Is this it?

Do we have lift off?

[salmo]

Yahoo back links:

www = 1 760 000
www2 = 1 700 000
www3 = 1 700 000

[tsdpsg]

In other words...not yet

[casperkor]

I can't handle this!

You guys don't understand.. 48 hours to normal people are like 48 dog years to me!

uuuuuugggghhhhhhhhhh!

[tsdpsg]

Somebody tell GG to quit laughing at us in here. ;)

[new_shoes]

I don't think the dance started yet. I also use "link:www.yahoo.com" and there are no differences.

To check out all 8 datacenters and .de .it .fr .ca .co.uk do this:

1. Visit some-google-tool.com
2. Type link:www.yahoo.com in the search form
3. Check "all 8 datacenters"
4. include all national centers available
5. aligned horizontally
6. in "standard" mode

Gives a nice overview - bookmark the result page!

System admin! I wold have linked to the page, but "some-google-tool.com" is replaced with "****.com" - why?

[edited by: heini at 9:24 am (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
[edit reason] no tools please as per Charter / thanks [/edit]

[vitaplease]

Googleguy is waiting for another hour or two until 95% of America sleeps.

Gives less strain to Brett's WebmasterWorld loading of servers.

[digitalghost]

>>Googleguy is waiting for another hour or two until 95% of America sleeps

The other 5% or Americans are SEOs and webmasters, and we don't sleep, we just make early retirement plans.... :)

[troels nybo nielsen]

new_shoes

read the charter for this forum.

[kyr01]

Not yet: still showing 642.000. And it is morning already, here in Italy...

[DaveN]

new-shoes because we are sick of people drop urls around here.

and the only time I ever used that site I got two sites banned hope that helps.

DaveN

[digitalghost]

DaveN, droppng URLs is taboo, but if running sites through a web app would get them banned, every schmuck and their brother would be doing it. You need to look elsewhere for the reason those two sites were dropped.

[salmo]

Salmo is blushing, sorry about the false alarm.

[diddlydazz]

deleting the thread might be an idea ;o)

Powdork has had his/her fun.

Dazz

[troels nybo nielsen]

Never mind, salmo, you started an interesting thread.

digitalghost, there was a thread about that problem some time ago. I got the impression that with some detective's work it would not be too difficult for Google to find out if a website was tested by it's own webmaster.

[Zapatista]

I can't believe those two sites got banned for using that ap either. That's pretty far fetched.

[digitalghost]

>>difficult for Google to find out if a website was tested by it's own webmaster.

Sure, if they checked on 100 pages.

Think a bit larger, like 3 billion pages.

[DaveN]

digitalghost I'm not stupid ;) I know why the sites where banned
all I meant was using that site may have brought it to googles attention quicker than I wanted,

a bit like filling in a google spam report, or running topdog/wpg to see how you are ranking.

the sites where NOT clean sites but they had lived quite happily until i started monitoring backlinks via that site.

My guess was

A) google watches for that IP address
B) the owner ratted me out

Either way a dirty site will always be found its about protecting it so it can survive, below the radar not on it

DaveN

[digitalghost]

>>I know why the sites where banned

Cool. :) You know why the sites were banned, but the 30,000 people that will read your previous post may very well take what you wrote literally. Just pays to make sure in this forum that we post what we know to be true and not wishful thinking or conjecture.

There have been a lot of threads lately in which people are using theword penalty when what they mean is that a particular action has no known benefit.

People are already paranoid about Google penalties, no need to propagate that paranoia.