Moderator Note: This thread split off from Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2423).


With all due respect to Googleguy I have to ask the question is the Google link: search really worth anything these days? and if its not providing accurate information, then why have it at all?

Google has long been a leader in the search field but in the area of backlink searches both Yahoo and the MSN beta search engine have them beat hands down. As an example for one of my sites:

Google lists 36 back links with the link: search and 887 with the @ search

Yahoo lists 501 backlinks with the link: search

beta.search.msn lists 1933 links with the link: search

Since Google are reputed to have a larger index than Yahoo, the comparasion of the Google @ search and the Yahoo link search seems logical, but unless MSN have built a whopper of an index where are they finding more than twice as many links as Google?

Next question. Googleguy says that they now show almost twice as many links with the link command, but my backlinks according to google have gone down by 60% this week.

where are they finding more than twice as many links as Google? It's a case of showing not "finding".

No Dave if you read my post carefully you will see that Google only show 887 links with the @ search, hence I am saying that they find more than twice as many.

I am not talking about the link: search here; if I were I would be saying that MSN Beta search are finding fifty times more links.

Google only show 887 links with the @ search
What is the use of that search, It is ofcourse not the way to check backlinks, It shows you pages with the URL as text as well as URL in domain, Some of them might be links but most of them are not links but some text on the page or some PPC URL text,

Why you compare it with the backlink command of yahoo???

hence I am saying that they find more than twice as many.
Mel, so? Can you explain your point?

Powerofeyes There is no correct way to check backlinks in Google at the moment as the Google link:search is pretty disfunctional. My experience with the @search is that more than 90% of the pages I have checked which use the URL on the page do it in the form of a link and thus it returns better results than the link search, but of course it will miss anchor text links.

Why use the Yahoo and MSN beta link searches? The logic is like this:
If Google has the largest and most complete index of any search engine then they certainly should know about most of the links that Yahoo, which has a smaller index, knows about and ditto for MSN beta. So if Yahoo knows about the links, Google should know about most of them, too, so using Yahoo to see your links is probably a much more accurate way to check backlinks than using the link: search.

So if Yahoo knows about the links, Google should know about most of them, too, so using Yahoo to see your links is probably a much more accurate way to check backlinks than using the link: search
Yes, that has been said quite a few times. Are you just making that statement? You seemed to being trying to say something else?

Mel, so? Can you explain your point?

OK Dave slowly this time.

My point is that MSN beta search appears to be finding more than twice as many backlinks as Google.

My point is that MSN beta search appears to be finding more than twice as many backlinks as Google. Yes and like I said Mel, it's more likely a case of Google not showing all backlinks as apposed to not finding them.

Why use the Yahoo and MSN beta link searches? The logic is like this:
If Google has the largest and most complete index of any search engine then they certainly should know about most of the links that Yahoo, which has a smaller index, knows about and ditto for MSN beta. So if Yahoo knows about the links, Google should know about most of them, too, so using Yahoo to see your links is probably a much more accurate way to check backlinks than using the link: search.

That makes a lot of sense and is very logical, but I'm told (as of last spring from the SE reps involved) it's probably wrong.

Apparently, Yahoo and Google only have about a 30% overlap - the remaining 70% of the indexes of each are not shared by the other.

Personally, I would take that statement with a grain of salt today, but nonetheless it does raise the issue that the assumption is very possibly incorrect. Unfortunately I don't have more clear or current information than this, but it's something to keep in mind.

Ian

Yes I suppose that is the case to a greater or lesser degree, but many of the file types which Google indexes others do not, so what would be interesting to me is what is the overlap within the web pages using html is like.

I know that from the limited checking I have done that most of the pages which Yahoo or MSN list links from are indexed in Google but an exhaustive comparasion is out of the question.

But then almost anything is better than the Google link: search, so long as you understand the limitations.

I want to use the link: command to see how many sites link to "Cigarette.com". Sounds easy, right?

What happens is that it not only pulls up the links I want, but it also pulls up sites with names such as Cheap-Cigarette.com and Gotta-Have-A-Cigarette.com. I tried using the "not (-)" command and have also put "Cigarette.com" in quotes. Neither works. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Mary

Have you tried link:www.cigarette.com not quite the same but it does filter the others out