According to conventional SEO wisdom, link building is the key to a successful search engine ranking. The rationale is simple; with more links pointing to your site, your site has a better chance of getting noticed by search engines as they crawl the web populating their index. Because search engines are thought to value links, site owners have been scrambling to acquire links pointing to their web presence. However, has this mad dash to acquire links also damaged the importance of links as an indicator of relevance? Or has it damaged the quality of Internet content has whole? Some think both scenarios have occurred.

Search engines seem to value inbound links related to the content of a site. For instance, if you run an e-business site that sells blue widgets and you have links pointing to you from sites that offer online gambling services, search engines may not consider the links as valuable. However, there is also a more pragmatic approach. Jill Whalen offers these thoughts, “a link, is a link, is a link (as Debra, our link building mod always says). It doesn't have to be related, although it's better if it is.”

Because search engines have responded favorably to sites with high number of inbound links, link building has become what a SearchEngineWatch poster refers to as “the new sport”. The quest for links has given birth to a number of spam techniques designed into tricking search engines into giving higher rankings. Doorway pages, link farms, keyword-rich generated link pages, and duplicate content under different domains have all risen from the desire to capitalize on the value search engines place on links.

IHelpYou (Doug Heil) feels that link building may have damaged Internet content as a whole. This much is indicated by his statement, which says, “This link exchange stuff has actually ruined the internet. This is why you are now seeing a "De-emphasis" on links coming in from Google, and from Yahoo, and you will see that the new MSN will not be putting much stock on linking as well. The link stuff has been ruined by SEO's…”

This discussion serves as a good indicator of where differing sides stand on the subject of link building. Some believe it’s completely necessary to make a dent in SERP ranking, while others like Doug feel that it damages the quality of content available on the Internet. Doug supports his beliefs in a thread on IHY where he says, “I simply don't buy into this link stuff much at all. I have many sites ranked with very few links. Those links are "high" quality however. SEO is much more than simple links.” Unscrupulous link building may also contribute to the decreasing quality of search results.

Some feel that the quest for link exchanges may have damaged the relevancy of content on the Internet. These fears are shared by Mike Grehan, who says, “Just as search engines looked for a way to remove the basic ability to manipulate rankings as they did by changing the importance and parameters of "on page" optimization, the same applies with linkage.” Mike feels that there are two issues concerning the effects of link building:

“1) The filthy linking rich are being aided and abetted by the search marketing community, so we are actually creating the artificially inflated linking environment of the commercial web to its detriment.

2) Just as search engines looked for a way to remove the basic ability to manipulate rankings as they did by changing the importance and parameters of "on page" optimization, the same applies with linkage.”

Because of the growing concern that link exchanging may be damaging search results, some feel that it’s only a matter of time before search engines reduce the value they place on IBLs (inbound links). The fallout from link exchange may also be what is causing search engines to pursue community-valued relevance.

Andy Beal discusses this concept in an article from last month’s Web 2.0 conference. While speaking to a board of search engine executives, Andy suggests; “the past 3-4 years had seen inbound links as the main driver of relevancy. I pointed out that this system had been proven unreliable over the past few months. What did they think would be the next variable measured to determine relevancy… Jeff Weiner (of Yahoo) said that with personalization, they could also start using data they collect to determine relevancy. Weiner did say ‘linking relevancy is flawed as the sites that sit at the top of the search results, tend to get linked-to the most and end up staying at the top’.”

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.”

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

There will always be good reasons to link with another site, reciprocal or otherwise. I think most will agree that linking for linkings sake has gotten out of hand. It's not so much the links themselves that are hurting results, it's the value that SE's place on them that can.

I find it interesting that many posters here with a large base of natural IBL's are...
1. In favor of "penalizing" reciprocal links.
2. Like the idea of natural IBL's given more weight.

Natural I suppose, but this presents two large problems. Based upon my original premise, those sites linking for the right reasons are wrongly "penalized". The second is that since you cannot control who links to you it is entirely to dangerous to place too much weight on natural IBL's. It would be too easy to create a "bad neighborhood" and link it up to one's competitors.

Concerning relevancy, the level of relevance could also be taken into account. The idea that a link is a link is a link, has contributed greatly to the linking frenzy. Determining what is relevant is so subjective how could you, I, or any SE for that matter, determine what is relevant to my visitors?

Linking and the weight it's given needs to be diminished but not eliminated completely. Linking has, does, and will continue to serve a very useful purpose, when done properly for the right reasons.

Ask yourself how many times has a link been helpful or useful to yourself or your visitors. Reduce the importance linking plays into the determination of PR and SERP's but don't discourage it altogether.

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

totally agree with these statements, linking has gone off into crazy land, i have said it before, who is going to look at your 166th page of links to find that really good site in 145th position..duhhhhh i dont think so. links have a purpose but they need to be part of the picture as a whole, instead of being abused by all at the moment. RSS and blogging are following as the "new sport" what what goes on next..where will it all end.



www.scaffoldtowers.co.uk
www.loftsandladders.com

How do you think the SE's do it for their search results? In future (or now) link relevance will have to take into account what keywords the inbound linking website is ranking on and it would effect what keywords your website would rank on. This could be one form of relevance. The obvious is one is text surrounding the link. No matter what way the SE's decide to do it in the future something must must be changed to better organize what is a quality IBL and what is not.

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog

As long as webmasters continue linking to low-quality sites, rampant linking WILL contribute to the decline in quality results. If, on the other hand, we all take care to only link to the best-quality websites - the one's who DESERVE a link - we can participate in ensuring the relevance of search engine results. Remember, the web is democratic in nature. Take care in whom you "vote" for.

One of the things I have found anoying is the webmasters who link to one of my sites just because it has a high search listing.The sites are totally irrelevant.I have been very careful to only have relevant links to my sites, and personally feel that the search engines should take that into
consideration.If the linking for linkings sake keeps going,it will ruin it for those of us who take pride in what we build.

Isn't this precisely the problem? How they're determining relevance? This surely isn't a problem of linking only. I certainly don't want then trying to determine link relevancy until they can figure out how to better determine search relevancy.

I believe searchers have become much more savvy in general. They know precisely what they're searching for and changing the order of words in their search phrases and possibly even intentionally mispelling in order to adapt to the results they are receiving.
Search results have become far too generic and need to be more specific.

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

I have had a ridiculous share of wholesale link mongers wanting to exchange links with my site. Not only will I point them to this page from now on, I would also like for them to know who they are by indicating the most ubiquitously annoying offers of irrelevant reciprocal links in order of prevelance:

• "Trade Links with my robot link farm"

There seems to be an epidemic of "webmasters" who think that page after page of robot farmed links constitutes a website. Even worse - these links are not even quality controlled; most of the descriptions are incomplete, ripped from the html in some way. Some descriptions even say that the page no longer exists. Some are from off beat themes like porno, video games, insurance, etcetera. These "webmasters" could, at least, program their robots to stay within the realm of "health" if they are going to ask to exchange links with my site.

Even if your link farm is quality controlled and pristine, I'm still not trading links with your link farm. Replace all that garbage with useful articles and helpful information THEN come back to me and I will see about reciprocal linking with you.

• "Join my Trilateral Commission"

I never bothered to check the claims of these webmasters who ask me to link to their site #1 as their site #2 links to me. These webmasters claim that this kind of linking works even better for relevancy on the SEs. The problem I have with this type of linking is that I look at their site #1 and there are no reciprocal link pages to be found; it's all useful information - great! Then I look at their site #2 and it looks like one of those wholesale link farms. So, I link to your great site #1 on a health subject matter as your garbage site #2 links to mine: What's in it for me? I'm sure this type of linking works better for someone other than me...

• "Link to my site so I can put your listing at the top of its category in this great directory"

I believe there are webmasters who might be associated with "directories" which are no much more than link farms. Now, these directories are very nice looking with quality controlled listings in their relevant categories, BUT how does losing my link in a sea of other links help me in the same way that I have helped you by DIRECTLY linking to your site?

Above are the top three types of offers that I have found particulary abusive. Now, that you see who you are please clean up your act, play nice, and let's do that relevant link exchange where ever need be. Thanks.

I believe that Google in particular is becoming a
joke, and I'm inclined to blame the overemphasis on links. This is an exerpt from a letter I send my clients on SEO...

Most of google's irrelevant results come from a faulty stemming technology. Especially in english, when you type in a few words, it can have several different meanings. Google tries hard to figure out what you mean, but in some cases it fails. I find the ones that are stemmed, are the least relevant links of all. Especially when you do brand names or product names.

Beyond that, linking isn't the problem at all. It is the best way to measure a site. On page is too easy to manipulate. Even though its easy to link to a lot of crappy sites and get a lot of crappy links back, your site is still crappy - so you won't rank well. IF you have a good site, then you can get links from good sites and will rank better. Its survival of the fittest (or the richest sometimes, I guess). But there is no better way to resolve the best site for a given search term.

Personally, I find that the least relevant sites are those that appear just above mine in the listings. Coincidence? Probably not ;) - and I think that is where most whining comes from. I can't beat him, so he must be spamming the internet with links.

__________________
Add Your Url Here - Free!
Garden Gnomes | Blublockers

I agree. Linking has to stay in the equation and for now be a large part of it. I think the SE's do need to do a better job at digging and learning who and why these IBL's are coming into the website being rank. A better dissection of these IBL websites on the part of the SE's would ensure websites ranked better with fewer relevant IBL's instead of because of many IBL's with high PR but no such relevance.

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog

Let me first say that this is a fantastic topic and one that should be read by more people. The issue is very threatening to the overall health of the web, and we would do well to be aware of it.

Increased machine intelligence when reading web pages could be the answer. It's important that search engine spiders learn how to visually 'see' pages instead of just reading the HTML code. Visual cues and advanced logic could push the comprehension of which sites/pages are spam and which are valuable & relevant.

The other piece would be relevant links. I would love to see Google/Yahoo!/etc drop the idea of PageRank and site importance and start focusing on 'industry importance' - how relevant a site/page is for its industry. Google's 'site-flavoring' has already started this trend, but it needs to grow...

__________________
Helpful SEO Resources...
Daily SEO News & Tips | Guide to Advanced Search Optimization Tactics

I am about to Rock this forum.

First let me suggest a title for a book, "Google Garbage." I use this term because most of their search results are somewhat to greatly irrelevant to your search query.

The so called Google Algorithm is akin to the curtain the WIZARD OF OZz hid behind to mask the reality of his impotence. So it is with Google. I have read posts to this and other forums with great amusement because most SEO's try and apply their own rational thoughts about how Google really works. Google deliberatley confuses the www in order to boost the mystery and importance of the Google Algorithm. It's a crock. I have seen Google return results on page one for websites with a PR of 2 and no links. And I have seen several top ranked websites in my industry commit "ranking fraud" by blatantly breaking Google's and MSN's webmaster guidelines. Google is a freakin machine search engine as opposed to a human edited search engine and that's why they fail to detect so many abuses of their own guidelines.

So let's continue to talk on this and other forums while the top ranked websites get away with "ranking fraud" and Google encourages mass confusion. i'm checking into an institution because I cant handle it any more.

But you guys and gals keep on talking because it only serves to hype the Google Algorithm and they absolutely love it!

It is impossible to get PR2 without links.

CBP

It is impossible to get PR2 without links.

CBP[/quote]

This is why Google wins and you are confused. You are a moderator? Here's proof


http://www.funnypostcard.com/christmas/3pugs.html

[quote="mgj545"]I am about to Rock this forum.
quote]

i think this post is more ontrack than many may think.
Google has made the internet ugly, if you dont believe that to be even somewhat true then you fool yourself. Go search for "pool installer" and get bombed re recycler-sites parsing and reposting results back at google. In an effort to make spider friendly relevent pages #1 in theri results they have removed all which is human from the site. Top sites in searches of 50-100K results (somewhat small) have 2000+ incoming links? do any of these really matter to a user looking for the web to be a give and take of entertainment and information?

The reprocessed Text-spammed garbage on first pages everywhere is an "ugly" internet.

Site A - 75% interactive flash and great high-res "slow-loading" images.

Site-B A php parse of google results with tags stripped out reprinted on a blank white page with a GIANT "ads by GOOOOGLE: at the top.

Which is more optimized, and which would a human rather find. The fact that this prompts two different answers is a fundamental flaw.

And if you are breathing through your nose and thinking that a site could "BE BOTH AT ONCE!" thats like saying a midget could be in the NBA.....sure he could, but not likely.

But as stated above this, the fact that everyone keeps chasing a tail thats not there keeps google "buzzing", and since they make increased profit off of failed SEO attempts and eventual buying of ADwords, I suppose thats like "buying glasses" from the optomatrist....they want you to be blind.

If the ultimate goal is the most relevent results, then the next question should be "relevent to who?", I dont know the last time that an "algorithm" wanted to enjoy the internet, or find a local plumber.

A level of human edeting is all that will save the face of the internet.

__________________
Charlotte newspaper

Who is confused? Thats no proof ... not even close. I can find lots of links to that site -- is listed in DMOZ and Google Directory etc.

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

CBP

This is why Google wins and you are confused. You are a moderator? Here's proof


http:-//www.funnypostcard.com/christmas/3pugs.html [/quote]

I'm not sure what "proof" you're pointing to. The link you listed is not "orphaned". There are links pointing to it. Listing the link here is also going to provide another link.

Dave

Edit: Added dash to URL

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

Ummmm. Am I stupid? I see two links to that page. And those are just the ones Google fancies as "relevant" (Pug pictures, christmas cards, how could i miss that connection? :-\) There's likely more than that.

There are internal links to the page. The site has lots of links (esp DMOZ and Google Directory) .... hence the PR2

CBP

That's what I figured. I got like 1300 links to the site. How is this proof that you can get PR2 without links?

Not that I care enough to miss my bus. I'll just spend the rest of the night thinkin maybe I'm not the stupid one. See y'all Tmmrw.

Its not. mgj545 originally claimed that:
To which I replied that this is impossible.

mgj545 then offered up this page as proof of 2 with no links .... every one is agreeing that there are links to the site --> PR2 --> mgj545 proof is wrong.

CBP

You're so easy.

PR 3, no links. Resign immediately mr moderator!

http://www.orientsprideakitas.net/

This is easy. How are you determining that there are no links to the site. I can find about 40

For eg:
http://suena-me.com/Extended.htm
http://www.geocities.com/k9webcreati...ientspage.html
http://www.americanakita-world.de/Links.htm

You really have to stop misleading readers by getting your facts wrong ...again.

CBP

I make a point of convincing new clients that when i build their site that they have a 'Link Page' that has links to the competition.

My arguement being that if a visitor is on their site why would they go to a links page?

My point, also, being that, in my experience, as far as Google's concerned, 'Links Out' are nearly as important as 'Links Incoming'. "That's crap"! I hear you say....

Many of my sites have Top Ten rankings, in Google and elsewhere, purely because of my outward bound links.

Here's a REAL example:

In Google search type in "domestic staff agencies" or "domestic staff agency" or "butler schools".

One of my sites (www.butlerbureau.com) is normally in the top 5 (if not #1). Plus a couple of other sites I have built for Domestic Staff agencies, both in the US and the UK generally turn up in the first page.

Such is my 'reputation'(that's with a big ironic grin by the way) that I'm actually getting asked by similar sites for SEO work - which I absolutely admit I'm not qualified to to do at this time, other than knowing the basics.

While I realise that a few (very few) of the sites that I link to do me a reciprocal favour I'm not too worried about it.

Hence my advice to new clients - "Link to your competitors" and don't worry too much about reciprocation (nice if it happens but not necessary).

__________________
Some say the glass is half empty, others say it's half full. I say, "Are you going to drink that or what?"

www.websitemarket.co.uk

As a business we are constantly approached by SEO's etc offering the best deals.

Based on what I have heard G no longer offers an independant search. If you pay your money you will get a higher or top listing for the search of your category.

I have known this for about six months and have seen the effect happen over a continual number of different searches.

Some relevant sites do get to the top but generally for example Kelkoo offer you deals? I have never used them so how can they offer my site and products as a deal?

We are also listed in a fee paying directory, whether it was sales pitch or not I do not know but the salesperson informed me that they had a financial agreement with google for high ranking spots for the right keywords. Google(nice yacht and shares dealmay tell a story)is not making Billions from PPC they are making it from the other directories buying the slots. If you can afford 100,000 £$ etc top ranking is easy.

IMO I am going to walk with my keyboard and mouse!

Se la Vie!

__________________
Keimos - Always learning something new each day
www.keimos.co.uk , www.keimos.net , www.selfpacedit.co.uk

This is easy. How are you determining that there are no links to the site. I can find about 40

For eg:
http://suena-me.com/Extended.htm
http://www.geocities.com/k9webcreati...ientspage.html
http://www.americanakita-world.de/Links.htm

You really have to stop misleading readers by getting your facts wrong ...again.

CBP[/quote]

Type the url in the G toolbar and search for backlinks. None show up!

Type the url: http://www.orientsprideakitas.net/ in the G Toolbar and check for backlinks. You won't find any.

I understand why people get pissed off. Search Engine optimisation - Pay per click - Sponsored ads and the like - what's it all about?

Your average punter (as above) rightfully gets super frustrated and feels his only option is to pay a multitude of SE's to get his site's link visible for his 'key phrase'.

I don't blame the guy for being annoyed but I lay the blame on his web designer. Any web designer worth his salt can/should get a SE friendly/optimised site sorted as a matter of course and register it with Directories and then wait for the Spiders to crawl his optimised pages. Right?

Optimisation for SE's shuld not necessarily be included in a web build package but the truth is that SO many companies and indiiduals (knowing no better) get Cousin Johny to build their sites and one day wake up to the fact that the site looks mediocre, at best, and doesn't rank at all.

So who's at fault here?

The client, because he doesn't know any better? The guy that built the site originally (who's just discovered girls and lost interest?) -

So the Client, buggered every which way, starts paying over the odds for something that he should have got as part and parcel of his original design and thinks that 'Google Ad Words' and the like will help.

If I told you that I get this all the time, rescuing sites and rankings, you'd believe me. But would you also believe that I turn away from chaps like our friend above? Yep, it's true, because I refuse to be painted with the same brush as the twat that got him into this situation.

I've lost a lot of work on the basis of that - but then I live in France with chickens, cows and ducks and don't worry about this sort of stuff anymore.

__________________
Some say the glass is half empty, others say it's half full. I say, "Are you going to drink that or what?"

www.websitemarket.co.uk

Now you are really showing your lack of understanding of Google.

Google has never ever shown all the backlinks to a site - it has only ever shown a sample of links (how many times has this been said in threads in the last week or so??? - we even have a sticky message in the Google forum explaining this!!!).... Sometimes that sample includes no links --- just becaue a link is not in the sample does not mean it is not being counted by Google (Google employees have confirmed that they are counted, even if not in the sample) ... . thats how those sites you claim have PR have no backlinks get their PR - they have links that Google are counting, but not showing in the sample!!!

Many other tools show the backlinks... now we have cleared up your confusion, maybe you can stop posting factual errors to mislead readers and stop suggesting I should resign as a moderator.

CBP

Talk about a good thread turning to poop just from a couple of mis-guided posters.

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog

Quote: "I don't blame the guy for being annoyed but I lay the blame on his web designer. Any web designer worth his salt can/should get a SE friendly/optimised site sorted as a matter of course and register it with Directories and then wait for the Spiders to crawl his optimised pages. Right?"


No, I beg to disagree. I am not going to "rock this forum", I just want some things get straight a little bit. Just a coule of months ago I was forced to learn some SEO basics and started studying the competion and their linking, "doing it by the book", in the best traditions of so many other SEO forums...
You are talking about a web site having 2,000 IBLs? How about 20,000 links coming from site maps placed on each one of over 1,000 domains? The links have nothing to do with the main domain's content. And this web site is all over the internet for every possible key phrase from Overture inventory? How is a mediocre webmaster is supposed to beat this?

I think this thread is now going off the point from the original post.......

I believe that we should see the marketing, optimization and positioning of a site as a "whole" - linking is just one of the parts that form this "whole".

What is the use of having zillions of links and no relevant content??????

Why then have a site at all if it only consist out of links?

Was the internet not originally built to disseminate information???

I still come from old school if you want to say that and think after 7 years in this industry seen quite a lot.

As usual, some just hear the word links - get the cat by the tail and then have the audacity to quote you the paragraph from Google's webmaster page as to why you should exchange links with them. I even know of third world countries where the unemployed, work from home on a PC just exchanging links - not caring if they are relevant or not as they get paid by link they exchange.

Should we as webmasters not control the content of the sites we manage???? To me as an old timer it is the important point. I would not allow nonsense on my site that is not relevant and neither on any of my customers's sites.

What about target markets?

Anyway, in my opinion this is just like link farms - the frenzy will stay for a while, bots such as Google will change their algorithm or something like that and the frenzy will end.

Then the blog and RSS will start and after that something else.

You will get good SEO's and bad SEO's - the good SEO's will stick to what they know work, and prevail and ultimately those will be the successful sites....regardless of money, money, money......I still believe that the web has been built to disseminate information - humans will always look for information - and on top of that delivery and service plays a role regardless of the amount of links you have.

Those that see it as a "whole" will be successful....

__________________
Online marketing South Africa
Bulk SMS / streaming SMS software & gateway integration tools

Those who see "it" as a whole, ARE successful already. My point is that G does not penalize websites with 8-pages content and a site map having 20,000 outgoing links to the "hub" domain. We can always sit and talk about better future and RSS, but what are we doing today to save Internet from the "invasive cancer" of clickbots? This is not a desperate cry of a junior SEO/webmaster, may be we all should start a class action...

1daywonder

Linking is now an integral part of SEO and it is, by definition, affecting SERPs. Attempts to influence SERPs for ranking purposes automatically affect search results/relevancy.

The original question in this thread is a no-brainer. The problem is that anyone building a links campaign to improve their SERPs is a spammer, pure and simple.


pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

btw,

I'm not knocking or criticising anyone for link building (God knows it's a massive part of SEO), it's just that it's spamming.

pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

Quite true, but most SEO techniques can be described in that way if you want. If we are told, that links are the most important thing, what do you expect people to do? Give up? Shoot themselves? Sorry, I see it the same way. It is even easier to build up links than it is to build up decent content, and people have (naturally) jumped on the bandwagon.

__________________
Simon - Biogas, Rauchgasanalysator and Rauchgasanalysegerät

Simon,

I wasn't deliberately setting out to cause offence (this isn't a DMOZ thread), but the point I was trying to make is this. If Google uses link popularity as a major part of its algo and lets this be known, then it is in a symbiotic relationship with Webmasters, one function of which is link spam.

I know that this is a stark conclusion but I think it ought to be said. Google is an absolutely integral part of the link spam process.

Before anyone posts Google guidelines on linking, they're actually open to a massive amount of interpretation.

pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

I wasn't offended. There is a thread somewhere in the Google forum where I let off steam about exactly the same thing.

__________________
Simon - Biogas, Rauchgasanalysator and Rauchgasanalysegerät

Let us look at the practical implication.
- It will be almost impossiable to write the algorithm to check site relevance. .
- Why do I whant links on my web site only to relevant sites. This will be like boosting the opposition.

The practical solution is to limit links to a set number. I belief the magic number is round about 100 links per page.

- The most important search engine factor is relevance of site content regarding Meta Tags and a healthy link popularity poynting to your domain.

Best to all ....

Perhaps it is you who are easily confused by the crumbs of misinformation and garbage that Google throws your way. Since I wasn't privileged to participate in your conversation with a G Employee, it's hearsay!

You can take this to the bank: Here's what G says about the backward link check feature on its toolbar:

Source: http://toolbar.google.com/options_help.html

Page Info button - Gives you access to more information about the page you're viewing. From the button's drop-down menu, you can choose the following options:
Cached Snapshot of Page: Shows a snapshot of the current page as it looked when Google crawled it.
Similar Pages: Finds web pages similar to the current page.
Backward Links: Shows which pages link to the current page.
Translate into English: Translates web pages into English.

Google says this and Google says that, so what. Who speaks for Google? How can you rely on what some obscure employee at G says. Geez, stop this nonsense and accept the fact that they diseminate misinformation that you are too willing to accept and spread around. Next thing you will tell me is how beautiful the emperor's clothes are.

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!

Dude! Shut up! The thread was getting back on track and now you're bringing this up again. Shut up! Whatever you have to say isn't helping.

Clearly you hate Google, clearly you're damaged and jaded. Maybe you need to start a "Woe Is Me" thread somewhere. Try the Google section or Breakroom. We can all cry for you and each other. *tear* *tear*, *sniff* *sniff*

Meanwhile, this thread had a purpose. What does what you say about Google help anyone else? You knock Google - so what is YOUR solution? Ignore Google? Focus on content and just make the "best damn website" possible? Do you have anything useful to say other than knocking Google and personally attacking CBP?

mgj545,

It is common knowledge to most people that Google's link command shows only a sample of links. Sometimes that sample is 0. If you have a problem with the way Google words something, or about how the toolbar functions, or anything else that Google does you believe is wrong, your best bet would be to contact Google directly. Ranting here really won't accomplish anything.

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

Jeez, mgj545 doesn't give up eh?

google doesn't display all backlinks but some other se do - look up the links at alltheweb.com (well, this one still doesn't show all but more than google).
AllTheWeb displays:
1 - 7 of 18 Results for link:http://www.orientsprideakitas.net/

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=...0&_sb_lang=any

and these links are seen by google. full stop

I personally want to know more. I personally find the whole emphasis on search engines to be erroneous - but that's the nature of the beast (the market). I've always used search engines for information, but research not shopping. Only in the last few years have I understood SEO for shopping purposes. I remember a few years ago doing a search for "derby hats" because I wanted an oldstyle hat. I used the search engines to find vendors. But that was a niche product. The problem is people doing searches for competitive products/services.

I personally think to prevent diluting search engine results, there should be a move towards separating the consumer searches vs. commercial searches. I think part of the problem with link spamming is that since every SEO efforts wants a leg up on the competition, they think that by ranking higher they guarantee success. And a lot of research shows that they are right - because by ranking higher, even if their website was junk, by shear numbers, they can achieve their goals - or at least more likely to achieve their goals.

But not all searches are commercial - a lot are also for research. I think of search engines as a juiced up library database. I'm looking for listings of what I want to research - and I'm looking for meaty stuff; the meatier the better. But search engines play into their own spamming by not separating commercial searches vs. information searches - because you have people who dont care about anything else other than rankings, so they spam the engines - regardless of quality.

But since that is that nature of the beast, so long as links are a factor in rankings, it needs to be done. I mean, how many SEOs have stopped using meta tags despite all the talk that it was dead? Then a couple months ago the talk was meta tags are NOT dead but still is a factor albeit to a lesser degree than years past.

I think until search engines are willing to and able to separate commercial searches vs. research searches, this game keeps going on. I say regardless, keep at your linking campaign, do it to your ethical comfort level. I personally want to see a revolution in search engines - and NOT that lame desktop search thing.

Thank you Cryptblade.

I'm certainly no fan of Google, but JEEZE, Mg. Get a clue.

at San Jose's SES, even Google's engineers admitted backlink checks don't reveal all links pointing to your site. just a cross-section.

why is this so hard to accept?

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

I really like the idea of limiting the number of incoming links considered. Better yet (I think the listings would heal faster) give each page two rankings (eyes rolling out there?).

One, PR, stresses popularity, one, we'll call it CR for content ranking stressing old fasioned (Yahoo style) optimization.

Your overall ranking is dictated by the quality of your best 100 incoming links but instead of using the PR (popularity) use the CR (content ranking) of incoming links to judge their quality.

IE, The more sites with quality content linking to you, the better you score.

Also I'm inclined to think one of the early posters has a good point: some level of human interaction may help...

$$$$$$$$$

Oh well...

I like urknight's idea... maybe a new ranking bar called RQ - relevancy quotient - and use some of urk's suggestions...maybe more? Whatever it takes. It would a bar that is useful for users - so that they can confidently gauge if the site is good or not. But may want to chill on that too - what about new sites? Maybe someone wants to start a new site and has a lot to say - will they be hurt or will they miraculously benefit?

I would like to think that ideally, the SEs can make ranking like the military. You go up in rank by merit - for the most part, cause if you know anyone in the military, there are those who make it through connections, brown-nosing, etc. But for the most part, people move up the ranks based on merit/performance. I would like to see something like that for SERPs - a website is given an equal opportunity to be indexed - regardless of PFI or what not. Then, through a combination of "following" the rules or what have you, the website can move up the ranks.

Maybe too ideal...dont know but would love to see it.

lorien1973 wrote:
cryptblade wrote:
Both good comments.
I just did the folowing searches...

religious jewelry = 5,750,000 results
"religious jewelry" = 252,000 results

To me, this is a pretty straight forward search. I tend to believe anyone using this search phrase is looking for exactly how it reads. There really isn't a grey area as to what the searcher is looking for when using this phrase. I believe this to be true with many (most) search phrases. The searcher knows precisely what they want.

Personally, I believe that the higher relevancy lies within the quotes.

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry