Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Official word here [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com].
We've extended our support for querying links to your site to much beyond the link: operator you might have used in the past. Now you can use webmaster tools to view a much larger sample of links to pages on your site that we found on the web. Unlike the link: operator, this data is much more comprehensive and can be classified, filtered, and downloaded. All you need to do is verify site ownership to see this information.
To make this data even more useful, we have divided the world of links into two types: external and internal. Let's understand what kind of links fall into which bucket.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:21 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2007]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]
Now you can use webmaster tools to view a much larger sample of links to pages on your site that we found on the web. Unlike the link: operator, this data is much more comprehensive and can be classified, filtered, and downloaded.
I've been doing a little exploring and I can see it's time to fire up the DMCA notices.
Me too. Strange...people are taking thumbnails of affiliate content from me and then linking to me as the source.
Initially there was a huge flood of broken links and I managed to dynamically redirect and correct most of this stuff on the fly inside the site scripts, but there's still a small heap of junk Google insists on crawling to find.
Cleaning up after scrapers is never done!
Conversely I can see, at least in part, why pages that I would have predicted would be more popular in google searches aren't making it. This is also a partial explanation for why some internal pages have higher page rank than I would have expected.
I was happy, and interested, to see how often links appeared in Yahoo answers, delicious, online newspapers and .edu sites.
Also, I've found a lot more spam sites than I ever realized linking to me by rote. And bandwidth bandits linking directly to my PDF files - haven't decided what to do about that yet, but something.
Very useful data, well organized and easy to access. We waited a long time for it, but it's certainly going to be a great resource for me now.
A very important reminder [mattcutts.com] from our very good friend at the plex, Matt Cutts:
- Do not assume just because you see a backlink that itís carrying weight. Iím going to say that again: Do not assume just because you see a backlink that itís carrying weight. Sometime in the next year, someone will say ďBut I saw an insert-link-fad-here backlink show up in Googleís backlink tool, so it must count. Right?Ē And then Iíll point them back here, where I say do not assume just because you see a backlink that itís carrying weight. :)
However, I still think this is a very useful tool if you apply a little savvy to interpreting the results.
Google Webmaster Tools link:www.mysite.com gives a really low count, in one case only about 140 (click Statistics, then Index stats, then click link:www.mysite.com)
but when you click external links the answer is about 20,000 (click Links - External links) with about 5,000 to home.
Does anyone else see this and can they explain the difference? It has been happening for a long time now.