Forum Moderators: open
Ways around this are to check backlinks from other search engines. Yahoo, MSN, AltaVista.
There are tons of scripts out there that do this with ease. Market leap may be helpful.
There are even some excellent SEO type software's out there that are in the $70 range that do tons of calculations for you.
KG
I used a rusty brick PR calculation tool today and our website is predicted to go to PR10.
All of the other tests I ran seem accurate and logical... I would love to know if it's true! :-)
I must be dreaming
PR is more of a status symbol is it not? or the icing on the cake.
Either way, I wish the link: command was accurate so I could check all the backlinks...
You can check all their backlinks by using Yahoo's link command.
Yes, I had looked on yahoo and saw a bunch of links (500+) but what amazed me was that were none at all shown by G. I have often seen instances where G shows only a few backlinks (it seems usually those of lower quality), but never noticed a case in which there were none at all. Was this done manually? If so, why?
This site is at least 3 years old, so that won't apply, but good point.
GodLikeLotus,
I'll look into that.
So, some sites are selling pr9 links right now, even though I know and you know they are probably pr7..or are they prob a pr8/10.
Perhaps the guy who "told google how to confuse people" would know? Point being, you see a pr9 link for sale @ reasonable cost you will buy it, assuming you know what your doing -:
ps. nobody knows anything about seo anymore, there are good spammers and poor spammers, just like it always has been.
Take a look at the serps; I rest my case ;-)
Why would the internal pages show as backlinks if the whole backlinks thing is upsidedown?
You seem to state that backlinks are not accurate yet if they are internal links pointing at the index page then they should show up, why?
"some" backlinks are still shown in the link: command so yes - you "might" see the backlinks from internal pages - especially if they were the only backlinks
as far as buying a PR based on what is on the toolbar - no I wouldnt - for that matter I wouldnt buy a backlink - but thats just me - its stupid when there are so many ways to get good backlinks without spending money - and of course then I would have to go through and install the toolbar again - which is a waste of my time
Yes, I had looked on yahoo and saw a bunch of links (500+)
Remember, Yahoo doesn't see backlinks the same way Google does. Some things that Yahoo considers as a backlink is not consider one by Google. Also, Google is very specific about only contributing a link as a valid backlink in a certain way whereas Yahoo will contribute it to any page it can find no matter how many re-directs, frames or cloaks stand between it.
It seems to me that a human hand HAD to be involved here. Or do I just need to have another cuppa?
teeceo.
I have a site showing 10 backlinks, 6 are DMOZ clones, not even a mention of the Google Directory. The DMOZ and Google Directory links are on PR5 pages.
I am totally lost here about this with Google. Can it really be that Google would develop their Toolbar with an option to show PR then just mess it all up to show unaccurate results? What is the point?
If Google are so paranoid about people being able to look at a sites backlinks that they are prepared to just mess things up: then why are their rivals not doing similiar things to mess things up for SEO's? We all seem to turn to Yahoo and Alltheweb to see our backlinks, and they do seem to me to be pretty accurate and fresh.
My own guess would have to be that Google has REAL problems.
GLL.
We were in the middle of moving domain abc.com to xyz.com a few months ago when G was just starting all this new cr@% about not updating the toolbar and backlinks. We 301 redirected abc.com (PR6 with about 150 BLs) and abc.com/efg.htm (PR5 with about 50 BLs including Y! directory links) to an existing (over 5 years old) xyz.com (PR3 with 12 BL). G has apparently credited all or most of these 200 inherited BLs as far as serp rank calculation to xyz.com, but is not showing them calculated into the PR (which still shows PR3, as it did when only the 12 BL'd to xyz.com, and the 12 BLs plus a few new BLs - actually it just went up to PR4 last week). So here we are with a PR4 showing very few BLs coming up top 10 under VERY competitive terms.
I would say look for a high PR they recently redirected and just wait and watch for the PR/BLs to go up on the next cycle.
Another interesting observation in this: I wonder if G is artificially limiting the displayed PR climb in each cycle or time period. As I mentioned above, adding up all the redirected BLs and previous PRs for this domain, we should be at the very least at a PR6 or maybe (hopefully) PR7, yet it is displaying only a PR4 after the recent step up from PR3. In the past when we did this, the PR would jump within days. Personally I have no problem with this since the SERPs are good, but I'll bet anything it is another thing G is doing to limit blackhats who sell PR links, from bait and switching high PR pages (redirecting high PR to one page today until they sell links and then redirecting it to another tomorrow in order to sell that one (while the first of course plummets)). It would greatly sabotage those kind of swindles since the PR would take months to transfer. So be careful when buying high PR links and make sure the page is actually RANKING among PR9s instead of just showing a PR9.
Mike
Google Results -about 27 linking
Yahoo Results -about 20 linking
Alltheweb Results -of 349
My guess is google and yahoo apply some type of dampening filter while alltheweb are unfettered results.
I guess that none of these results are really reliable results to do any type of anaylasis with. So this site could indeed have enough inbound links to have a high pr but some type of dampening filter is being applied to the results You see.
Christian
