Links Vs Content & Counting and Client Issues

[ihelpyou]

Moderator Note: This thread has been split from Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=23689#post23689). In addition, other related threads on this topic worth reviewing are:


Can google stop link buying? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=101)
How Fair is the Link Popularity Algorithm? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1779)
Link Building 101 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2616)



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.
Yes, no doubt those firms that "stress" link stuff to their clients will naturally have a problem when a search engine's "link command" does not show all the links. So I guess that then makes it a Google problem, right? :)

In my opinion, firms would be better off making sure the client is achieving good ROI... has a website that is liked by it's visitors.... has good unique content that others would be happy to link to.... is usability friendly and search engine friendly.... and if those things are not present; erm, hmm.... redesign the website. In that regard, no need to stress link stuff... therefore; no need for a client to be stressing over the link stuff either. Everyone is happy and Google does not have to worry about silly stuff when they leave out "one" word on a page. :) It seems to me that "priorities" are a little off-focus for some.

[bobmutch]

ihelpyou: The link: command not showing "all" the IBLs a Google problem? No, not at "all". I can accept the fact that Google has decided not to show "all" the inbound links. That is not the problem here.

The problem is not that they don't show "all" the links but the problem is that one little word we "all" have been quibbling over and their use of it - and yes I think you have guess it, it is their claim that the link: command shows "all" of the IBLs.

In my opinion, SEOs would be better off making sure the client has not only good ROI, a user friendly site, good navigation, unique and up to date content, w3c valadated code, presentation in an external CSS file, site tested in FF/NS/Moz/Opera/IE/Safari, that the site is SE friendly, to have good on-page optimization (title/URL/h1/content), a easy to use shopping cart, good color code, that the site is fast, that there is no down time, BUT ALSO quality inbound links!

Quality inbounds links by the way hold very high Ranking weight in Googles Ranking algo.

That the "priorites" of some are surely off-focus, I agree, but that those that are in the pratice of obtaining high quaility links through directories and other acceptable methods for their client are off-focus, I flatly deny.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, I know very well what this thread is talking about. :) I just disagree that this link stuff and this "one" word on a page stuff is something that should be stressed and fretted over in the large scheme of things. I also find it astonishing that a contract would include something like "how many directories" you get a client's website in. That's being pretty darn specific, and in my opinion unnecessary.... and again, if you actually are looking at the larger scheme of things. So you see, I believe it all starts with how a firm and the client are communicating from the get-go. It's up to the seo to drive the course of action and events,... not the client. I feel some firms are basically "not focused" on the right priorities. That's all. :)

I think again though, we have to agree to disagree with this.

[bobmutch]

ihelpyou: Yep I agree we must again disagree. I think it is my turn to get the last word in this time if you don't mind : ) Last time you locked the thread. LOL!

The "one" word deal as we both know was misleading and it looks like Google fixed it.

I think that I am dealing with smaller companies with smaller budgets that you are Doug, so don't be to supprised that smaller companies want to know what they are getting for the "Add Site To Directories" line where they are paying $995. Unnessary for larger clients to know the specifices as they just want results and tend to be less hands on. They are to busy investing the million they made last month to be runing the link command and counting the links.

While I agree it is up to the SEOs to drive the course of action, some smaller clients just seem to want more then the results, they seem to want you to explain what this was for and some want to check up on you. Just the nature of the beast.

I totally agree that some firms are "not focused" on the right priorities, we just won't agree in some places what the right priorites are. That I can live with. Nice chatting!

[Marcia]

Doug, I do agree with Bob. This isn't about arguing with people about their business models or how they communicate with their clients, that is another topic altogether. It's got nothing to do with the Google Search forum, it's an SEO or webmaster business issue. Maybe there should be a thread started to argue and bicker about that. IMHO, it's not a bad topic at all, I personally enjoy bickering. Just not in this forum. ;)

I think it's very nice and thoughtful that it was changed so quickly, and no it did not express what the link: command currently is. It was misleading and yes, people do have to answer for the confusion clients have when what's in Google's documentation is inaccurate and they believe it verbatim. It's hard enough explaining most things to anyone, without having unnecessary confusion.

[I, Brian]

Actually, I'd have to suggest that the issue is now a little more confused on the Google link: command with Google.

Before June, if someone asked about backlinks in Google, you could carefully try and point out that Google rates pages on a score of 0-10, based on how well linked they are to the web. You could then state that Google's link: command would only show those pages rated with a score of 4 or more. Fine.

Now - well, what do you tell such people? That Google rates pages on a score of 0-10, and that the link: command will show double M20% of the actual links present??

Google has always been a links-driven search engine - PageRank was a pretty blatant statement of that. But since the Florida Update especially, whether anyone here likes it or not, new sites need an even more improved linkage to rank well for their relevant terms on Google.

Good content isn't enough - the web is so much more competitve, and it's opportunities for gaining natural linkage so much reduced than a few years ago - content from new sites has to be even more exceptional to be noticed.

Therefore when people try and pay for links to help get their sites noticed, one method of checking the success of the links building campaign is to find out how many of the links are actually indexed by search engines. The link:URL command is the natural way to do this, and because Google is the most impotant search engine, this is where consumers most expect to get useful information on this issue.

When any consumer is just 2 clicks away claims to offer a million auto-submitted links, and cold call telesales continue to claim a "special relationship" with Google, then the vagaries of the link: command can cause confusion amongst the people who need protecting most with such information - the unwary consumer.

Just 2c.

[Marcia]

Therefore when people try and pay for links to help get their sites noticed, one method of checking the success of the links building campaign is to find out how many of the links are actually indexed by search engines. The link:URL command is the natural way to do this, and because Google is the most impotant search engine, this is where consumers most expect to get useful information on this issue.
I'm speechless, and that doesn't happen very often.

[ihelpyou]

Marcia; so discussing the "importance" of links does not pertain to a thread that is discussing those links? hmm. I wonder why that might be?

[Dave Hawley]

Looks who's "Quibbling" now :rolleyes:

I'm starting to think that Google actually wants any statements regarding the Link: command to be ambiguous. They also seem to ensure any 'sample' is inclusive of pages that pass no PR.

Good content isn't enough I actually think it is. It is the defintion of "Good content" that makes the difference though. "Good content" will naturally attract external links without any need to link back.

Therefore when people try and pay for links to help get their sites noticed, one method of checking the success of the links building campaign is to find out how many of the links are actually indexed by search engines. The link:URL command is the natural way to do this, and because Google is the most impotant search engine, this is where consumers most expect to get useful information on this issue.
Paying for links to gain PR is, IMO, a big waste of money. The only people that want the Link Command to show all links are Webmasters and SEO's. I highly doubt (and hope) Google will never cater to these.

[Marcia]

Marcia; so discussing the "importance" of links does not pertain to a thread that is discussing those links? hmm. I wonder why that might be?
No Doug, telling people what their jobs should be with their clients and how to deal with their clients. Like this:

I also find it astonishing that a contract would include something like "how many directories" you get a client's website in.
If that is what the client wants, then that is what they will pay people who offer that service.

That's being pretty darn specific, and in my opinion unnecessary....
I didn't see anyone ask for opinions on how they should run their business, or what services they should offer.

Not too specific at all if that is what the clients PAID for. Links may not be an issue for some people, but they are to some clients, who happen to know that they are important - and PAY to have someone get them the links. So they want the value of the links VERIFIED - hence the importance of the link: command, so they can verify the importance of the links.

I personally don't care too much because I LOATHE the whole scene with chasing after links links. In fact, I call it whoring after links and I think it's corrupted the whole industry and distorted the whole concept of what SEO is. But I respect other people's right to enjoy it.

Not sure if this thread needs to continue after this.
It probably shouldn't if it's going to be yet another one that gets contentiously hijacked.

The only people that want the Link Command to show all links are Webmasters and SEO's.
And the clients who pay someone to get them links, so they can verify that they are decent links as they were probably promised.

Great content may attract links on its own - if anyone can find the site in the first place. Plenty of great sites with fabulous content are languishing down at the bottom of the heap because nobody knows about them and probably never will.

[powerofeyes]

I completely agree with Marcia on this,

Doug similiar to you not many of us worry what is showing in the backlink command, but we do have clients who always question us about these things,

There were clients asking for backlinks from pages with Pagerank of 4 and above before the month of june , They asked for it because google liked showing only those links, It was really frustrating to real quality SEOs because they know all links are counted by google,

But still what shows in the backlink command is what matters for them, Explain them 1000 times still they are not ready to believe the other way,

Similiarly there are still site owners who believe what is showing in the backlink command, If google is not reporting the links they think those links are not there, All clients are not the same,

And the clients who pay someone to get them links
Exactly,

People who are mainly caught up in this problem are the link mongers, They sell links and if the links are not reported in the backlinks then there is no proof those links are valued by google according to the backlink command, It takes a hefty work to explain why it is not showing etc,

It is a very big advantage for google, They can fight link selling by this tactic and it should be one small motive behind google breaking the command,

[mcanerin]

Slightly off topic (if we still have a topic at this point....) but hopefully ON the topic of constructive feedback...

In a perfect world, I would like to see a link: command provide a complete listing of all known links.

But I can certainly accept that this may have issues. As a fallback, less perfect, but still helpful idea, I'd like to see a list of representative links BUT with the number at the top (ie "Results 1 - 10 of about 64") actually being accurate, at the very least for the purposes of clients checking things.

Heck, even showing a number similar to what you would get if you typed in "www.website.com" as a search would be less confusing than what it is right now.

This is intended as constructive only, and while I'm typing this I would like to take this opportunity to thank Google for fixing the original issue of the "all" phrase.

Ian

[I, Brian]

I'm starting to think that Google actually wants any statements regarding the Link: command to be ambiguous. They also seem to ensure any 'sample' is inclusive of pages that pass no PR. I would quite agree - I figured Google's changes to the link: command are part of a general strategy to tackle the monster of PageRank as a sales commodity. The change in the link: command removes the ability to precision track pages of most value in PR terms.

I actually think it is. It is the defintion of "Good content" that makes the difference though. "Good content" will naturally attract external links without any need to link back. The definition of "Good Content" is a bar that gets ever higher, though. Ten years ago on the internet, good information on many topics would be have been handled by a couple of dozen of sites at best.

Nowadays, you're probably looking at thousands - even hundreds of thousands - or sites, all vying to provide key information in their areas.

Content has to be more exceptional to gain attention, IMO.

Paying for links to gain PR is, IMO, a big waste of money. The only people that want the Link Command to show all links are Webmasters and SEO's. I highly doubt (and hope) Google will never cater to these. I can't say I'd advocate paying for PageRank, because it has been seen as a diminishing concern for over a year now. I'm still all for sitewide advertising, though. Links are still a good advertising medium, but I would think most SEO's figured that the number of higher PR pages does not equate to value of links.

The only people that want the Link Command to show all links are Webmasters and SEO's. I highly doubt (and hope) Google will never cater to these. The provision of good data in the link command will simply benefit different people in different ways. The more detailed any data set is then the more useful and different ways it can be analysed.

Most of the time webmasters seem to be using the link: command to simply see if search engines have picked up particular links. DaveN's point about smaller sites is very valid. I don't see most webmasters caring to do a very detailed analysis with larger data sets, though.

[Dave Hawley]

The definition of "Good Content" is a bar that gets ever higher, though. Ten years ago on the internet, good information on many topics would be have been handled by a couple of dozen of sites at best.
Quite true. It's really Good Unique Content that will attract the links.

[ihelpyou]

From what I can see this attempt by google showing incorrect data in backlink command is to confuse SEOs,
So? Why should Google cater to SEO's anyway? Since when did SEO's become part of the Google business plan? Many SEO's would love to see "ALL" backlinks shown that Google knows about. Google would be foolish to show SEO's "everything" about it's algo and how it determines things. That's nutso stuff. :)

Besides, I go back to my original thought; It's how you communicate with your clients that make all the difference in the world. If you stress "links", your clients will also stress links and whatever the Google backlinks command says today or the next day. It's just like the PageRank mania as well. Your clients will only deem PR as "ALL" important if the SEO says it's all important. Same with links.

And yes Marcia; this post "does" pertain to this "links" thread in every way. Just because I don't agree with the links mania, does not mean I should refrain from posting my opinion in a thread that is discussing the links command. My point is why care about the exact number of links that are shown in the Google links command? If priorities are focused differently, clients would not care about the silly link command either. Besides, anyone's clients can find info all over the internet about Google saying from almost day "one" that the links command does Not show all links. It never has that I know of.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. My opinion certainly pertains to this thread and is certainly "on topic" in every way. :)

[chrisharris]

So? Why should Google cater to SEO's anyway? Since when did SEO's become part of the Google business plan? Many SEO's would love to see "ALL" backlinks shown that Google knows about. Google would be foolish to show SEO's "everything" about it's algo and how it determines things. That's nutso stuff.

Google never have to cater anyone, that is what I said too,

SEOs are not always search engine's friends, they are never in google's agenda, But google is purposely trying to confuse SEOs that is what I meant, Atleast before google was showing something mean in the link: command, now it is just showing some junk pages,

If they dont like to show mean number of links in that command they should remove it from their features page,

ofcourse SEOs would love to see all their achieved backlinks, But not only SEOs even website owners, webmasters, link sellers , link auction companies everyone would love to see that link: command working perfectly, It is all business for everyone,

So when did the backlink command reveal google's Algorithm, So if the link: command works properly then google's ranking algorithm revealed, Wow i would love to see that,

Besides, I go back to my original thought; It's how you communicate with your clients that make all the difference in the world. If you stress "links", your clients will also stress links and whatever the Google backlinks command says today or the next day. It's just like the PageRank mania as well. Your clients will only deem PR as "ALL" important if the SEO says it's all important. Same with links.

Everybody stresses links links to their clients because that is what works best these days, Most of the top Search engines depend on links to give the maximum credit to a site, If search engines are built around onpage factors I would be happy to tell me client to stop with onpage optimization, But for competitive areas onpage optimization stops at a threshold level,

[roseid]

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.
I really would appreciate that!!!!!!!!!!

Rose Holland

[I, Brian]

Yep - let's get back to the link: command, for Bob.

[seobook]

go link: :D