SEO Class in Chicago, IL
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Link Checking Thread - Google Backward Link Posts
Posted 26 November 2004 - 05:14 AM
Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:13 AM
Posted 26 November 2004 - 02:13 PM
Are these relevant links sending you traffic?
Posted 26 November 2004 - 03:54 PM
I thought all the Americans would be to stuffed with food and wine to post today!
Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:46 PM
BL updates are just as useless as they have been for the last several months!
Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:37 PM
I use the API at digitaltpoint to check so wasn't able to check until today. I should have had more, but on the other hand maybe Google devalued some of the existing links. Or maybe Google is just trying to keep us confused. Google surely wouldn't do any thing that sneaky would she?
Yes Google is female. I read that somewhere. Maybe in this forum. I don't remember but all the reasons seemed to be valid to me.
Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:44 PM
Posted 27 November 2004 - 12:16 AM
The link: command is broken and there's no point looking at it; it doesn't matter what Google displays publicly, it matters what Google knows internally, and they don't tell us that.
If you want to know who links to you, look at yahoo.
If you want to know if Google has spotted a particular link yet, generate a SERP including the page containing that link and then check the cache to see if you're in there.
When I know there are over 170 backlinks in Google to site X, and Google reports 3 - I take the hint and stop using the broken command.
Posted 27 November 2004 - 12:34 AM
A Google representative posted in the SEW forum recently and commented publically about the backlink command. It's a good read and explains why they show what they do - or don't.
It's the 7th post down and starts like this:
Posted 27 November 2004 - 12:51 AM
Posted 27 November 2004 - 01:20 AM
I did not understand Google to say they did not store all back links. Only that they did not display all backlinks.
Agreed. By the way I don't believe back links have anything to do with the relvancy of the sites returned. A lot of back links has nothing to do with relevancy.
Posted 27 November 2004 - 02:21 AM
True, true, I did over interpret a tad, didn't I?
But it leaves the answer as un-useful.
I understood that Google *used to* show all the backlinks? (or was I just naive a few years ago? )
Its interesting to try and figure out what the heck they are doing, isn't it?
They are trying to give more weight to more relevant back links, and I think their algos are increasingly successful.
Posted 01 December 2004 - 08:29 AM
Link: sitename.com --> not to accurate
"sitename.com" -site:www.sitename.com --> this is very interesting
linkdomain:sitename.com -->still IMO the most accurate
link:sitename.com -->getting close to Yahoo
for you tool buffs,these work great too!
Posted 10 December 2004 - 05:00 AM
Can anybody provide reliable information on what counts as a Google's backwards link? I mean, I have probably several dozen quality links already pointing to my site, but none of them appears in Google so far. By quality I mean pages with some PR (3-5), which are indexable by Google - as evidenced by its cache, and with links Google CAN follow (no ? or = in url). One of those is a link in Anthony Parson's directory (thanks, Anthony!), which certainly looks good to me (PR of 5, plus all the above characteristics), but maybe not so to Google, since it doesn't show as a backwards link ;-\
The question is - what is a backwards link to Google? And even if some link doesn't show in this SE, does it still count?
For the record - my homepage has been indexed by Google, but other pages have not.
Many thanks in advance,
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users