Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 link:www.huffingtonpost.com www.huffingtonpost.com You get 47,000 "Link Relevance", but the real number is 851,000. Now, let's turn the tables and do a link search on a popular Neo-Con supporting website called Hotair.com, run by the Fox News Shill Michelle Malkin. link:www.hotair.com www.hotair.com You get 11,400 "Link Relevance", and the real number is 526. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 You did what mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Google supress links (link relevance) to popular alternative media sites purposefully and daily with cold due process. One may ask why they would bother innit? Edited February 9, 2010 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Still not with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Still not with you. It's new to me so please be patient... If we take Huffington Post a good source of left field analysis (without corporate overview), the liink relevance the google engine really has for it (when you type in key words are : 851,000, but THEY (GOOGLE) chop it down to 47,000....So many times it won't come up on your search althogh it may have something significant on your subject matter or topic or search. But honestly why would they bother...? That's the real mystery here. Try this: Google has many different criteria when it decides how close to the top a website gets, but the main and most important one is Link Relevance. It simply means in laymen's terms; The more sites that link to your site, the higher you go on the list. There is a simple way to check on Google how many other websites are linking to your website. You go to Google and type in the word link: before the web address, for example; link: www.theultimateconspiracy.com Now here is where the proof is that Google has implemented some kind of script that is giving all the alternative media sites less that 1/4th of the Link Relevance that they deserve. If you go to Google and simply type in www.yourwebsite.com you will find the REAL number of sites that have a link back to your website. This does not mean that the sites are being added to the Link Relevance, it only shows that they have the link on their website. Want proof? Let's do some searches of various alternative media related websites and see what we get. Click the links to see results; link:www.infowars.com http://www.infowars.com Now notice that the "Link Search" brings up 2,960 pages that are linked back to www.infowars.com, but when you look at the actual numbers of sites with links to www.infowars.com the real number is 207,000. Ha ha these are the same buggers who were having a go at the Chinese.... The IT bods in here can probs explain it better. Edited February 9, 2010 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 How does that implicate Happy Face though? I've always had my suspicions but am not sure we can hang him out to dry on this one. Sounds like Google are paid by big media to promote their product. Thats their business model though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Can I just check what you've done? Gone to google.com Searched for link:www.huffingtonpost.com And then searched for www.huffingtonpost.com ? I can't replicate your results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 How does that implicate Happy Face though? I've always had my suspicions but am not sure we can hang him out to dry on this one. Sounds like Google are paid by big media to promote their product. Thats their business model though. Google have been supressing The Compendium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) How does that implicate Happy Face though? I've always had my suspicions but am not sure we can hang him out to dry on this one. Sounds like Google are paid by big media to promote their product. Thats their business model though. I'm working on the breaking the dam model, throw enough things at HP and sooner or later one will stick. The man is a menace. Edited February 9, 2010 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Can I just check what you've done? Gone to google.com Searched for link:www.huffingtonpost.com And then searched for www.huffingtonpost.com ? I can't replicate your results. I dunno what I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Can I just check what you've done? Gone to google.com Searched for link:www.huffingtonpost.com And then searched for www.huffingtonpost.com ? I can't replicate your results. I dunno what I did. What are your numbers all about then? If you are doing what I said above, that's obviously going to get you two different results because you're searching for very different things. One will give you links to the HP site from external sources, while the other will return all indexed pages on the HP site as well as other sites that mention (not necessarily link to) HP. It's widely regarded that Google's link: operator is inaccurate (and not what they use for gauging link popularity). Also, if you want Google's actual number of results, don't take the first one it shows, make sure you go right to the end and you'll often find (even when you include the repeated/similar results) that the actual figure is a lot lower. The backlink checker most widely used by the public is Yahoo's Site Explorer. There's also a lot more to 'link relevance' than getting a huge number of links. Back in the olden days of the internet, it was just a case of getting as many links as possible. That led to link farms (sites with just link after link after link and nothing else) that were incredibly spammy. Google started weighting links in various ways (links with anchor text are better than just URLs http://www.anchor.com/, a link from a reputable website is better than a newly created blog, links without 'nofollow' are better than those with, etc) to try to fight spammers. Spammers, of course, are very clever so they'll always find a way to try to beat the system. We have a member on this site who works for a company that tries to get links for clients and as he's still around I assume he's doing a good job. So even if HP has a massive number of links, they may not be from the best sources or formatted in the best ways to make them good links. And your numbers, wherever they came from, look to be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Can I just check what you've done? Gone to google.com Searched for link:www.huffingtonpost.com And then searched for www.huffingtonpost.com ? I can't replicate your results. I dunno what I did. What are your numbers all about then? If you are doing what I said above, that's obviously going to get you two different results because you're searching for very different things. One will give you links to the HP site from external sources, while the other will return all indexed pages on the HP site as well as other sites that mention (not necessarily link to) HP. It's widely regarded that Google's link: operator is inaccurate (and not what they use for gauging link popularity). Also, if you want Google's actual number of results, don't take the first one it shows, make sure you go right to the end and you'll often find (even when you include the repeated/similar results) that the actual figure is a lot lower. The backlink checker most widely used by the public is Yahoo's Site Explorer. There's also a lot more to 'link relevance' than getting a huge number of links. Back in the olden days of the internet, it was just a case of getting as many links as possible. That led to link farms (sites with just link after link after link and nothing else) that were incredibly spammy. Google started weighting links in various ways (links with anchor text are better than just URLs http://www.anchor.com/, a link from a reputable website is better than a newly created blog, links without 'nofollow' are better than those with, etc) to try to fight spammers. Spammers, of course, are very clever so they'll always find a way to try to beat the system. We have a member on this site who works for a company that tries to get links for clients and as he's still around I assume he's doing a good job. So even if HP has a massive number of links, they may not be from the best sources or formatted in the best ways to make them good links. And your numbers, wherever they came from, look to be irrelevant. Yeah you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 ROFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Thread of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay 10 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid_MCDP 0 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Thanks for bringing back the nightmares of the.com I did six months of contract work for, Parky. You're a peach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now