Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Webmaster Tools Back Links?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 flsprojects

flsprojects

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 05:38 AM

webmaster tools back links correct or not?

one website back link shows more than once.

#2 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 06:59 AM

Well, the Webmaster Tools is more correct than running the link: command via the normal search panel.

However I wouldn't consider it to be 100% accurate if accuracy means you expect the tool to list every back link to flow PageRank.

#3 flsprojects

flsprojects

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 March 2009 - 04:54 AM


Thanks for reply

#4 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:24 PM

If you want to know which value-passing links you have, the link operator probably gives you better information than Webmaster Tools, which doesn't distinguish between value-passing links and links that don't pass value.

Links that don't pass value are either in the Supplemental Index or they have been nofollowed or they have been blocked by Google for violating its guidelines.

I've never seen anything that indicates the links shown by the link are blocked from passing anchor text or PageRank. They are usually pretty good listings from trusted sites. You just don't get a complete list.

The Webmaster Tools reports also include outdated information and are not complete, either.



#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,984 posts

Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:53 PM

QUOTE
I've never seen anything that indicates the links shown by the link are blocked from passing anchor text or PageRank. They are usually pretty good listings from trusted sites. You just don't get a complete list.


I'm not sure I agree with this. The links they seem to show in the link command (granted I haven't used it in ages) seem to show the most awful links.

Curious as to why you think they're choosing the better ones, because I had not seen that at all.

#6 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Mar 24 2009, 12:53 PM) View Post
I'm not sure I agree with this. The links they seem to show in the link command (granted I haven't used it in ages) seem to show the most awful links.

Curious as to why you think they're choosing the better ones, because I had not seen that at all.


Because of the infinitesimally small number of link reports I'm physically capable of examining within the scope of my lifetime. smile.gif

Seriously, I look askance of all backlink reports but every time over the past year or two that I've drilled down to evaluate the links in Google link reports (as opposed to just glancing at the reports) I've found they appeared to be pretty good links (in my opinion).

I've generally come to the conclusion that if Google bothers to return a link in its random sample, it's probably taken the effort to extract the link out of the page -- something it doesn't seem to do for what I believe are Supplemental Pages.

This is purely an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't run out to the nearest SEO blog and post it as link bait.



#7 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,984 posts

Posted 25 March 2009 - 12:24 AM

Interesting. Because my anecdotal evidence shows the exact opposite. Sometimes it seems as if Google chooses the lowest quality ones to show in the link: command.

That's what made me give it up to begin with.

#8 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 25 March 2009 - 12:42 PM

Well, we may be using the word "quality" in different ways. There are some sites I wouldn't bother to throw a shoe at but they are powerful linking resources. And there are some sites I feel add great value to the Web but their links just don't seem to pass value.

And you know how hard it is to determine when a link passes value. If it's using boilerplate anchor text you have no way to know what is happening.

As a rule of thumb, however, I assume Google doesn't want to show me sites it feels are spammy or violating its guidelines if it can choose not to. In a link report Google seems to be exercising considerable discretion.

I can't prove anything, but my gut instinct is to trust the link reports better than any of the crap I find in Webmaster tools. I track hundreds of sites through Webmaster tools and their backlink reports don't even come close to matching reality.



#9 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,984 posts

Posted 25 March 2009 - 02:16 PM

QUOTE
As a rule of thumb, however, I assume Google doesn't want to show me sites it feels are spammy or violating its guidelines if it can choose not to. In a link report Google seems to be exercising considerable discretion.


Really? So they're not mostly showing scraper sites in the link command anymore? That's typically what i used to see and why I decided nobody should ever use it for any reason. Like I said, I haven't looked at it in many years, so maybe they've cleaned it up.

#10 kynduvme

kynduvme

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted 25 March 2009 - 03:21 PM

I use the google webmaster tools back link report to help track backlinks that google is recognizing.

#11 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:46 PM

Jill,

I haven't seen a low-value site in a Google link report in a long, long time. But my experience is pretty limited in that there are only a small, finite number of sites for which I can check Google backlinks.

And it's not like my SEO services live and die by backlink reports (ick).

I did see a reference (just this week) to a recent Matt Cutts video on another forum where, supposedly, Matt says that link shows you nofollowed links but I could not find the video to confirm what the commenter said. I know that the Webmaster Tools report includes nofollowed links.

If anyone knows of a video where Matt Cutts may have said something about the quality of the listings in Google's link operator results, I would appreciate a heads up.




#12 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,984 posts

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:56 PM

QUOTE
I know that the Webmaster Tools report includes nofollowed links.


Really? See now that seems really surprising. I'll have to look into this more because that doesn't sound right to me.

#13 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 30 March 2009 - 03:33 AM

Well here 'apparently' is Matt Cutts of G! answering this exact question....
QUOTE


#14 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,984 posts

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:06 AM

Do you know if they have a transcript of this one? I hate watching videos...

#15 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:14 AM

that's all they had, else I would have posted it - sorry, haven't looked myself , so don't even know what he said -hysterical.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!