Many Backlinks Missing. Yahoo Links not showing

[wchan07]

Hi,

I just noticed that I lost a lot of my back links for my website. I have my site listed in YAHOO directory and it seems that google is not following the redirect or recording my link from my YAHOO DIRECTORY LISTING.

There are rumors that Google is hiding links to confuse SEO, which is fine with me. So if my backlinks from Yahoo are not showing up does that mean it's not being followed or that it could possible be hidden?

Google did not seem to have a problem following yahoos redirects a couple months back.

My pagerank is the same, that is all i am worried about. Because my PR7 link from yahoo isn't being listed in google back links i am worried my PR6 from my site might disappear.

I hope someone can shed light on this more.

[Marcia]

Yahoo directory backlinks are showing up for some sites, so I doesn't look like the redirection is a problem. You just can't pay any attention at all to how Google is showing backlinks at this point in time.

[div01]

This seems to be a pretty widespread thing. I am seeing similar behaviour with DMOZ backlinks. Since backlinks aren't that stable anyways, I would wait another update to see if this was a glitch or a pattern.

[steveb]

Google just changed the way they show links. Most higher quality links don't show. Yahoo backlinks still show so it is no issue with them.

Google's backlink command is now set up to confuse people who don't read webmasterworld.

[Stefan]

Google's backlink command is now set up to confuse people who don't read webmasterworld.

Or visa versa?

;-)

[Imaster]

Is there any confirmation on whether this is just a glitch or is indeed deliberate? All I can see in the backlinks are all dmoz clones and crap links. They might as well remove the feature altogether, no point in keeping a broken tool.

[mrlaw]

I have a link from dmoz's editor profile page (PR5). My link is the only one outbound link in that page. But, the link doesn't show as backlink of my site.

[sit2510]

>>> Is there any confirmation on whether this is just a glitch or is indeed deliberate?...They might as well remove the feature altogether, no point in keeping a broken tool.

If it is indeed deliberate, what is G motives behind this? To confuse webmasters? It is hard to believe that the people of Google would come up with such a cheap idea.

That is what I don't understand this move really. By making its link command irrelevant, Google does not seem to gain anything positively, except asserting more doubt about its credibility and tarnishing its own image. It can't bar the experienced webmasters from finding good links anyway. Why? Because there are supplements from other SE. It may make the tasks more laborious, but people with sufficient experience, resources and tools are unlikely to suffer. In reality, it turns out to be a cutting-edge advantage over those without expertise.

That's my 2 cents and I'm happy!

[Imaster]

With Google link: command becoming almost useless now, which others engines/tools do you guys recommend.

1) Yahoo Search (awesome)
2) .....
3) .....

Any recommendations!

[sit2510]

2) Alltheweb
3) ......... (so on please)

[Imaster]

Alltheweb shows the same backlinks as Yahoo.

[sit2510]

>>> Alltheweb shows the same backlinks as Yahoo.

Sorry Imaster, they are NOT the same and perhaps you are not aware of the difference. Although Alltheweb and Yahoo appear to show all backlinks that it crawls, they totally bear different characteristics.

Yahoo backlink feature counts all the backlinks to the website and it does not support backlinks for individual internal pages. In other words, all backlinks to any page on the site will be summed up in the main url eg. linkdomain:www.yourdomain.com

In contrast, Alltheweb reports all backlinks to the specific page on the website (similar to Google, but no discriminations such as PR).

You see there are other available outlets with different features on the web for webmasters to discover backlinks, so that's the reason I don't understand why Google has to bother in making its backlink command irrelevant and useless. I think they may forget that there are other supplements or perhaps it is their definition of - "wider spectrum".

[Imaster]

In Yahoo, what is the difference between,

link:http://www.site.com/

and

linkdomain:http://www.site.com/

[nalin]

You see there are other available outlets with different features on the web for webmasters to discover backlinks, so that's the reason I don't understand why Google has to bother in making its backlink command irrelevant and useless. I think they may forget that there are other supplements or perhaps it is their definition of - "wider spectrum".

There are any number of manners in which to check backlinks.

There is currently no way to check backlinks sorted by importance assigned using googles algorithm. Arguably importance became obscured and ambiguos with the advent of Florida, and to a lesser extent with the whole "random sampling" idea - but nevertheless backlinks appearing on the first page of results generally appeared more valuable then those on page 10.

Generally, (prior to the last update) in the day(s) after a link update I would go pirate all my competitors hard work and weeks of hit and miss link building...now this is impossible specifically because google has choosen to obscure the links it (it...NOT yahoo or any other search engine) considers most important.

I think it was a good idea - specifically because I think it puts the focus on building quality sites and gathering general links, and emphisizes buying links based on advertisment value rather then as little green bar value.

[jcoronella]

in Yahoo, what is the difference between,

linkdomain will show you links on subpages of that domain.

link will show you links from only that specific page.