to date link info.
I doubt it's a priority for them
Backlinks are the heart and soul their precious PageRank. If it's not a priority for them what does that tell you about PageRank?
Kaled.
<edit>I should mention that I also believe Google is intentionally obfuscating the backlink picture, but that's only because they can. If backlinks were to become a measure of importance amongst the SE's rather than just for SEO's I'm sure Google's link: command would easily become the freshest and most accurate picture of web connectivity.</edit>
I don't know what use this feature is to the general user. But if Google believes that the only point to it is for dodgy use by webmasters, they should stop offering it ALL TOGETHER. If they're going to offer it, they should do it properly. What is the logic of "only high ranked pages that link"? Google's strength is supposed to be its relatively comprehensive nature
Supposedly, they still know about other links, but choose not to show them. I wonder, because the logic of this simply makes no sense to me. Why only show high ranked links? What possible use is this to the average consumer, or indeed, to anybody?
Do one or the other. Get rid of the feature, or do it properly.
.
Kaled.
Do one or the other. Get rid of the feature, or do it properly.
They may be having more problems than they are willing to admit. Maybe they can't get the backlinks updated.
Who outside of weirdo webmasters of the sort that hang out here ever use the link: command? Why should Google care about this at all?
Who outside of weirdo webmasters of the sort that hang out here ever use the link: command? Why should Google care about this at all?Weirdo?! Now them's fightin' words.;)
EXACTLY. To be specific, knowing all the backlinks that Google had found, along with toolbar PR data, the competition could essentially reverse engineer the current PageRank algo in use. There are those who have argued adding the PR display to the toolbar was a mistake by Google. The only advantage to Google is the toolbar can be a way for webmasters finding out sites that are part of bad neighborhoods. With the toolbar, seeing some green means it is OK to link. Without the toolbar there would be much more fear about linking to other sites, bacause of the possibility of getting the Google Death Penalty.
Could it be that these things are just no longer the Google priority they used to be?
-- Is AdWords and AdSense generating SO MUCH income for Google that all the EXTRA processing required to keep these measures current is just not worth the effort or expense?
-- As long as EVERY Google search results page has AdWords ads for the world to click on, the actual search results don't have to be all that stellar.
Who's to say that Google is not trying to change their ranking algorithms to a much simpler format?
Well, I am!
If only for the fact that google proclaim that their ranking algorithm uses over 100 factors, but I've never seen this forum describe more than about 20....
Backlinks is one.
Anchor text is two.
Title is three.
<H1> is four.
Keyword density is five.
What ARE the other 96?
Or failing that, what are the most important 48?
DerekH
To be specific, knowing all the backlinks that Google had found, along with toolbar PR data, the competition could essentially reverse engineer the current PageRank algo in use.
Given that toolbar PR data is unreliable (and imprecise), this is certainly nonsense. However, even if it were true, what advantage would other search engines gain by such knowledge?
The link: command fails to work in Google for technical reasons. If they could make it work better they would.
Who outside of weirdo webmasters of the sort that hang out here ever use the link: command? Why should Google care about this at all?
Whether they care or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it helps webmasters determine how effiently Google is updating it index. The inescapable conclusion is that others are doing better. Of course that does not mean that others produce better search results but it does mean that there is room for improvement at Google.
Kaled.
Further knowledge about the inner workings of Google.
>The link: command fails to work in Google for technical reasons. If they could make it work better they would.
So you think the problem is that Google programmers are bozos, and can't get this to work like Alltheweb and others do? I consider it far more likely that this is intentional, and they don't want this to work better.
Backlinks updated a couple weeks ago. Scroll down and read the threads.
Yeah, sure they did. I've checked my backlinks and those of other sites. Several pages that have a PR4 or higher that have links to mine haven't shown in my backlinks for months. They still don't show. Pages that Google says link to mine have no links to my urls in them. Checking top rated sites and checking the backlinks bring up several 404s (not found) instead of showing pages. I have a site with over 40 PR4 pages with links to it that shows a PR1 and 2 links to it. Read the 1st post in the thread.
The belief that link pages must be PR4 or higher to be qualified for backlinks is purely out-dated. PR4 or PR5 link pages do not necessary be shown as back links.
>>> I've checked my backlinks and those of other sites. Several pages that have a PR4 or higher that have links to mine haven't shown in my backlinks for months.
You may want to view the cache or count the number of links on those pages that your links are in. I believe this will help to answer your question.
So you think the problem is that Google programmers are bozos, and can't get this to work like Alltheweb and others do? I consider it far more likely that this is intentional, and they don't want this to work better.
I presume then that you believe also that when link: worked properly (ish) during dances, this too was deliberate.
Google works in mysterious ways its wonders to perform.
Kaled.
LOL, well, yes they did. You may have issues with your site but backlinks were recently updated, and were updated within a month before that. So was pagerank.
The slowness to re-index modified PR= or >4 inner pages suggests to me backlinks/PR must be well out of date.
That is my point exactly. I went through the backlinks for a top rated site. Clicking on the backlinks yielded several 404 not founds. That seems to be telling me that the backlinks themselves are not current and was the reason for my original post.
I consider it far more likely that this is intentional, and they don't want this to work better.
As everything else, it's expensive to maintain this data updated and google doesn't care beyond common user interest.
