Why dont all links show up in G?

really bugging me! ;-(

[TomJ]

OK, annoying question here!

I have a site with 635 pages in G. All those pages are PR4+. All those pages link to another website.

that website only shows 27 IBL's from me.

Why is it not showing 635?

does it take a few IBL updates for them all to show up?

help with this one appreciated

TIA, Tom

[cbpayne]

Google have never shown them all. That does not mean that they are not all taken into account.

Why don't they show them all? Maybe:
1) To throw us off the scent
2) They are in the business of providing services to searchers, not webmasters ... who check backlinks .... the webmasters & SEO's -- its probably just a waste of computing resources to show them all.

[trimmer80]

I have a theory that it is not the pr of the page that determines if it is shown in link: but instead the strength of the link.

I have seen cases of pr 5 links not showing as IBLs. In these cases the pr 5 page had many link in it. Thus the PR transfered by the IBL is reduced.

[cbpayne]

my theory is that its random.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

It's definitely not scientific. Sometimes I get PR3 links showing while PR4 links are missing. There is also variation within each PR. You can get high PR4 and low PR4. This may be used in listing links.

[webnewton]

PR definately has nothing to do with the show up of a link in the backward links. Google has this tendency to keep deducting the backwords links whenever there is an update. While some new links add up with each update many of the old links disappears. Why? I think no one know.
So this is a common phenominan with all. Google however takes into account every link coming from all the spidered pages having that link.

[Imaster]

I wish Google could show results beyond 1000 results, atleast while checking backlinks. It would prove pretty useful.

If not Google, I hope atleast the new MSN search has this feature on! :)

[cbpayne]

> It would prove pretty useful

Useful to who? Google are in the business of providing search results to searchers. The searchers don't really search for backlinks. Whats in it for Google to waste computing resources in providing all the backlinks of a site to webmasters?

[martinibuster]

GG recently made a post about randomizing the backlinks so that the no-show for under PR4 rule wouldn't be in effect.

You may want to bookmark this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]

...it might be better and more fair to show a random sample of backlinks instead of only higher PR links; that would allow site owners of smaller domains to see more of their backlinks, even if they don't have high PR links.

[GoogleGuy]

What I was trying to say earlier was that it would be good for smaller web sites (e.g. Mom and Pop sites that might not have tons of backlinks with a PageRank of 4 or higher) to be able to see some of their backlinks. There's a lot of interesting ways to show summary stats from a graph like web linkage, and I can see where a site that has backlinks with lower PageRank might want to see a few of their links as well.

In my experience, folks make two main mistakes about the backlinks we export. First, when they don't see a backlink in response to link: queries, they assume that link isn't counting. The fact is that internally we have complete copies of links we saw, but just don't show them all. The other mistake is to assume that just because we show a link in response to link: queries that it somehow counts more. Honestly, I wouldn't read that much into whether a particular link shows up in response to a link: command.

[elmarpanzenberger]

A little bit out of topic, but about searching for backlinks, somewhere in the google api documentation is somehing written about a allinlinks: search.
I am probably to dumb, but i can't find out how to use it.
Any hints?

[Imaster]

Whats in it for Google to waste computing resources in providing all the backlinks of a site to webmasters?

- I understand that while serving results for normal queries, Google would have to compute a lot of things to actually serve good relevant results. But while just displaying backlinks for a site, I doubt if there is too much to compute. If Google really wants to save computing resources, why not turn off this feature alltogether? My point is, if they are making the feature available, they might as well let us see all results.

Btw, I even don't mind paying Google a monthly fee for seeing results beyond the first 1000 results while seeing backlinks. That would take care of the computing resources issue, and would make Google a one-stop destination for seeing backlinks, right now we have to go to various search engines to check backlinks.

[scoreman]

Im with trimmer80 on this one. I believe it displays only the backlinks giving you the most PR.

Like someone else said here, google is in the biz for surfers, not webmasters. Though they have gotten into the webmaster biz when they open programs like adwords...

[jo1ene]

The same reason that my client's dmoz entry (PR5) doesn't show up. Who the heck knows!?

[jcoronella]

With Google's index being so large, it is likely that a link search from altavista will include urls that google counts as well. Much more complete list typically.

[johntang]

As I read this thread it I crossed my mind Google may have learned or learning to read dynamic html thoughts and not static (dated) html thought. In other words Google is measuring the creation of new thought.

[mosschops]

"Google is measuring original thought"?

Can't be - I Googled "George W Bush" and got 5 440 000 results.

;¬)

[Watcher of the Skies]

"I even don't mind paying Google a monthly fee for seeing results beyond the first 1000 results while seeing backlinks."

Yeah, I'm in. So why doesn't someone write a spider and scan the entire web just for links. You could sell the unabridged list of backlinks for specific sites for a fee. :) Shouldn't there be a site like this already. The market is SEO people TIMES number of sites (with number of sites being something like the speed of light).