Oranges, Apples, driving me...

....Bananas.

[glengara]

OK, couple of quotes from Mr.G. Guy:
"The reported number of backlinks for now vs. 2-3 months ago were apples and oranges, but Now vs. Dominic is apples to apples."

" ..let me just repeat that you shouldn't compare link counts pre-Dominic to post-Dominic because they're apples and oranges."
Any theories on what your man was talking about?

[Brett_Tabke]

I took it to mean major differences in the index. Different sources (freshie vs deep).

[Dayo_UK]

Re Brett comment

and

I took it to mean that there are different thresholds on how these links are reported.

So you cant compare one to the other.

[dvduval]

...and don't forget that pre-Domenic backlinks actually diplayed twice as many links as were actually listed.

[Netizen]

I think that what is important is that GoogleGuy has said the current backlinks are a more accurate representation of the real thing and previously they weren't. So, if you now have 500 backlinks that should be more accurate than when Google used to say you had 1500.

This update and the last update used the same counting mechanism therefore you can compare like with like.

[HitProf]

I think he was referring to this: original post is backlinks demistified [webmasterworld.com].

Summary: there used to be a big difference between the reported number of backlinks and the number that would show up if you started counting the results.

Example: 'Searched for pages linking to www.domain.com.
Results 1 - 18 of about 31. Search took 0.20 seconds.'

Google reported 31 backlinks but showed only 18 of them. The bug was in the estimated number and that has been fixed.

If nothing else changed and you used to have 500 backlinks, chances are you now only have 250. Of course you had those 250 all the time, the reported 500 have never really been there.

[Jakpot]

Who's on first?

[IITian]

I don't know. I have 4 backlinks showing up for one of my sites. I checked FAST and it shows 5 backlinks.

Funny thing is that not even a single link is common between G and FAST lists. And both of them are missing out on at least one important link. (All links are at least one month old and 3 on FAST list have PR at least 4.)

[DotBum]

Jakpot: That's the man's name... ;)

[HitProf]

Jackpot: don't know what you mean?

IItian: that's a whole different ball game.
Did you check if the missing link isn't javascript or something else that can't be followed?

Don't forget to submit the ATW-pages to Google if they're not already in. They may just be not showing up because of too low PR.

[Bernard]

I took it to mean that the criteria for listing backlinks have changed. Backlinks that were displayed pre-Dominic may or may not be displayed now and vice versa.

Google was displaying 78 actual backlinks for my site pre-Dominic (out of an estimated 146). Post-Dominic, it displayed 32 actual backlinks. Currently on -fi, it is showing 29 actual backlinks.

I know that the site has well over 100 PR4+ (at least, pre-Dominic PR4+) backlinks. No worries though. While the backlink reporting appears sketchy, my SERPs have climbed right nicely on -fi so far.

Cheers.

[HitProf]

Sure, the counting of backlinks has changed too. Doesn't show up in all area's so I forgot to mention it.

[ulstrup]

I don't have the missing index page problem but I'm wondering if it has any connections with the backward links fluctuations and fresh dates.

www.domain.dk: pre esmeralda 139, now 10, among missing links are yahoo and dmoz listings. PR6/PR6.
www.domain.net: pre 141, now 104. PR5/PR5
www.domain.co.uk: pre 144, now 72. PR5/PR5
www.domain.com: pre 146, now 102. PR5/PR5 this update has added google dir/dmoz listing.
www.domain.com/it/: pre 136, now 112. PR5/PR5
www.domain.com/es/: pre 0, now 104. PR0/PR4

The reduction for www.domain.com has mostly been internal links. I would have expected this site to rise to PR6, due to dmoz listing and about 5 other new links from PR6/7 sites.

The www.domain.dk remains at PR6, so I think the missing backlinks will return.

No pages on any sites show fresh, the index page at www.domain.com had fresh date June 14 or 15. yesterday.

A typical link exchange scenario goes like this:

I link to your index page from my /link page (lower PR and many outbound links).
You link to my index page from your /link page (lower PR and many outbound links).

I have not engaged in this kind of linkexchange, but it would be logical if Google has raised the required PR for links to index pages to combat this form of linkpop speculations.

This could also be part of the explanation for the missing index page problem.

I know the update is still undergoing, so drinking beer with the boys would probably be more futile, anyway, I'd be glad to hear your comments on this.

[Chris_D]

Google used to 'overguess' links - and now guesses much more accurately.

Contrary to GoogleGuys statement that
"you shouldn't compare link counts pre-Dominic to post-Dominic because they're apples and oranges"

I'm with Hitprof & dvduval - I think you can compare them - at an base qualified exchange rate of 2 predominic link apples = 1 post dominic link orange.

: )

Hitprof - Jakpot is quoting from an old Abbott & Costello ball game skit [abbottandcostello.net...]
: )

Chris_D

[wackmaster]

Also, people were comparing Dominic to past updates but GG kept saying 'don't do that...this is a whole new system.'

The problem with Dominic, at least vis-a-vis backlinks, was that people didn't really know where they stood with backlinks, because Dominic was an incomplete update (obviously).

Now, with Esmeralda, people who were bothered about their backlinks in Dominic have a new point of comparison.

They should now be seeing a more complete index, with most of the backlinks in place (though I doubt that they are all in there yet...maybe another update or two to find and catalog them all, since G appears to have started from scratch with Dominic).

So 'apples to apples' also means that with this update (gee, this really is an update...cool), those who were bothered by Dominic's backlink picture should be able to see more clearly where the new system has them, with respect to the backlinks.

[glengara]

Thanks for that thread HitProf, missed it first time around, though it hasn't clarified much for me ;-)

Another quote from GG, "I think our newer systems do a much better job of estimating link counts."

I'd have thought an accurate link count would be pretty important in working out PR, so in view of the improved counting systems, is a general drop in PR on the cards?

[BigDave]

I've mostly given up on caring about what google lists with link:. Even before Dominic the numbers jumped around too much. 1000+ down to 300, down to 195, back up to 400. All the while PR and referrals slowly climbing. It is simply an "interesting" number, but it is of little use.

[IITian]

HitProf
>Did you check if the missing link isn't javascript or something else that can't be followed?
Don't forget to submit the ATW-pages to Google if they're not already in. They may just be not showing up because of too low PR.

I checked. Those are normal links from PR5 and PR6 pages. But I am ranking so well on G searches! I will wait for a few days.

[europeforvisitors]

For my site, www is showing 569 backlinks and www-fi is showing 1,040. That's a pretty big jump, especially at a time when other people are reporting a drop in backlinks.

As far as I can tell, most of the additional backlinks are from internal pages. So what's up? Is it possible that Google has simply lowered the PR threshold for displaying internal backlinks? Or that nearly 500 of my internal pages got just enough of a PR bump to show up on the backlink list?

[CCowboy]

All this talk about fruit makes me what to find a good link to a Steak House.