__/ On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:09, ["WD10" <.>] wrote : \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> __/ 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...
>>>> To check links quickly:
>>> 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
> I didn't realize Google did that. I can rarely get a good list of
> 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.
> 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.*