I see backlinks listed in Bing WMT which don't appear in their index
SEOPTI
2:59 am on Nov 30, 2015 (gmt 0)
I think it is not necessary to have the url indexed in Bing to get some trust flow. They know the url even if it is not indexed in most cases.
But they list old deleted urls as backlinks which is nonsense.
fathom
4:42 am on Nov 30, 2015 (gmt 0)
How exactly would that work.
This is the URL: _____________
Trust it!
GO FIGURE!
SEOPTI
2:52 am on Dec 2, 2015 (gmt 0)
For example, only a fraction of URLs will "appear in search" and you see 100% of them in webmaster tools. I think it's not enough authority and trust flow to make all of the URLs for a domain to "appear in search". All of the URLs in the main index are listed #1-#3. So user satisfaction with Bing is a dead end for huge sites.
They know all urls but only list a fraction of them for a query, they call this fraction "appear/ed in search". I see this with my own sites.
Therefore I think the same applies for links, they don't have to "appear in search". So when you use url:www.example.com/abc and it will not appear as indexed in their front end there is a chance of 99% they know this url in the back end (WMT) and you will see it listed there.
The strange part is, If I create a local long tail site let's say with 300k dentists, they will make maybe 10k of this site "appear in search" and all urls will be listed at #1-#3 (the urls which appear in search).
So it means to me visitors like this site or even love it. So why don't they start to list all the remaining urls in their main index, they just list them in WMT. I think the algorithm is missing something at this point. They don't reward user satisfaction in results (in terms of making more urls appear in serps) as I can clearly see with my sites since 2011. Of course user satisfaction makes those urls appear #1-#3 but the traffic is minimal when they block all other urls from appearing in search.
I think the solution are dumb links. If you don't make links you are dead even if people consume your site. And don't tell me if they like the result they will link to you or share you. This is wishful thinking in the local yellow pages sector, the visitors need just a phone number or a map. Why should they share it?
I miss Duane Forrester here. He for sure could clear things up.
fathom
4:21 am on Dec 2, 2015 (gmt 0)
If the URLs are in WMT they ARE indexed.
I'm not a Bing guy but if stats suggest there are 2.8 million results but only 1000 ranked positions there are only 0.036% of available pages showing in results.
SEOPTI
5:05 am on Dec 2, 2015 (gmt 0)
Interesting stast fathom. Where do you see it?
They have at least two indexes. one WMT index and one "appear in search index".
It's hard to understand if the "appear in search index" demands "backlinks" and/or "social mentions" for the URLs to appear there. That would be insane, just mad. They are killing their engine if it is designed to work in this way.
I asked them via the WMT contact form what's the key a few months ago. They told me "backlinks". I can buy loads of quality on topic contextual links which look like natural created links. Is this what they finally need to release my site into their "main index".? I don't think so.
At the end of the day I think crawling and indexing costs zillions, they don't have the budget to keep all the stuff in their index. They can hardly compete with Google because of the indexing budget wich is set by someone for Bing. Their crawling and indexing mechanism is the same it was in 2009. This is what I see with all my sites. It'a a dead end.
fathom
12:42 pm on Dec 2, 2015 (gmt 0)
Costs almost nothing. Speculating cost much more.
nakkers
10:28 pm on Dec 2, 2015 (gmt 0)
Fathom is correct, from my experience.
3zero
12:01 am on Dec 8, 2015 (gmt 0)
Is there a crawl budget on Bing perhaps that's set by amount of backlinks. I still learning about Bing but I have noticed it crawls much more than it indexes.
SEOPTI
2:12 am on Dec 9, 2015 (gmt 0)
@3zero
In most cases Bing WMT knows all the URLs. This is the first step. The second step is to make them what they call "appear in search" this is much harder. I'm still testing and at the moment I can rule out user experience, social signals, on page stuff. This took me months of testing.
Well there is not much left.
Don't get me wrong. User experience is still important in order to appear in the top 10 (they test each and every URL for user experience) but not important enough to make URLs "appear in search". And that's the problem, if a single URL will never be indexed they are unable to evaluate user experience. So they probably go about popularity first (= contextual on topic links from trusted sources).
I hope they will gain more market share to finally be able to compete with goo$le. It's a great search engine with great people behind the scenes.
