Are Links Hurting Search Relevance? - Page 2

cbp · #51 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

In the meantime, next time when you speak to a G employee tell them to clean up their act and PUBLISH a calarifying paragraph on their toolbar help page explaining why a website really has backward links supporting its PR of 3, yet they choose not to display them on their own toolbar. This way we won't need moderators to spead "Google's Garbage." Give me a break!

As you can see from the responses above, you are wrong and no one is agreeing with you.

Google employees have made that statement at many SE conferences and GoogleGuy as said that over at WMW. Its common knowledge amoung SEO's ....

Please get your facts right and stop misleading readers.

CBP

mgj545 · #52 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Please get your facts right and stop misleading readers.

CBP

Well, to tell you the truth this bothers me. Much more so than the post telling me to "Shut UP."

It simply is not misleading to quote from Google's ToolBar help page. Nor is it misleading to quote from the Google link tool:

http://www.google.com/help/features.html

Who Links To You?

Some words, when followed by a colon, have special meanings to Google. One such word for Google is the link: operator. 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. You cannot combine a link: search with a regular keyword search.

Now you say that:

Quote:

Google has never ever shown all the backlinks to a site - it has only ever shown a sample of links

Your quote contradicts Google's own published Link Tool text.

My point was and is that G tries to confuse us by telling us one thing and saying another and that's not misleading.

By the way, you can keep your job.

I have tried to raise the consciousness of this forum but it's sad to say that everyone is brain dead. Now I will ungraciously exit and leave you all to confuse your philosophical selves even more.

Best Regards

cbp · #53 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

I have tried to raise the consciousness of this forum but it's sad to say that everyone is brain dead.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree - you can continue on in your belief that the link: shows all the links to a site that Google uses (despite what they say on their site - they have acknowledged that it needs updating) and the rest of world will continue on knowing that it does not.

Quote:

Now I will ungraciously exit and leave you all to confuse your philosophical selves even more.

Thats probably a good idea, as it will stop you misleading readers.

As a word of advice, to save you from further embarrasment, if you go to any other SE forum out there and try to claim what you have here, you will get greeted with exactly the same response.

CBP

Maximilian · #54 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgj545

I have tried to raise the consciousness of this forum but it's sad to say that everyone is brain dead. Now I will ungraciously exit and leave you all to confuse your philosophical selves even more.

Best Regards

Greetings mgj545!

I see that you are a new here - I want to warmly welcome you to WPW Discussion Forums & wish you to know that your opinions counts - this Google link debate thread not withstanding.

If you need assistance with posting or have questions about the forum please consult one of the helpful WPW Forum Moderators via the private messaging service provided here. Below is a link to the WPW Forum rules.

WPW Forum Rules:
http://www.webproworld.com/rules.html

Cheers!
Max

Maximilian · #55 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbp

As a word of advice, to save you from further embarrasment, if you go to any other SE forum out there and try to claim what you have here, you will get greeted with exactly the same response.

CBP

Hey believe me, CBP, knows what he's talking about - I've tried to post on other SE forums, but he's lurking there too. Watch out, dude!

Cheers!
Max

Chris · #56 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximum-Beauty.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbp

"You are a moderator?" - yes I am and its my mission to stop readers been misled by your factual errors.

CBP

Greetings CBP!

This is where you are mistaken in your job description as a WPW Forum Moderator. This community & forum can take care of debates with other members who post factual errors - we do not need you to police such posts.

Your job as moderator is to protect the WPW Discussion Forums from spam or posts that breach the WPW Guideline Rules and to assist new members get oriented with posting in the correct forums & such.

Your job is not to confront every new member whose opinions differ from the facts you've garnered. Your job is not a crusading mission to stop WPW forum readers from being misled by other members factual errors - as if, we cannot discuss such issues without your input & guidance.

As a WPW Forum Moderator your actions should be a shining example for all WPW Forum Members by following the very forum rules you enforce. You need to re-read the rules to refresh yourself on these guidelines. You've become over-critical & rude to new members ever since I made my first post at WPW.

On a personal note - I do politely challenge you to display your own website URLs when you are advising others concerning SE placement strategies & SEO techniques - just to insure your own credibility within the eyes of all WPW members. (no website shown - no advice given)

No Cheers!
Max

Max,

this type of post needs to be done by PM. it takes away from the topic being discussed at hand.

someone was giving erroneous information, and cbp and others attempted to correct his errors but the original poster still continued to fight. by doing so, the conversation was degraded and cbp was trying to get it back on track.

we do not need our mods taken to task in the middle of discussion where someone has gotten out of hand. and furthermore, it’s not your responsibility to do so, especially in an open forum...

thanks,
crich

cryptblade · #57 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgj545

Quote:

My point was and is that G tries to confuse us by telling us one thing and saying another and that's not misleading.

Finally, a point! But still no conclusion. Ergo we infer that you are saying to not trust Google? Then ultimately are you saying that links aren't important?

That links may or may not be a huge factor in Google's algo, you may have a point. But just as good SEO practice is to still include meta tags, it's good to include a linking strategy - even if the dependency on links may or may not be heavily weighted by Google's algo. But we can't trust what Google says about its' algo and the weight it leaves on IBL - is that what you are saying?

Maximilian · #58 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRich

Max,

this type of post needs to be done by PM. it takes away from the topic being discussed at hand.

Greetings CRich,

I apologize to all for posting my moderator criticism in open forum - I agree with CRich & will use PM for such discussion in the future.

Sincerely,
Max

urknighterrent · #59 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 05:03 PM

I am no big fan of google. I believe that google misrepresents Link: in its help area. I don't know this for a fact. I've never read it. I learned about it, and it's capabilities, in a forum and use it based on what smarter people than me have told me in this medium.

I think it's interesting that I seem to have a better understanding of it than the guy that read the book. Again, I completely believe what MGJ whatever says about google misleading people.

So what?

Rant and rave and dis the people that know better and SHARE (or at least try) that knowledge with me? Or shut my mouth and learn from the people that know more than google is willing to tell me.

Hmmmn. I think I'll shut up now. Maybe this thread will get back on topic and make for some good, educational reading.

phatboy · #60 (**permalink**) 11-12-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRich

Although, to say all are wary of link building and how search engines are beginning to view them would be incorrect. A poster from the SEW discussion offers this, “I think the future holds that RELEVANT links will rule and irrelevant links will fall by the wayside, knocking a lot of the current wholesale linking into the dustbin.”

No matter what google says their SE Results has gone down the tubes. Maybe they are paying too much attention to links and not enough attention to sites actual content. To even consider a sites links seem lame to me when people are really interested what the site offers not their links.

The real kicker is searching for something on google and getting a link to the same search on some off the wall directory or search engine, (the very people you are trying to avoid by using google) even worse a link to one of Googles own pages. The first time I saw their results after the dreaded Nov 15 03 I thought to myself "Oh my God they hired the idiot from MSN". Their results have not improved much since then and likely will not untill they ditch their idiotic linking scheme.

Chris · #61 (**permalink**) 11-19-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbp

Quote:

In the meantime, next time when you speak to a G employee tell them to clean up their act and PUBLISH a calarifying paragraph on their toolbar help page explaining why a website really has backward links supporting its PR of 3, yet they choose not to display them on their own toolbar. This way we won't need moderators to spead "Google's Garbage." Give me a break!

As you can see from the responses above, you are wrong and no one is agreeing with you.

Google employees have made that statement at many SE conferences and GoogleGuy as said that over at WMW. Its common knowledge amoung SEO's ....

Please get your facts right and stop misleading readers.

CBP

Here's a GoogleGuy quote that should put this all to rest:

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?

minstrel · #62 (**permalink**) 11-19-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRich

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

LMAO!

Revised Google Motto:

1. Don't be evil.

2. We aim for clarity but there's nothing we can do about "jes plain stupid".

Chris · #63 (**permalink**) 11-19-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRich

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

LMAO!

Revised Google Motto:

1. Don't be evil.

2. We aim for clarity but there's nothing we can do about "jes plain stupid".

OR:

it didn't say all, so don't expect to see all. it's your fault for misunderstanding. :)