...which apparently you don't yet have, based on what rustybrick just said -- evidently, Magnus waffled on the reply. (Unless your customers would be happy with a quote that says, "A Google representative recommends that you don't look too seriously at the returns from link:", I guess.) Nonetheless, bobmutch, you do have a point about customers, and I guess I underestimated how many people in the internet industry are aware of such issue.
minstrel: Well I think that if Barry will write an short to the point post and put it up in the round out blog it will be a start. I think that a report for an authortive site will searchenginewatch.com stating what a Google rep said would be a help. Rustybrick: What you think, a short post on the round up blog or even a short article posted on searchenginewatch.com stating the industries position on the link: command, why Googles sites says different, and what the Google rep said at this last conference. I think it would be very helpful. And better on the searchenginewatch.com site and a referenced in the blog to it also. I would be happy to write it up for you if you like!
Google isn't stupid, they were being diplomatic. Everyone who deals with Google, the way we do, know this to be a fact. Google would never give their stamp of approval. Even though Magnus basically admitted this to be the case, I can not get him to write it down on paper. Come on people. If you want, I will be happy to tell your clients the truth about the link command. I can tell them my conversation with Magnus and Danny. But for them to sign a legal document about this, that is crazy. Nor do I expect them to go on record about this.
Google can do what they like. They only have to give correct information to their own paying customers (mostly AdWords advertisers and licencees) and business partners (mostly AdSense partners and licencees). They don't owe any explanation to your customers IMO. To them, they provide a free tool, and like in Shawn's spirit; it's free so don't moan if it's not what you need.
Yes, that is the big think TOPS30. Will there ever be pay for service with Google organic results. We have been asking them for this for years.
Perhaps that is what they are lining up?! 'Professional' searchers like us tend to think the quality went down... Perhaps they are priming us for 'improved' but premium search. Who knows. The links command would certainly suggest they are 'hiding' functionality which could well be uncovered for premium users. Our cable tv provider does the same. Give us free channels, then cancel them when the series get interesting and ask you to sign up. Common marketing practise really. But IMO they are milking both the end user and the AdWords advertiser if ads would be displayed on such a service. Speculation ofcourse but certainly interesting ideas.
Rustybrick: "Even though Magnus basically admitted this to be the case, I can not get him to write it down on paper... But for them to sign a legal document about this, that is crazy." I didn't see where anyone suggest that Barry. What was suggested was some thing a bit clearer that what you posted on your Roundup Blog. Some thing perhaps in short article written stating what the Google rep said, if he did really say anything. Keep in mind that your blog post states "Google says they are not reporting all your links back to your site. So think before using it." If this is so and they have stated it I think it would be good to note it in article form so we can have some thing to point people to, instead of having it at the bottom of a blog post which out it being commented on.
Point them to the blog if you feel you need something "in writing". Google still hasn't said anything really notable and they likely won't.
minstrel: I don't think pointing them to a blog entry for a short one line entry at the end of the post is very good communication. Although the blog post is concerning the same topic it is not dealing with the issue at hand which is whether or not the link: command is reporting all backlinks like Google states it is on their website. If indeed the Google rep did make that statement that the blog entry reports, I think it would be best to do a short article stating the same. That article would be best written by the person to whom that statement made to. Pointing people to a blog post that isn't dealing with the same issue, for one sentence at the bottom of that blog entry is in my mind poor communication. Don't you think there is a better way? Blog post: http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/001073.html
There is a reason it is one line. I can not put words in Google's mouth. Let's just leave it as is for now.
Google never displayed all links. It used to display PR4 or higher links. Now no one knows what criteria it uses to display some links To find out about links, try at Yahoo linksite:www.example.com/
Good grief, Bob. Option 1 Forget about it and just move on. Option 2 Write a letter to Google. Explain your concern about your clients not having any faith in you when you tell them not to use "link:" and request that they change their web page or send you a letter to hand out to your clients. Option 3 Write up a short note yourself with links to the blog, this thread, and a hundred other forum threads as evidence, or copy out all those threads (with due credit) to iinclude in the pamphlet and hand them out to your clients. Which ever option you choose, just let it go. There are more important things to worry about. Like where the hell I put my navy sweater.