When I type link:mydomainname.com in Google I don't see any result, why?
-
My other website is 4 years old and Page Rank 3. We are into business of design and development for 5 years and still we don't have any result from Google Searches. When I type link:mydomainname.com I don't get any result. What's the reason?
-
You still have only a small sampling with those major brands. You're probably seeing more because there are more links to sample from for the big brands.
-
Dave, like Keri said Google came up with Webmaster tool to address all these issues. I believe it would be wise to use webmaster tool for our queries.
-
Thanks Keri, I am following Webmaster mostly to check how Google sees my website but wondering why such search not working for me whereas it works for some very popular brands.
-
The link: command has been unreliable and has underreported links for years. Google's own help says it's a sampling of links to the site (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/55281?hl=en). To see more links (though they still admit it's a sample), verify your site in Google Webmaster Tools and they will show you some more links.
-
Webmaster tools will tell you what google is 'thinking'
-
Hi Martijn,
Whilst I'd agree wholeheartedly with your response and they are both good places to see your inbound links. We always want to be watching what Google are doing with it's existing tools and they give us clues about what Google thinks is important.
What Vikas was asking is why the tool was acting like it did.
Best Regards
Dave
-
Hi Dave & Vikas,
I don't think the link command is the best one to figure out what kind of links you have. I only get 1k results for a site we have over 90k of links for. That's around a 1% coverage. Best would be to use tools like Google Webmaster Tools or Open Site Explorer by Moz to found out what kind of links you have and where they come from.
-
The good news is that I now have a similar problem, we used to have hundreds of links now I have 6?! I typed info:eriks.co.uk and this gives you a number of links to choose. Even when selecting via this screen the same occurred.
Something must be happening at Google regarding Site Links I'm guessing, Moz?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is it still true that 3xx redirects don't cause you to lose any ranking?
In this: https://moz.com/blog/301-redirection-rules-for-seo it says that simply redirecting - provided you don't change anything on the page - isn't going to cost you rankings. Is this still true, or is there any new data/case studies that have been done since? I haven't seen anything updating it and just want to make sure because it's from 2016. We want to do simple 301 redirecting without any changes to the page. Or has anyone had an opposite experience?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AngieJohnston1 -
Is there a difference between 'Mø' and 'Mo'?
The brand name is Mø but users are searching online for Mo. Should I changed all instances of Mø to be Mo on my clients website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ben_mozbot010 -
What are risks people are seeing with Widget links?
This September, Matt Cutts announced a new crackdown on widget links. But they clearly still work so it's a matter of scale and usage in IMO. Years ago I started recommending changing links within widgets to use branded anchor text instead of keyword rich anchor text so as not to create an unusual amount of keyword focused anchor text. It's also clearly more natural. So far this has been working very well. The new warning is concerning and I recognize the "best practice" according to Google would be to no-follow these links, but I'm not quite ready to do this unless a risk of unrecoverable penalty is apparent. My thoughts are it's a matter of scale. If there are tens of thousands of widget links and they dominate the link profile that would be a serious matter. If there are only thousands of widget links and they are a small part of the total link profile it is much less of a concern. Does anyone have any direct experience with getting warnings on this matter?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Envoke-Marketing1 -
Google Mobile Friendly designation in Search results
We have recently deployed a mobile (http://m.pssl.com) version of our desktop website (http://www.pssl.com). We've followed the guidelines in their documentation (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6101188) & (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/04/rolling-out-mobile-friendly-update.html), added the appropriate rel=alternate/rel=canonical tags updated site maps and robots.txt files, etc. A mobile search for our company shows the "mobile-friendly" flag in the search results for our home page, but for some reason other pages such as category and brand are not showing showing as "mobile-friendly". I can submit the pages using the mobile-friendly tester (https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/mobile-friendly/) and all of the pages I test come back as mobile friendly. Does anyone have any experience or advice they'd be willing to share that might help us resolve this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ovenbird0 -
How to remove my site's pages in search results?
I have tested hundreds of pages to see if Google will properly crawl, index and cached them. Now, I want these pages to be removed in Google search except for homepage. What should be the rule in robots.txt? I use this rule, but I am not sure if Google will remove the hundreds of pages (for my testing). User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | esiow2013
Disallow: /
Allow: /$0 -
Is there any SEO advantage to sharing links on twitter using google's url shortener goo.gl/
Hi is there any advantage to using <cite class="vurls">goo.gl/</cite> to shorten a URL for Twitter instead of other ones? I had a thought that <cite class="vurls">goo.gl/</cite> might allow google to track click throughs and hence judge popularity.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | S_Curtis0 -
How can Google index a page that it can't crawl completely?
I recently posted a question regarding a product page that appeared to have no content. [http://www.seomoz.org/q/why-is-ose-showing-now-data-for-this-url] What puzzles me is that this page got indexed anyway. Was it indexed based on Google knowing that there was once content on the page? Was it indexed based on the trust level of our root domain? What are your thoughts? I'm asking not only because I don't know the answer, but because I know the argument is going to be made that if Google indexed the page then it must have been crawlable...therefore we didn't really have a crawlability problem. Why Google index a page it can't crawl?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
How Google treat internal links with rel="nofollow"?
Today, I was reading about NoFollow on Wikipedia. Following statement is over my head and not able to understand with proper manner. "Google states that their engine takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. However, experiments conducted by SEOs show conflicting results. These studies reveal that Google does follow the link, but does not index the linked-to page, unless it was in Google's index already for other reasons (such as other, non-nofollow links that point to the page)." It's all about indexing and ranking for specific keywords for hyperlink text during external links. I aware about that section. It may not generate in relevant result during any keyword on Google web search. But, what about internal links? I have defined rel="nofollow" attribute on too many internal links. I have archive blog post of Randfish with same subject. I read following question over there. Q. Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love? [In 2007] A: Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit
_
(Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.) Matt has given excellent answer on following question. [In 2011] Q: Should internal links use rel="nofollow"? A:Matt said: "I don't know how to make it more concrete than that." I use nofollow for each internal link that points to an internal page that has the meta name="robots" content="noindex" tag. Why should I waste Googlebot's ressources and those of my server if in the end the target must not be indexed? As far as I can say and since years, this does not cause any problems at all. For internal page anchors (links with the hash mark in front like "#top", the answer is "no", of course. I am still using nofollow attributes on my website. So, what is current trend? Will it require to use nofollow attribute for internal pages?0
