I'm a big Google fan - my wife often sleeps in their t-shirts, I speak on panels with Googlers all the time and I've even got a Google water bottle for working out (which happens all of once a month these days). However, I am NOT a fan of the Google link command, and I'm shocked by the number of folks who operate in and around the SEO, webdev and technology industries who haven't realized this.
Here's what Google themselves have to say on the matter:
You can perform a Google search using the link: operator to find a sampling of links to any site. For instance, [link:www.google.com] will list web pages that have links pointing to the Google home page. Note there can be no space between the "link:" and the web page URL.
To see a much larger sampling of links to any verified site in Webmaster Tools:
- On the Webmaster Tools Home page, click the site you want.
- Under Your site on the web, click Links to your site.
Note: Not all links to your site may be listed. This is normal.
Here's what Matt Cutts (head of Google's Webspam team) had to say in a video on the subject:
The short answer is that historically, we only had room for a very small percentage of backlinks because web search was the main part and we didn't have a ton of servers for link colon queries and so, we have doubled or increased the amount of backlinks that we show over time for link colon, but it is still a sub-sample. It's a relatively small percentage. And I think that that's a pretty good balance, because if you just automatically show a ton of backlinks for any website then spammers or competitors can use that to try to reverse engineer someone's rankings.
Google themselves is telling us not to pay too much attention to the link command, but that doesn't seem to be stopping folks. Let the myth busting commence.
Myth #1 - The Google Link Command Returns Accurate Numbers
Nope. Not even close. Google themselves say the numbers aren't accurate and that they're showing a small sub-sample. The numbers show this as well. Check your link counts with the Google link command vs. the number inside Google's Webmaster Tools (when you verify your account, you'll see them shown). Here's the stats for SEOmoz, for example:
Google's link command claims 1,590 links. Let's see what Webmaster Tools says:
Hmm... 381,403 seems slightly larger than 1,590. In fact, the link command is showing me 0.4% of what Webmaster Tools says exists. Running this analysis on another few domains that we have access to in Webmaster Tools, I saw numbers ranging from 0.1% to 4.4% (meaning there's not even any consistency between in the percentage of links from the two counts).
Myth #2 - The Google Link Command Returns Important Links
Tragically, a long time ago (pre-2004), Google did show only important links via the link: command, which created the myth that exists to this day. In fact, the links shown in the link: command have no particular importance or relevance. They are truly a random sample, including links that are nofollowed, links from pages that have had PageRank penalties applied to them as well as links that do pass link juice and value.
Myth #3 - The Google Link Command Returns Links in Some Kind of Order
No one in SEO has been able to show any ordering of any kind in the Google link: command's results. Important, well-known websites may be listed on page 2 or page 20 of the results, and it is likewise with spam, scrapers and low quality sites that Google's likely not counting. In Site Explorer and the web results, Yahoo! appears to do some type of ordering, tending to show more important links, pages and sites before less important ones (though not with great consistency). Unfortunately, many SEOs suspect that, should Microsoft's deal to power Yahoo! with Bing results go through, Yahoo! is unlikely to maintain their own web index (and thus, link, linkdomain and site explorer will be gone).
As exemplified above, Google appears to be very random indeed when showing link: results.
Myth #4 - The Google Link Command Returns a Numerically Representative Count of Links
This is possibly the myth that's most disturbing of all, primarily because so many operators in the SEO field belive it and track the link: command count as a reliable, useful metric. Nothing could be further from the truth - and here's some data to help back it up:
|
Root Domain |
Google Link: # |
Yahoo! Linkdomain # |
Linkscape Count |
| Yahoo.com | 3,650 | 331,000,000 | 201,681,667 |
| Recovery.gov | 7,550 | 328,000 | 155,780 |
| Facebook.com | 165,000 | 567,000,000 | 116,748,934 |
| Real.com | 11,400 | 4,600,000 | 5,596,165 |
| Adobe.com | 51,200 | 124,000,000 | 78,550,468 |
| Reddit.com | 18,300 | 128,000,000 | 29,071,291 |
| Twitter.com | 224,000 | 515,000,000 | 132,528,763 |
| Salon.com | 12,300 | 3,420,000 | 1,535,342 |
| SEOmoz.org | 1,590 | 957,000 | 486,405 |
| NYTimes.com | 7,990 | 21,200,000 | 12,884,758 |
| TurkeyDayRun.com | 3 | 68 | 22 |
| Ninme.com | 539 | 42,000 | 3,149 |
| Burgerking.com | 942 | 106,000 | 23,761 |
| Alaskaair.com | 1,010 | 44,000 | 38,358 |
| Smashingmagazine.com | 8,730 | 1,130,000 | 592,054 |
| Smithsonian.org | 4,860 | 25,700 | 14,545 |
I collected the data above spur of the moment, so I won't try to claim great statistical integrity. However, looking at Google's link: command results, the best I can say is that Google has some relationship to the others within 1-2 orders of magnitude, though they may be directionally inaccurate much of the time as well. Just look at the NYTimes.com for example - Google claims they have 2/3rds the links that Salon.com has, yet Yahoo! and Linkscape agree that, in fact, NYTimes.com has 6X+ Salon.com's link total.
These are not numbers you want to hang your hat (or any crucial business decisions) on.
Myth #5 - The Google Link Command Tracks Accurately Over Time
Unfortunately, I don't have data points I can show, but our observations over time indicate that Google's link count in Webmaster Tools might rise, along with the Yahoo! and Linkscape link counts, yet the Google link: command will show lower numbers. The reverse is sometimes also the case. Without directional consistency, even when compared against their own counts, it's very hard to take the Google link: count seriously.
Myth #6 - The Google Link Command is Up to Date
Most SEOs & webmasters have noticed that the Google link: counts update infrequently, inconsistently and most often in correlation with toolbar PageRank updates (another data point I'll need to takcle in a future post). These updates from Google occur every 2-10 months with little warning about when they're coming or have happened. If you watch sites like closely, they'll report many of these as they occur.
The next time someone tells you their Google link: command numbers as a metric for SEO, competitive analysis or anything else, make sure they read this post. Google's not nearly as up-front with the information as they should be (honestly, removing the link command would save so much time and effort for poor site owners who get needlessly confused), but hopefully as a community, we can help build more awareness around this issue.
Rand, I remember a blog post a while back where you noted (surprisingly) that the # of links reported by Google correlated well with rankings, whereas the Yahoo link reports did not correlate as well. I can't remember the exact post, but do you recall what I'm referring to?
-Evan
Yes I do! Google's link command for a domain had a surprisingly high correlation to rankings at Google in comparison to some other metrics, but it was still A) less than 10% better than random guessing in predicting ordering and B) inside the margin of error (and thus, could actually have no correlation at all). We're actually in the process of re-doing that work with some new metrics and formulas we've been producing, so hopefully we'll have more definitive answers about the potential value there.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Ahh, I knew I remembered reading that! I look forward to seeing the new numbers.
The link: comand should be done away with, I still hear SEO's (one of whom called my pervious company) telling me that it was a great way to check backlinks YUCK.
I both agree and disagree with you here. The link: command is without a doubt one of the most misused commands by certain SEOs and it should not be used to try and check backlinks. However, if it was 'done away with', then we wouldn't be able to view a quick and easy sample of the sorts of sites that link to certain places - whether it's the full sample or not.
ditto traxor... even though it doesn't give anywhere near as much as site explorer but it is still useful and does return some data why would you ever want to get rid of something you should just be aware that it is a sample and use the data accordingly
That's funny that you say it should be done away with. A client I worked for earlier in the year had an agency running their technical seo and they used the link:command in their tech audit as a metric to report indexation. The agency has a high opinion of itself; so does its SEO Director. Now that I'm reading this I realise what a joke some agency's are charging client 1000's for seo services. For this?
On one hand, just do away with it, and on the other hand, one at least hopes that tracking over time and in relation to other metrics, then dramatic changes might at least serve as an alert.
I agree though that too much faith or misunderstanding is wrapped into this advanced query, that isn't so advanced.
We've made it standard practice to get access to GWT, of course not just for the backlinks but for all of the other important data.
Ultimately, link metrics from any source (isn't unusual to see Yahoo's numbers vary by 20-30% from month to month) must be taken with a grain of salt, be viewed across an extended period of time (3-6 months minimum), and the focus should be on establishing a benchmark range and then being aware when things move outside that range.
I wish GWT reporting were not so ugly though (when it comes to backlinks)
I think I am most surprised to learn that people put any stock in this. I am glad Google doesn't give more reliable information. The less information available to fly by night spammers the easier it is for legitimate SEO teams to rise above and provide long-term quality results for businesses that should show high in the SERPS.
I'm very glad to see these myths debunked. Unfortunately I've read in a number of places that Google shows the most important links, in descending order, etc. and I've known that it wasn't the case.
Nice to see the numbers backing this up, knew that it was more or less useless but wasn't quite sure of the extent until now!
Thanks Rand. I'm going to be referring the people who keep citing these myths to your post.
So the moral of this story [Blog] use Linkscape!
:)
Great post rand!
That's what I was thinking .. lol :) Brilliant.
The link command is worthless and has been for a while now, saying that the links within webmaster tools are no better, only showing about a fifth of the links in site explorer.
The link command is completely inconsistent, and fluctuates dramatically, one week a clients site showed 756 then 320 the week after and then 820 the week after that.
I'm concerned that I didn't realise I should be concerned! Not to trust Google's Link Command was something I was advised upon very early indeed in learning SEO. Very useful to see a breakdown of why we shouldn't put any emphasis on it though.
It would be a real shame if we do lose the Yahoo Site Explorer...
I feel the same concern as you do though but as with a lot of data that we obtain from different sources, everything should be taken with a pinch of salt.
It's just unfortunate that Google can't or won't provide us with more accurate data that would allow us to get a better analysis of links to our site.
Maybe one day, eh.
I agree, it would be a shame to lose Yahoo site explorer link data, for individuals and other tools that use it frequently.
...unless you were a company that had developed a tool such as Linkscape, right? :)
Try using
link:www.domain.com -site:www.domain.com
link:www.seomoz.org -site:www.seomoz.org
and you'll see a lot more references for your site
I came across on this interesting post by browsing the blog.
I see that Google has not made any effort on improving the command "link: yoursite" since 2009, or I missed episodes? Fortunately there are many platforms including Moz, offering tools to carefully check our backlinks.
Furthermore, concerning the other myths, over time some have proven true.
I admit then when I first got into optimizing my site for the search engines and I first heard of the link: command I was all over it like a rash. Almost daily I would be running it on my sites and competitors sites.
How much I have learned since those days!
Google hasn't crawled my site in almost a month. In this month I have been building a substantial number of links on other sites but my Google web master tools still shows the same backlinks that were there when google last checked my site.
Does Google have to crawl your site before it registers the backlinks?
Google just did it to avoid abuse using API by the manu many analyzers which are on the market.
Nice Post. But everyone knew that link: does not work more than a year back.
Did you miss out on this?
Strangely, the few links listed when I link colon my site are my highest DA links. Coincidence or has something changed since this post was written
Is it possible that the link: operator is no longer supported by google nowdays? It didn't return any results at all when I tried it a couple of times using different parameters...
Nice Post Rand - One of the reasons I love seomoz is that you illustrate points i have to convince clients of, saving me the donkey work.
 p.s i notice that in comments one cannot use a less than character  (for the ascii love-heart in commments!). - your parser cuts off the rest of the message, and you're missing out on ASCII love!Â
 Cheers
Niall
lOl..!!
And I used to thought that why link command is not showing any results for my blog when webmaster is showing around 100 links.. That truly is not reliable.... Thanks for this post..!! :)
Thanks for the info. I've been trying to find links to my site (https://www.thecaymanislands.ky) using the link command in Google and kept coming up empty. Using your suggestion in Google Webmaster Tools I found 76 links to my site.
Any improvements since the post? Â It's been a year+ now. Â
Google probably won't be practicing "transparency" anytime soon, but thought I'd ask if there's anything I haven't seen (in terms of improvement) ;) Â
I dont really see a viable use for this command
iam a new to the field of seo but i believe that google link command is not reliable at all
seo for goolge need much more unique content as start
" Good content is the real seoo "
also i think that yahoo is so important tool for visitors but if i could get google trust and good rank it would implement my yahoo and bing ranking too
thanks for info.....Â
This may be difference of algorithm they (google and yahoo) used.
ok ok - linkscape is a nice tool. Site Explorer WILL be sorely missed ... but for me, Google link operator still is the best game in town.
If you buy into the ideas that are coming out of Google lately (Matt Cutts and the Webmaster blog) - you'll agree that the quality of links is more important than the quantity of links. I feel I'm more likely to find quality links using the link operator, than I am using Site Explorer.
The problem with Site Explorer, is that it just returns everything. I see links in there from thousands of crappy link directories and hundreds of worthless article directories. Those links are super easy to get with some automatic posting software. I've submitted sites to those kinds of places, and watched my sites go nowhere at all.
It really is interesting to study the links that a site has (using a tool like linkscape, majestic, or site explorer), and then compare which of the links actually DO show up when you run the Google link operator.
One difference I found since 2009 is that a space is now mandatory between link: and the website URL. If the space is not given it shows very very few (in my case 19) links to the site.
What do you think?
good post, looking fwd to the PageRank one :)
There is one thing that the Google link command is good for though, and that's sampling. As Rand has pointed out, there is no discernable order to the links Google returns, and when you are short of time, or want to do a very deep or qualatative analysis on a smaller sample of links, downloading the first 100 from Google is as good a way as any in my experience.
Well i think the backlinks shown by google blog search are somewhat acceptable. for example backlinks for seomoz using google blog search is 42,096.
However i dont think they are much accurate. But u can use them to find out some of the recent backlink added to your site.
I had a client who found out about the link: feature and decided to try it out on their site, which was followed up by a phone call because it only showed 5 results. I had to referrence myth #4 and had them do the same thing using yahoo. Case in point, it's not comprehensive and to not worry too much about it.
Which begs the question, what are the best kind of tools out there for checking back links?
Linkscape is a great tool to use, it's extended for the PRO members presumably.
Chrome is being an idiot so:Â https://www.seomoz.org/linkscapeÂ
I personally use the Backlink Analysis tool which is powered by Linkscape every day. I'd say 90% of the questions I answer in Q & A I use either Linkscape directly or the backlink tool. Ok you may say I'm biased, but seriously, speaking as an SEO these tools rock.
How confident can i be that Google is actually finding the links i build if Webmaster Tools itself is inacurate?
This is often a concern, we seem to find the links on Yahoo's Linkdomain but not on Google's Webmaster Tools, and these are all quality links.
If you wanted to check a particular link, you can just look at Google's cache of that page. If they've crawled and indexed it (and seen the link), they're counting it (unless they've penalized that page/site for some reason).
Thanks for the tip, Rand. That was something I didn't think of.
I will use it.
Man I didn't even think about the possibility of losing siteexplorer before you brought it up :( That would suck dramatically.
What you say it's true... and that's one of the reason we're PROs (linkscape is too much necessary).
On the other hand, you have to remember that Google is a Brand with such a strong influence over decisions, especially referred to clients with no SEO knowledge, that is sometimes useful to use that inaccurate data to make understand to that client the "not so good" inbound links situation of their website.
But that's the only use personally I do of that data from Google (and not always). For work is obviously better Yahoo! Siteexplorer and LinkScape.
Ah... what about create a Yahoo! Siteexplorer fan page, viral communicate its existence in the SEO pro world and - as fans do for their most loved series - make Microsoft reflects about how a bad idea would be to dismiss it?
Ciao
See I always thought that google only displayed links that had a page rank of 4 or more on the link command. To me that has been the case, but maybe that was just by luck.
If your a pro member and have SEOmoz Tool bar installed its very helpful to be able quickly check the number of links a competitor has. Quick, Simply and seemingly accurate.
Regardless, Google I am sorry your link: sucks; Yahoo! I wish your site explorer would sick around but it seems like a waste of resources if your not going to maintain your own index.
One last reiteration; I understand why Google doesn't provide this information as they do not want us to do what we are all doing; trying to reverse engineer a sites rankings so we can use the data to better our sites. In reality I see their point of view.
I've always thought the link: command returned inaccurate results.
It's good to have some proof!
Agree that the link command is rather inaccurate and very limited in its use and I do think that the backlinks report provided in the Google Webmaster Tools are not even near 100% accurate either..
What do you think?
Hey Peter - As Matt noted in that video, Google Webmaster Tools shows a much larger sample, but it is still not ALL of the links Google might know about or be counting. However, I'd say it's upwards of 75%, so you're getting a very solid list - the trouble is that it's only available for sites you own/control.
Have you noticed any trending of Webmaster tools links getting more accurate or comprehensive? I've noticed on a few sites the link count has been jumping lately, which I hadn't seen in the past. I was starting to suspect Google was showing a large sample size. Anyone see similar trending?
Todd
Thank you for the good structured inside into the Google link command.
This is great to know. I'm working with my team to get verified with Google Webmasters asap. Seems like the results could be invaluable beyond just the links numbers, right?
So, the link: command is, in short, pretty much useless? On 6 counts? Why does Google keep it on at all if their other tools like Webmasters Tools are considerably more accurate, by their own admission?
A good question.. I don't see much sense in it either. Unless they want to give SEO's a way to prove that they know their tools over the ones that just pretend : )
Looks like it's worth about nothing in terms of SEO.
I'm a total SEO n00b and I can see it's usefulness in some areas.Using it in conjunction with analytics to determine which sites link to which content so you can target your content to get more links from a specific site for example.
I'm sure there are more ways they can be used, but as I said; n00b :DÂ
"I'm a big Google fan - my wife often sleeps in their t-shirts . . ."
There is something ever so slightly . . kinky . . about that statement, don't you think fella?
Ever wonder WHY she wears Google t-shirts to bed? Like, if she wants to excite Rand's passion, arouse Rand's interest, stimulate Rand and get HIS ENGINE revving . . . she dons a Google t-shirt?
Hmmmm . . . kinky indeed. :P
Good point. I know this allready BUT what i dont get is why my Google number of links is getting low?
We just changed our B & B site with a new one.
Unfortunatly we lost the PAGE RANK and the amount of links is 20% lower .It could be because of the bad 301 redirect or because of Google.
 Of course our IT say that this has nothing to do with his 301 work.
So? What should i belive?
Personally I use the link: command to 'spy' on my competitors on where they get their backlinks. And maybe, these sites will be beneficial for my site as well.