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

#16 Deverill

Deverill

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Key West, Florida USA

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:15 AM

For what tiny little bit it's worth... I did a link:{myworksite} (an online ticket selling store) and the first 3 pages were my internal links, links from our blog and links from our weather site. #30 was from an unrelated blog talking about us and then a mix of our internal links, businesses, and blogs talking about us. Didn't see one spammy type site out of the first 60 results I had the patience to view.

Now, does this have anything to do with our placement? I'd almost bet money that it doesn't, but at least they are doing better at not showing scrapers.

#17 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

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

Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:47 PM

now if I do link:mysite I get one IBL; from a support forum when I was asking for help with an Opera browser issue cry_smile.gif

Now all I can say is I hope the link:operator is broken lol.gif

EDIT:

ok I watched the video now i'm home...the basic answer is this..

Link:operator shows only a percentage of links and they are random, this is so competitors cannot reverse engineer your ranking and work out what liks you have from which websites and then go get the themselves, aslo there is no ranking on links shown, some have value for PR and are from trusted sites some don't, so again no one can work out what links a site has for reverse engineering or unfair competition advantage.

However Matt does claim that the Google Webmaster Tool -> link checker will show the *Majority* of links, he verges on even saying 'nearly all' but leaves the door open for any they don't want to tell you about for what ever reason, be it server storage space or qute simply some they don't even know about yet!

But basically it's ..... link:operator != good , GWMT = good (but still not all, just most!).

Side note: ironically if the link:operator is random, how many queries against a domain via a bot would it take to extrapolate *most* of the links a site does really have and from whom?

Edited by 1dmf, 30 March 2009 - 01:00 PM.


#18 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,157 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:25 PM

Bottom line here: neither the link: query operator nor the Webmaster Tools report will distinguish between value-passing links and non-value passing links.

I apologize for not following up sooner. As some of you know I've been sick for the past few weeks and my energy levels are low.

I can see how my own observations over the past couple of years tend to favor the "links seem to have value" point of view: I use a number of bellwether queries to benchmark how Google behaves. The sites I track have pretty good backlink profiles, thus increasing the likelihood that any random sampling would show mostly good backlinks.

I'll have to revise my list of bellwether queries to include some more recent sites that are not as link-rich as the older sites.






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!