Back Links - Why doesn't Google list them?

[a_snowden]

Hi,
I have a site...www.beauty-exports.com which has been loosing ground on Google for some time. I believe this is more of a link popularity problem rather than a page optimization thing, so I started looking at my back links situation.

When I do a search on Google for back links
( link:www.beauty-exports.com ) there are only 53 listed, yet when I search for "beauty-exports.com" there are over 300 pages listed many of which contain links to my site which don't show up in the back links search.

Can anyone shed any light on why this is so and what I can do about it?

Alan Snowden

[cbp]

Google has never listed them all and has only ever shown a sample. That does not mean that they do not take them into account.

Please see the sticky thread about this:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=25934

CBP

[OpenYourEyes]

Chances are the other pages with your link are being filtered out by Google. The biggest problem filter for crediting reciprocal links is the filenames links.htm & links.html

[cbp]

The biggest problem filter for crediting reciprocal links is the filenames links.htm & links.html

Rubbish. Not true.

CBP

[OpenYourEyes]

rubbish? I've done enough research to see the proof of this. Perhaps you're just one of those webmasters still using one of those filenames and you want to hide the truth. [/quote]

[cbp]

How much research have you done?

I can see links.htm pages showng up in the backlinks for WebProWorld.

For the site asked about inthe first message in this thread ( www.beauty-exports.com ) I counted 10 pages in the backlinks with file names links.htm before I gave up counting.

Me thinks you need to do your research again.

CBP

[flood6]

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

rubbish? I've done enough research to see the proof of this. Perhaps you're just one of those webmasters still using one of those filenames and you want to hide the truth.

Well, by all means, share your proof, here's mine:

Google search for "links"
With all those "buy and sell links" sites and link exchange services, why is there a "links.html" page ranked third? Surely they haven't optimized that page for "links". Especially since it seems to be some purely scientific interest page. I can guarantee that there are more than a few "buy and sell links" sites that have spent thousands to optimize their sites for "links"

Google search for "allinurl:links.html"
Obviously google is ranking the pages in that result based on something. You could do the same for "links.php", "links.asp", etc. If G is going to disregard these pages, why keep them in the index? It must cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to maintain the terabytes of information they must keep on "links" pages alone. If thery were going to ignore them, why index them?

If you are suggesting that google discounts the value of inbound links from "links" pages, well who knows? This has been discussed everywhere and noone can come up with any kind of test to prove or disprove this theory.

[OpenYourEyes]

I've done a lot of research actually. Google has changed the results of link:<url> searches to hide this filter. A while ago Google dropped about 1/3 of my links and I had about that many links on a links.htm or links.html page. At the time none of these pages would show up in a link:<url> search. I don't think Google dropped this filter, but merely hid it in the link:<url> search. There are so many online marketers that refuse to exchange links if their link is on links.htm or links.html....obviously there's a reason behind that.

flood6...as for your 'proof'....I never said these pages wouldn't get indexed. Links on them don't get credited. That reminds of Monty Python and the Holy grail where they come to the conclusion that since the girl weighs the same as a duck, she must be a witch.

Anyways, I'm not gonna come back to reply to your posts...I just remembered how ignorant this forum is.

[flood6]

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

Anyways, I'm not gonna come back to reply to your posts...I just remembered how ignorant this forum is.

Another satisfied customer? I think I can speak for cbp when I say it was not our intention to "run you off". But if you make a claim like

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

Chances are the other pages with your link are being filtered out by Google.

you need bring more than

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

Perhaps you're just one of those webmasters still using one of those filenames and you want to hide the truth.

I hope you'll reconsider you decision to leave.

[cbp]

Simple facts are that you claimed that Google filters and does not show backlinks from pages that are named links.htm - I only needed to look at 2 sites to proove you wrong. Now you claim they are hiding the filter. How do you know that? (You don't)

Google have only ever showed a sample of backlinks to a site. Just because Google drop a backlink from the sample (whatever the file extension) did not mean it was not counted by Google. (

You accused me of:

Perhaps you're just one of those webmasters still using one of those filenames and you want to hide the truth.

Who is hiding the truth and spreading myths?

CBP

[OpenYourEyes]

Anyways I was only here to help people, not argue with some ignorant moderators.

a_snowden I looked into your problem (unlike the debate team reject moderators). Google is blocking some of your return links. They may or might not have dropped the links.htm/html filter. The filter that is causing problems for you is filtering out websites that end in ?id=<some number>. For example:
www.deadseamineral.com/Links.asp?catID=4

Google ran into some problems indexing pages multiple times due to websites that implemented session or cart ids. Google will not index such a page, nor give credit for any links on those pages.

I hope that helps, because the moderators sure aren't here to help.

[a_snowden]

Thanx for the input guys, it's a lively discussion:-}

Actually many of the links which are showing in a
( link:www.beauty-exports.com ) search are on pages with link or links in the file name, or in the directory name, so I'm not sure you've come to the right conclusion 'open your eyes'.

Is there any way of finding out how many of my back links Google is actually taking into account, if a link:<url> search doesn't do the job?

[incrediblehelp]

Openyoureyes,

First off I think the moderators responded the way they did because you cant just simply post a statement like "Google is filter/hiding links from pages that are named links.html" without proof. To help users of this forum proof is needed for this kind of statement.

Now I see you have posted a response from a_snowden stating that Google also filters out the back link value from pages that use ?=ID! YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME. I have not heard of such a filter. Yes Google may have troubles with web sites with this type of URL string, but they don't filter it!

[flood6]

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

Anyways The filter that is causing problems for you is filtering out websites that end in ?id=<some number>. For example:
www.deadseamineral.com/Links.asp?catID=4

Google ran into some problems indexing pages multiple times due to websites that implemented session or cart ids. Google will not index such a page, nor give credit for any links on those pages.

This is not an attempt to continue a personal arguement, I add this post in attempt to continue the discussion. The following links have been indexed, are in google's cache, and can be found in the SERPs:

http://vos.ucsb.edu/browse.asp?id=3

http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=168

http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/v....aspx?id=38102

http://www.nyfa.org/nyfa_source.asp?id=47&fid=1

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/product.cfm?id=930

three of the four results in this query have "id=somenumber" in their URLs

OpenYourEyes, if I've offended you, I'm sorry. Forums can be impersonal and can lead to offending someone where no offense was intended.

In the greater interest of the forums, we'll all need to avoid making any personal attacks on each other.

[OpenYourEyes]

'I have not heard of such a filter'....Sorry I didn't realize you worked for Google or got personal memos about every filter they add. Go on Google and try to find a page that is INDEXED ending with id=<any number>. Google dropped over a thousand pages from one of my websites due to this filter.

Now flood doesn't know the difference between Google caching a page and Google indexing. If you noticed all those urls you sent me are not indexed....they were dropped.

I repeat: Google filters out pages that end in id=<any number>

Here I thought only the moderators wee ignorant, but it must be spreading like the plague to anyone who uses this forum. Enough of this for me. I can do my research on my own, I don't need to hear it from someone on a forum to know its true.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by OpenYourEyes

'I have not heard of such a filter'....Sorry I didn't realize you worked for Google or got personal memos about every filter they add. Go on Google and try to find a page that is INDEXED ending with id=<any number>. Google dropped over a thousand pages from one of my websites due to this filter.

Now flood doesn't know the difference between Google caching a page and Google indexing. If you noticed all those urls you sent me are not indexed....they were dropped.

You can see this URL provided by flood6 is indexed in Google:

http://www.nyfa.org/nyfa_source.asp?id=47&fid=1

here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

it is also ranked in Google here for the keyword "free national database of grants"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ts&btnG=Search

openyoureyes what the hell are you talking about?

[OpenYourEyes]

actually that one ends in fid=1....find one that ends in either ?id=<#> or &id=<#>

It's pretty funny you had to get to his 3rd example to find an exception. Let me guess...you couldn't find the first 2?? Too funny. What a tool.

Anyways, I don't care if you believe me. I helped snowden and that's all I wanted to do. Trying to convince this forum of something is like trying to teach preschool kids how to do calculus.

[incrediblehelp]

openyoureyes I randomly picked the third one. Here is the first URL example:

http://vos.ucsb.edu/browse.asp?id=3

Indexed in Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

Ranking for "Voice of the Shuttle"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

openyoureyes what is your excuse now??????

I am not trying to make anyone mad, but when you make a statement that proves to be false like the one above why shouldn't I point it out?

Stop focusing on clever quips to post and false statements and try helping someone for once. Moderators....any help here?

[OpenYourEyes]

No I cannot explain that one. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the filter was more complex than simply any page that has id=# at the end. I know for a fact that there is an issue with these types of pages.

I do know from my own personal experiences that Google did drop about 1000 pages from my website's index. It was those particular pages that used the id=#. I changed the id=1 to id=yes and the pages were re-indexed.

You claim to be here to help people...but have you given a_snowden any help?

I had my doubts about this forum. I wasn't sure if there was so much denial and false information because of people wanting to cover stuff up...professional SEO's or even search engine employees. I wasn't sure if it was that or just plain ignorance. I'm now starting to think its a combination of both. Anyways, I'm gone for good now. This forum is a waste of time.

[incrediblehelp]

cbp helped a_snowden right off the bat and I though that was it until I saw your comments and I had to chime in.

As for you personal problem...just because you personal saw you own pages dumped from the index and then re-indexed after a minor change like, id=1 to id=yes, DOES NOT give you the right to post "Google filters out pages that end in id=<any number>". This simply misleads any one who reads the posts.

Their could be hundreds of other reasons why you pages were dropped and then picked back up and it could have NOTHING to do with your changes. This is why I was so angry to see your posts and I had to respond.

If you want to dig farther into your problem please provide more insight to the forum members and we can try to help, but I feel it is obvious that your posts point to you not wanting to participate any longer in this forum.

[Blackicicle]

... I can't believe I read that whole thing... Well, that's 10 minutes I'll NEVER get back!

[cbp]

Anyways I was only here to help people, not argue with some ignorant moderators.

Confucious say "when in hole, stop diggging"

You were proved wrong. Where is the argument?

You are not helping anyone when you spread things that are not true. You are doing the opposite.

CBP

[hugoguzman]

cbp is one of the most helpful, knowledgeble, objective, and non-offensive I have ever come across. All of you moderators should not worry so much about "offending" this person or "driving them away".

This individual is either a child or has serious immaturity problems. He posted an unsubstantiated claim (that was correctly refuted) and now his feelings are hurt.

I'm all for retaining members of forums, but this poor soul is only helping to spread nonsense on your forums. His bad info may potentially lead other members of yours astray.

I applaud cbp and the others for putting him in his place. Too many "know it alls" running around in this and other forums spewing garbage on the boards.