Can Google back links be considered as the most themed links?

We all know that Google lists only a very small percentage of backlinks when we search for: link:www.mysite.com

Is the list totally random or can we get an indication of what links Google considers the most relevant/important/themed for a page ?

 

I don't think backlinks showing up in Google are the most themed links to your site. may be they are the most important for google.

 

afaik those are not highest pr links -- I don't know the Google's criteria, yet the list is quite steady.

 

Anyone else find that link:mydomain.tld seems to bring back very limited results? I know from other link trackers that I have far more than Google ever returns.

 

kuyaedz

Just pick up 10 sites you know and compare the back links reported by google, yahoo (the best in my opinion https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/mysites) and msn

You will see that google does never report all the links they know. This is intentional, I think they explained they do not want their algorythms to be reverse engineered

It seems the links reported by google are rather 'good links', but apparently nobody knows for sure

I've read many times that yahoo lists links according to the importance they have for yahoo (so what yahoo considers as to be the best links are listed first)

My intention is to try to boost some back links by providing a few links to them.

For example, I can write a few comments in blogs, posts in forums, or mention the back link in articles.

I have read an author explaining that doing so gives more authority to his back links, and hence improves his ranking. To be honest, I have seen that only once or twice... but there seem to be much logic. It should work beautifully because you take advantage of the reputation of a 'big boy' and you force the page to be re-indexed and brought to the attention of google several times.

 

Matt Cutts has stated many times that google show a 'selection' of backlinks.

 

I have the same problem, google shows only a few links and yahoo and msn a lot. But I think google know all links but shows only a few, because they gave me a PR update eventhough the shown backlinks are fewer.
I dont know why they are hiding that, but as long as they calculate my PR correctly I dont mind

 

Since my earlier posts, I read an interesting comment:

- Intentionally, Google does not provide any results that might help SEO. This is to reduce spam.
- The only reliable data provided by Google is the ranking in SE

Based on that, I would conclude that the subset of backlinks provided by Google should be considered as a semi-random selection, and for sure should not be used for SEO

The other comment gave me an idea, but I have not yet experimented it.

To find the 'quality/trust rank' of a page that you are considering for a link, you search in google for a keyword in the <title> tag. If the page is listed high, it has a good trust rank.

It should not be difficult to automate.

 

for me google shows 32 links while msn and yahoo shows 540 +

 

Use yahoo for checking backlinks

 

Like I said, Google shows a selection of links. If a page has been cahced, and the cache contains your backlink, then your link is being included in the Ranking algo.Aramyus, if your going to quote stuff, it would help the discussion if you cited the source of the content

 

Sorry, I do not have any source but I've read it a couple of times recently on blogs. Google is very parcimonious in communicating about their algorythms, so chances are high that these affirmations do not come from them. Sure, they are suspicious but they make a lot of sense.

You said that all back links reported by Google are cached. However many cached back links are not reported by google. So the back links reported by Google are only a subset of cached backlinks. After what I have read recently, I doubt there is much logic in the selection

By the way, what are the criteria for google to cache or not a page? I have noticed that cached pages in general are 'rather good quality' pages. In general, I refuse a link exchange with a page non cached but I am not sure there is much rational.

 

No I didn't I said if a page carrying your link is cached then you can be certain that it is being counted. many pages in google are not showing a cache, even though they appear in the serps.

 

they might not show all the links, but their "total" number seems exact.

PS how do you search for backlinks in MSN/Yahoo ?

 

I'm fairly sure the links shown by Google are pretty random, I've never noticed a theme of them being of the same niche or carrying a particular PR range.

 

That is a false statement from google, Yahoo and msn gives most of the backlinks, If google thinks their system to be reverse engineered, just because of showing backlinks perfectly, Does it mean their whole algorithm runs only on Inbound link factor?.,
They claim there are over 100 Factors determining a sites ranking .

If its true, Does it mean, yahoo and msn does not care about getting reverse engineered?

 

I have a 7 year old daughter who can reverse engineer the MSN algo

FACT: Google disabled their link: command because of link mongering and the way people were tracking links of competitors and skewing the SERP's. Whether you believe it or believe it not is your personal choice, but that is what their spokesmen have said at SES conferences. Why do you say

?

 

Google first rendered the link: query pretty much useless. Now they seem to be doing the same to other queries of interest to webmasters only, like the site: query.

The link: query was primarily of interest only in buying and selling domains and in buying and selling links, neither of which Google has any interest in encouraging. For the same reasons, toolbar PageRank has ceased to be useful to anyone but the ill-informed.

Face it: Google is not in the business of helping webmasters to make their job more difficult... especially since their own engineers have been doing such a fine job of that without any help from webmasters, notably since Big Daddy.

 

They now have video toys to play with as well!

 

I've also read somewhere that Yahoo shows backlinks in order of importance. But I haven't see any consistent evidence to support this theory.