Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks : )

[bobmutch]

Seems like the Google rep at the Search Engine Strategies 2004 Conference & Expo in Stockholm yesterday noted the following.
Q: What is up with the Google link: command?
A: Google says they are not reporting all your links back to your site. So think before using it.
You can read this over at the http://www.seroundtable.com (http://www.seroundtable.com/) blog. Check out Oct 27th and the entry called Link Building Basics.

[hugo guzman]

The blog that you cited specifically mentions that Google dodged this question (didn't confirm anything):
Q & A:

Q: I asked Google (Magnus, new Google speaker and engineer at Google), why do you bother updating the link command if its not really statistically sound?
A: Google pretty much avoids the question, sorry. But then Danny backs me up and says, if you have the command, it should be 100% accurate - otherwise do not give it. Thanks Danny.

I think that your assertion is correct, but that's not what the blog states.

[bobmutch]

hugo guzman: Ok it seems like the entry Barry made in the SE Roundup blog that the Google spokesperson said "they are not reporting all your links back to your site. So think before using it." So what was said by the Google rep. Is "Google pretty much avoids the question, sorry" what they said or what they did?

[David Wallace]

I thought that has been common knowledge for awhile now that Google does not report all the backlinks it recognizes, only a sampling. That is what I heard from a Google rep in San Jose and it was common knowledge before that.

So this is nothing new, is it?

[AussieWebmaster]

This is checkable though somewhat a bit of work. Go to Yahoo or another engine and grab the listings for your backlinks... then do a search for the listings that have PR 4 or greater (the so-called limit)... there is a tool that will check the PR but I do not have it handy... if the total is less than the Google backlink number then a strong conclusion can be made that the above statements are accurate.
A gut feeling agrees with the overall and the fact that I am told I have afew hundred backlinks for a page that ranks number one for a 7+ million page SERP.

[bobmutch]

David Wallace: Nothing new just I have not seen a record of Google ever saying that and the old page on there site still says it displays all backlinks.
AussieWebmaster: I don't think there is any question that the link: command is not displaying all the links but just a sample. The issue I was addressing was that it seems that Barrys post over at SE Roundup was noting that the Google spokesperson stated this. I think that I may of misunderstood the post over there.

[hugo guzman]

There's no doubt that the google link: command delivers an incomplete sample.

This post is more focused on whether or not Google reps have admitted to it.

It's really very trivial since we all know the answer anyway.

[AussieWebmaster]

I have long disregarded the count on inbound links etc. and concentrated on getting solidly placed in the organic SERPs for the popular terms that bring people to my website (which I get from my log files).... I care far more for being number 1 for 60 terms and on the front page for about 150 terms - this impacts traffic and ROI much more ...

[bobmutch]

hugo guzman: While I can understand it being trivial to you it is not to those that have clients that are asking where are my links. You explain to them that Google only provides you a sample and they point to Google page that says it shows them all.

In fact I just had a conversation with a "Professional SE Optimizer" that claims that the link: command shows all links just like Google states "The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www*google*com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page." http://www.google.com/help/features.html

So having said that, if Google has gone on record and said that the link: command doesn't show all links it is of interest to me.

[hugo guzman]

You completely misunderstood me.

I am also interested in having google confirm that the backlink command is incomplete. That's why I responded to this post in the first place.

I rarely take on new seo clients because I make much higher margins on my own proprietary sites (and my sites give me way less headaches than my clients do!), but when I do take on a new client I explain this and other phenomenon before signing a contract. I prefer for my clients to be informed about the nature of SEO before signing them up. I try to put these types of issues in writing (i.e. "Google's backlink command is not accurate, etc...), so that if they try to come at me later I can refer back to the contract literature. Even so, they still come at me with their psuedo educated seo opinions anyway :cool: .

That's why I insist on their defering to me when it comes to making decisions that guide their seo campaign. I tell them point blank: "If you're not sure that my firm is in complete control of your optimization campaign and is capable of achieving the results that you desire, then please tell me now."

I won't work with a firm that isn't at least somewhat educated when it comes to seo, and I won't work with a firm that doesn't have complete belief in my and my staff's abilities.

It would be nice if google would definitively state that their backlink command is purposely flawed (along with about 1000 other seo related secrets), but that would just take all the fun and excitement away!

[bobmutch]

hugo guzman: Well in that case I am glad that I completely misunderstood you! Not sure what you were saying trivial, but regardless I am glad to see you would like to squeeze this answer out of them. How about a class action suite for false advertising.

[hugo guzman]

LOL!

That sounds like a solid get rich quick scheme to me.

[mcanerin]

You might be joking, but for those who would take a class action suit seriously I'd like to point out that in the US only the FTC has the authority to enforce the FTC Act. Private parties, such as consumers or competitors, can only bring a legal action regarding false advertising under the Lanham Act




To establish a violation under the Lanham Act, consumers and competitors must prove the following: (1) the advertiser made false statements of fact about its product; (2) the false advertisements actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the target population; (3) the deception was material; (4) the falsely advertised product was sold in interstate commerce; and (5) the party bringing the lawsuit (known as the "plaintiff") was injured as a result of the deception.


I think you'd have a difficult time convincing people that the fact that Google does not actually report it's full backlinks is material and connected to it's product (which would be Adwords, I imagine) being bought.

I think they should clear things up - this makes them look bad, but I don't think it's time to light the torches and bring in a horde of people materially harmed by the fact that the are not being shown accurate backlinks as a free service, assuming you could find any.

Now, if they were lying in your AdWords reports, that's a different story.

My personal opinion,

Ian

[bobmutch]

LOL! Come on its Friday, lighten up.

[mcanerin]

LOL :)

Sorry, came out of the cold with the "mod hat" on.....

<buys bob a virtual beer and opens one himself>

Cheers,

Ian

PS TGIF!

[hugo guzman]

pass me one of those virtual beers! (I'll be getting a real one in about an hour).

[rustybrick]

New reason to resurface this thread.

Matt Cutts spoke today at WMW and one thing he brought up was this thread and the "confusion" about the link command.

Here is what I wrote in my coverage:
"Doubled the amount of link data which he explains to be better. They broadened out more accessibility to those links. He is a good politician."

Basically he did not say it is a statistically sound sample of all your links, but rather they are showing more links from a more diverse grouping of PageRank classifications.

[bobmutch]

rustybrick: So what did Matt Cutts really say. You say he spoke about this thread. What did he say.

I was searching the internet last month in vain, reading all of Matt Cutts quotes I could find. I am quite sure he has gone on record saying the link: command doesn't show all links but for the life of me I couldn't find it.

Does any know know where that is. I have read quotes that had no reference that state he said the link: command doesn't show all links but I can't find the source.

Matt Cutts: If you are reading this thread can you tune in and give was the word. Or at least as much as Google will let you.

GoogleGuy: How about you. Can you tell us why the link: command some times shows less that 20% of the links that Yahoo does, when your web site clearly states that the link: command shows them all.

http://www.google.com/help/features.html
"The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www*google*com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page."

All the SEO types know that the above is not ture and that the link: command only shows a sample, why can't Google to go on record and tell us how it is. Either that or get rid the statement that says it shows all the pages.

[Mel]

...
http://www.google.com/help/features.html
"The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www*google*com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page."

All the SEO types know that the above is not ture and then the links command only shows a sample, why can't Google to go on record and tell us how it is. Either that or get rid the statement that says it shows all the pages.

It would be nice if Google would just set up some pages in order to detail to us exactly how their algo ranks pages, but since the secrecy of the algorithm is possibly among their chief assets they are not really very likely to do that.

It is not up to the search engines to explain to SEOs how their system works, rather its up to the SEOs to figure it out, and you can count on Google not making it easy.

[Robert_Charlton]

http://www.google.com/help/features.html
"The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www*google*com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page."


Good find. I've assumed for so long it was common knowledge that the command only showed you some of the links that I never thought to check what Google said on the site.

When the command showed you the links that were PR4 or above, though, it was much more useful than it is now, where it seems to show only the junk links on scraper sites (not a bad thing to be aware of, perhaps, but not much to be done about them) and other low PR links.

I'm wondering if Google's going to adjust the wording on the site sometime soon, or else fix the command.

[rustybrick]

If I find Matt Cutts, I will ask him personally for clarification. But I think you already know what to expect. :)

[bobmutch]

Robert_Charlton: I think the quote is pretty common knowledge. I think if we make enough of a noise on this thread that either Matt Cutts or GoogleGuy with grace us with there presents and give us the word.

Mel: No one is expecting Google to setup a page and tell us how the Ranking Algo or PageRank Algo works. I think we all know that would not happen. But with the matter at hand we have already know what is happening. Googles OLD page is stating the link: command "shows you all the pages that point to that URL." We all know that is not true.

What is being asked here is not for them to reveal some hidden secret but to merely go on record and correct the misconception that thier statement on thier site is causing "some" people. While SEO/SEM market types for the most part know this, many webmasters don't.

Rustybrick: "Basically he did not say it is a statistically sound sample of all your links, but rather they are showing more links from a more diverse grouping of PageRank classifications." Was this during a talk that Matt said these things, and if so is there a quote available on what he said?

[dannysullivan]

Google has said plenty of times, in plenty of on-the-record public places that the backlink tool does not show all the links it knows about.

As for the still fairly recent link change, I can confirm that Google has told me directly that they are showing more links than in the past, but they still aren't showing all of them.

The issue isn't that they haven't made it public that the link tool doesn't show everything. We know that. They've said that, over and over again. Honestly, we don't need yet further confirmation. It's a fact.

FYI, as for what happened above in SES Stockholm, this WAS another confirmation of it. The Google engineer didn't dodge the question of whether they show all backlinks or not. He dodged the question of why don't they show ALL of the backlinks. If they did show all backlinks, he would have answered that this was the case. It isn't. He knew that. And the reason he didn't answer on why not show them all is because, quite frankly, that's a question that goes higher up to Google's managment to answer.

In the end, the issue is really two-fold.

1) While they've admitted this problem/issue/feature plenty of times in public, they still do not say it on the site itself. The tool does not advertise as promised on their own site, as we've discussed over here: Google quirks summary (all lies...) (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2772). They should fix that.

2) If they aren't going to fix the wording of how the tool works, then fix the darn feature and make it show everything.

[andrewgoodman]

It's worth noting that the new MSN Search does a very good job of showing backlinks.

Example: SearchEngineWatch.com shows 165,722 on MSN Search (oh my head hurts). Google displays only 14,600.

Nice to know you can look this stuff up somewhere and get an accurate, current answer, anyway.

[mcanerin]

1) While they've admitted this problem/issue/feature plenty of times in public, they still do not say it on the site itself. The tool does not advertise as promised on their own site, as we've discussed over here: Google quirks summary (all lies...) (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2772). They should fix that.

2) If they aren't going to fix the wording of how the tool works, then fix the darn feature and make it show everything. I completely agree. Just because SEO/Ms know about this (usually - I keep running into ones that don't) doesn't mean that webmasters and the rest of the public know about it. You can't blame John Q Public for reading somebody mentioning something in a public forum, then reading it "straight from the source" off G's website and deciding that it does show all links. Why wouldn't they?

Don't lie on your website. If you make a mistake, or overstate something, or post something that could be misinterpreted, then fix it as soon as you find out about it. No problem. It happens.

But G has been on notice that this is the case for a very long time, and through several revisions of their website (from Olympic logos to new features) and nothing has changed.

This is especially important for a public company. I have some experience with this, and although the regulations are very strict for (and directly aimed at) things related to the decisions to purchase or sell stock, they also apply to other misleading statements as well.

Regulators know that investors make buy/sell decisions based on information outside of the prospectus, including product information, advertisments, forums, rumor and, yes, website content. An abundance of caution is in order, especially if you have care and control the information or statements in question.

Don't listen to me, just phone up your own lawyers and ask if you can put a known false statement on your website that many people rely on when making business related and competitive decisions and see what they say. Then take their advice.

Google gets reminders every SES (at least) that this is the case. That's every few months. If people didn't care, it wouldn't keep coming up! Why does this thread and hundreds like it exist if it isn't an issue?

For shame.

Ian

[bobmutch]

dannysullivan: "Google has said plenty of times, in plenty of on-the-record public places that the backlink tool does not show all the links it knows about." Well how about an URL where this is recorded. I mean a direct quote like Cutts said "blah blah blah" on some site and posted by some one that recorded it that is credible.

[GoogleGuy]

I'm pretty sure I've said it several times. Google's link: command shows some, but not all backlinks to the specified url. That's the first time someone has pointed out the wording on that link: page; I'll be happy to mention it to our webmaster. Was someone really expecting to receive 2.6 million+ links because of the wording of that page? :)

[GoogleGuy]

Alright, I just dropped an email to our webmasters about the features.html page. As I understand it, this has been explained to various degrees by Matt in San Jose SES, Magnus in Stockholm SES, and then Matt again in Las Vegas at the WMW conference, but I'll try to say it in one nice chunk so that people can have it as a reference.

Google doesn't return all backlinks in response to a link: command. In the ancient days, it was because there was a finite amount of storage space on the machines that served link: requests. So we only kept the backlinks for the top N pages. Later as we moved to a different indexing system, we kept backlinks for the top M% of pages. This was helpful for important pages, but it meant that Mom and Pop sites with lower PageRank wouldn't have as good a chance to see their backlinks.

At SES London, DaveN had a suggestion. He said: why don't you give all pages an equal chance of seeing backlinks? That's good for users, who will have a greater chance of seeing backlinks for a given page, and it's especially good for smaller websites--they'd have a chance to see backlinks. It seemed like a good idea, so we implemented it. In fact, in order to give each page a better chance of seeing backlinks (instead of just the top M% of pages), we doubled the amount of backlinks that Google exports to the outside world. So users now have access to twice as much link: data as before; it's just not all the top PageRank pages.

Q: Ah, you know, I hadn't noticed that all those "I don't see any backlinks for my site" threads were getting more and more rare in the last few months. So there are twice as many backlinks available, but from a broader spectrum of pages instead of just higher PageRank pages?
A: Yup.

Q: Isn't it possible that DaveN had some other motive behind his suggestion? Like he wanted to create a smoke screen so that other people couldn't see where he got his links from, or that he wanted people to move away from being so obsessed with backlinks?
A: DaveN is the best guy to answer that question. The part that really resonated with me when I heard the suggestion was that people with smaller websites with less PageRank could have a better chance of getting useful results when they used link: on their domain.

Q: Can you see all the backlinks internally at Google?
A: Yup. Given the large amount of data involved, and the fact that remarkably few people use the link: command, we don't show all backlinks externally, but we can access them internally.

Disclaimer: I've kinda assumed that most people know about me from WebmasterWorld, but in case anyone wasn't sure, I'm a Google employee but I post as just myself--someone who wants to answer questions and clear up misconceptions. But I'm not officially speaking on behalf of Google. (Or at least if I am, no one has bothered to tell me or, you know, give me a little framed certificate that says "Official Voice of Google for Webmaster-Related Stuff" or anything.) So: your mileage may vary. The author should not be held responsible for correct or incorrect interpretations of the words "link," "domain," "PageRank," "DaveN" or "one nice chunk" in this or any other time-space continuum, dimension, or reality matrix simulation. May shrink when dried. Do not fold, mutilate, or spindle, etc. etc. etc. Does anyone know what spindling is, other than something terribly postal and probably very cruel to packages?

[dannysullivan]

I just dropped an email to our webmasters about the features.html page
Very much appreciated, as is giving everyone the rundown.

[Mel]

Spindling GG, I believe, is a hold over from long ago when the grandfather who ran the country store kept a nice sharp pointed nail or other pointed metal object sticking up form a block of wood and onto which all recipts, orders, checks, whatever were stuck until such time as he got around to handing them over to whoever did the books (if anybody). This really didn't much hurt anyone until people started using data processing with punched holes (like government checks used to be) and the extra holes played merry hell with the data processing, hence the goverment prohibition against folding spindling or mutilating thier checks.

[bobmutch]

GoogleGuy: Thank you very much your post. I now have something that I can point people to. If it gets change on the Google page that would be even better. Thanks for you good input!

[GoogleGuy]

Happy to help, bobmutch. Mel, thanks for the visual on spindling! :)

[powerofeyes]

Thanks Googleguy for your reply, Those things clear a bit, But your reply is more similiar to the way you reply in webmasterworld.com, Most of the information in that is pretty confusing and is No way related to what google is showing currently in their link: command,

As you say I agree google used to show top M% of pages before and now top R%(random) of pages,

But this top R% of pages is very low percentage a site possess,

When google showed M% pages they showed most of the PR4+ pages, Now the random backlinks are very low compared to the real backlinks a site possess,

Also it is not true the crying for backlinks has come down in forums, It has increased more from the day you planned to show these random backlinks,

Official Voice of Google for Webmaster-Related Stuff"
When some one thinks like that they will be left blind in a dense forest ;)

[Dave Hawley]

Last time I emailed Google about backlinks (over a year ago) they replied to say Google only ever shows a sample. Isn't that official confirmation?

[bobmutch]

Dave Hawley: Official yes, public no. What we now have above we can point people to. Not that Google has not said this before and dannysullivan has pointed out.

I think Mike Cutts has made a simular statement as GoogleGuy just did. I have seen it quoted on the net here and there but could never find a source where he posted such a statement. While GoogleGuy is claiming unofficial status, and it is a bit harder to explain to a client who GoogleGuy is, his statement is better than what we have had before.

Perhaps Mike Cutts will login and post on this thread also. I am sure GoogleGuy and Mike commuication with each other from time to time.

[Dave Hawley]

I have found Google quite good at replying to emails, albeit cryptic at times. Why not fire them an email and use the reply to shove..er I mean show, your clients? Or, post it on your site?

I have also noted that many of the links they do show, account for little, to no, PR. Intentionally I would assume.

[bobmutch]

Dave Hawley: Well seeing that the Google site states the link: command show all links I think some thing posted on the web that I can't change or make up has more weight. A copy of an email I claim I got from Google, while is better than nothing, will not replace a post by a Google employee or even better yet the statement changed on their web site to reflect there position.

The first step in getting their web page changed to reflect what the link: command is really showing is to get Google to make the statement in public, this they have done a number of times. The next step was to have them go on record with the statement on a forum or blog. This they have just kindly done. The next step will be to have them change their web site.

When their website is changed there will be no need for an email from Google. We can just point people to what Google says on there site about the link: command.

I have a feeling with GoogleGuy and Mike Cutts working together on this they have the weight to get this done for us. GoogleGuy said he would tell the web master about the needed changes and if we can get Mike to point it out also I think this will get cleared up. (I understand that Mike Cutts has been following this thread according to rustybrick.)

[Dave Hawley]

Well seeing that the Google site states the link: command show all links I think some thing posted on the web that I can't change or make up has more weight. So true!

I have a feeling though (although a 30 sec job) this will be down the bottom of any list. I guess the Link: command is rarely, if ever, used by their customers (searchers). Altough Webmasters, SEO etc are also searchers, there reasons for wanting all links shown are undoubtedly the reason why Google don't :eek:

[bobmutch]

Dave Hawley: Webmasters are their customers also and they use the link command all the time. I am expecting to see the web page changed. I have faith in GoogleGuy that he has enought weight to have it done. Watch and see!

[Dave Hawley]

Yes I know Webmasters are also customers and I stated that in my post above. I also know they use the command all the time. As I said, it is their (Webmasters) reasons for using the link command that is likely the reasons why Google only show a sample.

I hope the text does get changed to become true. I cannot see any point in making false statements in writing.....unless one has something to hide :cool:

[bobmutch]

Dave Hawley: "I cannot see any point in making false statements in writing.....unless one has something to hide" I believe the text is old and when it was written it was either correct at that time or the person that wrote it made an error. I don't think Google make a false statement on purpose in this case. Just my take on it.

[Dave Hawley]

Agree, it was not my intention to insinuate it was intentional. However, now that they are fully aware...

Out all all the SE's Google has my utmost respect. All the others...are...well..just all the others. :D

[GoogleGuy]

I have a feeling though (although a 30 sec job) this will be down the bottom of any list.

Actually, I think the page has already been changed: http://www.google.com/features.html now just says that it returns links, not "all links" like it did before. I dropped an email to our webmaster last night after this thread pointed it out, and I think they managed to change it this morning.

(Thanks to folks for pointing it out, by the way..)

[Dave Hawley]

Amazing what an email from the right person to the right person can do. :)

However, why not change it to be non-misleading :confused: I.e "The query link:siteURL shows you" a sample "of pages that point to that URL"

[bobmutch]

GoogleGuy: Great! but I will have to agree with Dave on this one, that "The query link:siteURL shows you pages that point to that URL." is still a little vage.Some thing like "a sample of the pages" or "some of the pages" would make it much more clear.

[ihelpyou]

LOL The obsession about links is amazing. Quibbling over "one" word on a Google page is amazing as well. Some of us truly don't care what links are shown in the link command. :)

[bobmutch]

ihelpyou: Doug I realize you may think that being obsessed (read concerned) about links is amazing and many think that not being obsessed (again read concerned) with links is amazing. Many are amazed by your position, and perhaps more amazed than you are of ours.

While the issue seems to be revolving around one word, really it is not. It is what that one word does to the sentence it is in.

While you may have never had to deal with clients that are pointing at the Google link: command and are wondering where all their links are from the top 100 directories you claimed to add them to about 2 months ago, some have.

It is explained that Google doesn't show all the links with that command. They go to the Google site and come back upset, and tell us that Google clearly states that the link: command shows all links.

You try to show them that the Yahoo linkdomian: command shows there lnks just fine but they just don't get it. If you had to deal with that you might be concerned about the one word also.

Of course, like you we don't care what the Google link: command says either, but for a different reason. I am guessing you don't check for links, while we know the Google link: command just shows a sample so we use the Yahoo linkdomain: command.

Personally I am expecting that Google many change this. With both Yahoo and Beta Search MSN showing ~correct backlinks, Google many feel a need to "fix" their link command.

[I, Brian]

While you may have never had to deal with clients that are pointing at the Google link: command and are wondering where all their links are from the top 100 directories you claimed to add them to about 2 months ago, some have.
Yep to that, bobMutch - I had an SEO enquiry this week from a marketing company - the guy said the MD would judge the success of the link campaign according to what links were returned in a link command in Google. :rolleyes:

You just have to give up - managing directors are not keen on being "educated" on issues that are supposed to know something about.

What's sad is that I bet they walk straight into one of those companies that offer "Get your site listed in 1 million directories with auto-submission".

[AussieWebmaster]

Yep to that, bobMutch - I had an SEO enquiry this week from a marketing company - the guy said the MD would judge the success of the link campaign according to what links were returned in a link command in Google. :rolleyes:

You just have to give up - managing directors are not keen on being "educated" on issues that are supposed to know something about.

What's sad is that I bet they walk straight into one of those companies that offer "Get your site listed in 1 million directories with auto-submission".
There has to be someone silly enough to use them....
The change on the features page at least no longer implies all of the pages... though sample would further show they are not all the links.

[bobmutch]

I, Brian: Well thanks to GoogleGuy we now have a link we can email those types that tells us that tell them it just shows a samples of the links. The only problem now is they are going to say, "GoogleyGuy who?"

But hey we did get a chance on the Google page also - it no long says "all." Of course I would love to see it a bit more clearer and personally I think GoogleGuy (pretty please with sugur on it) has the weight to have that done!

[NFFC]

>I think it's very nice and thoughtful that it was changed so quickly

I think its nothing less than amazing, take into account the market cap of the company and it is nothing short of mindblowing. Credit where credit is due.

[dannysullivan]

I think Mike Cutts has made a simular statement as GoogleGuy just did. I have seen it quoted on the net here and there but could never find a source where he posted such a statement. While GoogleGuy is claiming unofficial status, and it is a bit harder to explain to a client who GoogleGuy is, his statement is better than what we have had before.
Bob, earlier in the thread I stated that Google had told me directly that this was the situation. In particular, this was Matt Cutts that I spoke with. When I have a chance, I'll dig out my notes and post you a direct quote. Until then, if you're really having that much an issue with clients, point them over here. You can cite that I'm telling you that Google officially has told me this directly, and as said, I and others have have been told this directly in many public forums. But I will work to get you that exact quote you want.

The "one" word deal as we both know was misleading and it looks like Google fixed it.
I'd say more incorrect than misleading. Misleading implies Google wanted people to think this was listing every URL, when it doesn't. I don't think there's that element of being deliberately misleading. I think it's more a case they they just haven't gotten around to updating and correcting that info. The changes should help, though saying "a sample" would make it even clearer.

Also, it's been said before that this thread is spilling into new territories. Please keep the discussion specific to the link: command at Google. Discussions of how anchor text is used and some of the debate on link selling -- if you want to go into that, please start a new thread and link across, thanks!

[chrisharris]

In fact, in order to give each page a better chance of seeing backlinks (instead of just the top M% of pages), we doubled the amount of backlinks that Google exports to the outside world. So users now have access to twice as much link: data as before; it's just not all the top PageRank pages.

Weird posting Google Guy, You say you are reporting double the number of backlinks now, But I cant see that happen, For one site I know yahoo is showing 14,000 backlinks but google only shows 160 backlinks :confused: , So how is that possible,

From what I have checked all those are legitimate backlinks, But google only reports 160 links on them, Those 14000 backlinks are from more than 800 unique sites,

Does that mean google doesnt know of those links, I bet NO, the same pages cached in google do have that site links but just that it is not showing up,
Can you tell me how that is happening google guy,

I know you are a nice guy but telling imaginary information doesnt sound good,


From what I can see this attempt by google showing incorrect data in backlink command is to confuse SEOs,


Anchor text has its true value when coming from a site where the site owner can have no direct influence on the anchor text.

OOPS :eek: , Where did you get that, Can you explain Dave, So what happened to all the natural links a site gets,

[bobmutch]

dannysullivan: I was aware that differnet Google reps have said publicly that the links command don't show all the links so obviously its been said privately. I think you may of missed my point. My point was that it would be nice to have a Google rep go on the record, as in somewhere on the net.

In most cases a report of what some one said in a private conversation, or even a report of what they said publicly doesn't hold as much weight as if that person has committed it to writting themselves!

This has now been done. We have a post for GoogleGuy clearly stateing "Google's link: command shows some, but not all backlinks to the specified url (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=23003&postcount=27)." Therefore there is no need for you to look up what was said privately.

The fact that it has not been changed on the website makes it even better.

"I'd say more incorrect than misleading. Misleading implies Google wanted people to think this was listing every URL, when it doesn't." Personally I would say it is both incorrect and misleading. The word misleading doesn't by defination include intent to mislead.

However I can see where using the word misleading could be misleading unless one notes that there was no intent to mislead. I think the difference here is that I said the page is misleading and not that Google was trying to be misleading.

My post on thread #41 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=23132&postcount=41) clearly states that I thought the page was just old information and that Google was not trying to be misleading. "I believe the text is old and when it was written it was either correct at that time or the person that wrote it made an error. I don't think Google make a false statement on purpose in this case."

I agree that this thread has been taken off topic and if I was the mod I would fork the thread shortly after GoogleGuys last comment.

[powerofeyes]

It would be nice if Google would just set up some pages in order to detail to us exactly how their algo ranks pages, Are you kidding :eek: , If they do something like that they will be out of business

[dannysullivan]

This thread started out with the issue of Google's link: command not actually showing all the backlinks that Google knows about.

Evolving from that discussion has been the issue of whether it even matters if Google or other search engines provide accurate backlink information. After all, some ask -- who cares about this other than site owners and search marketers?

A response has been site owners and search marketers have a real need to have this type of information.

Related to this debate has been whethere there's an emphasis too much on links versus content.

Some of this debate has been hinted at in a few posts above. I've rolled the majority of later posts into a new thread: Links Vs Content & Counting and Client Issues (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2921). Please use that thread for discussion of that topic.

Another issue came up about what links Google actually counts. That discussion has been split into this thread: What Links Does Google Count? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2922)

The only further posts allowed in this thread will be to the specific issue of other changes Google may or may not need to make to its link: command or the wording about it on the Google web site.

[reggy73]

Google is only show 1/6th of my backlinks - is there anyway that this can improve cuz most of the sites are already in Google but only very few show up as backlinks???

[Dave Hawley]

reggy73, Google, by design, only shows a sample of backlinks. This is not likely to change. It's best to use Yahoo and/or MSN even then, there is no guarantee of seeing all.

[reggy73]

So if they are just showing a small sample does this mean they are not counting the backlinks they dont display?

[Dave Hawley]

No, all links that are worth anything are still counted toward PR etc.

[dannysullivan]

This thread is now closed. The reason is that it is simply generating too many offtopic discussions. They're good discussions -- but they remain off the original topic of this thread. Aside from the above splits mentioned, here are new ones that have come off of this thread:


Let's Test Hijacking A Google Listing (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3030)
Can Inbound Links Hurt You? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3033)
Workarounds For Google Not Showing All Links (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3029)