Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Incoming links

__/ On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:09, ["WD10" <.>] wrote : \__

> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:deol0r$1nnk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> __/ On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:18, ["WD10" <.>] wrote : \__
>>
>>>> Speaking of backlinks, according to a prediction table that has been
>>>> quite reliable thus far, backlinks update is over a week overdue...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.seocompany.ca/pagerank/page-rank-update-list.html
>>>>
>>>> To check links quickly:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%3Ahttp://PLUG_SITE
>>>
>>> Yahoo gives a better list of links than Google.  MSN also gives more
>>> than Google but it's buggy--it will change the number of links as you
>>> are browsing through the list.
>>
>>
>> Others (including Google) do that too, particularly towards the end of
>> 'paging'.
> 
> I didn't realize Google did that.  I can rarely get a good list of
> backlinks
> from Google.  On one particular site, Yahoo gives me 1,400+ backlinks, and
> Google gives none.  If I remove the "www" I get 4 from Google.
> :S
> 
> You're right.  I just checked those 1,400+ backlinks and was down to 354
> backlinks by the end of the paging.  I wonder why they all reduce the
> number of links like that...

Me too. Here are some guesstimates:

-Giving the user the illusion that many results exist
  o user admires search engine
  o user does not eat up much bandwidth investigating all pages

-Quick SERP appearance
  o optimistic guess always better. Right?

-Removal of duplicates

...


-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz        $> wget -r -erobots=off http://www.*
http://Schestowitz.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index