Referrer Search Operator

I am trying to find an article.

What I remember about the article is that “site one” linked to “site two”.

To do this search, there would have to be a new search operator–eg referrer:–which indicated the origin or site one.

An example would be something like: keyword-shim

My intent is to get a result on which was linked from

In my case, I believe Ars Technica linked to or So I might enter: johnson 

inanchor: doesn’t apply because that searches the link text. I have no idea what the link text says. Ars Technica’s style is to use inline links which might have any combination of words. I’m more confident about the destination URL.

inurl: doesn’t apply because that searches the URL of the result. For example, if I wanted something from, then I might use inurl:mojeek I already know the result is on The key feature would be specifying the referrer.

Feature Request

Please add a search operator where I can specify a referrer by URL.


1 Like

Hey @mike, short answer is that this is not necessarily an easy one, but it’s definitely something that we will look into. I’ve raised it internally and so when we’ve got a chance it’ll be looked at.

I don’t suppose you’ve seen this functionality elsewhere? I’m interested in trying it out if so.

1 Like

I have not seen it. The closest has been inanchor.

If possible, I assume it would be a side effect of page rank.

1 Like

It’s been 20 years so my memory is real - real fuzzy, but there used to be a thing in Google that you could put in a domain and some operator and see a partial list of pages that linked back.

Google dumped the feature because it was being used by SEO’s.

Does anyone else remember that?

1 Like

Way too early on/long ago for me, @ricardo81 might have something in the memory banks.


Find pages linking to a specific domain or URL. Google killed this operator in 2017, but it does still show some results—they likely aren’t particularly accurate though. (Deprecated in 2017)


Google Search Operators: The Complete List (42 Advanced Operators)


Here is a (related) example I just came across.

I know Ars Technica linked to Wikipedia.

I know the subject was immunoglobulin class switching.

But searching

immunoglobulin class switching

turns up nothing on Mojeek or DuckDuckGo.

And the inanchor: would be

variety of antibody subtypes

which I have no way of knowing.


inanchor:variety inanchor:antibody inanchor:subtypes

does show the correct article.

If I had not just run across this example, I’d have no way to refer to it later except to remember it exactly or have some impractical note-taking habit.

My issue is not the subject matter. I can find information on immunoglobulin class switching or thrombosis adverse events on my own.

The specific thing I’m trying to find is an exact URL based on what I know:

  • the two top-level sites
  • the link relationship
  • a general topic

Originally, I wanted to know the URL on site two. In my original problem, there was a specific anchor that I got from an article but which I could not reproduce. I did not want to link to the top of a twenty page fact sheet. And I did not see a useful id= in the information I found. So, I was interested in the reference I originally followed.

But, looking at today’s example, it might also be useful to get the URL for site one: where I might remember that one site linked to the other and want to refer to the original article. I’m not sure how the operator would then need to change: referee: ?


… to produce the same result as the sidebar.

My memory is unusual. I typically remember the relationships between these sites and a general topic. And it would be helpful to me if I could turn up more details like a list of anchors or original articles based on that information.


1 Like

way off-topic, but for those interested…

viruses and vacines...

given that @mike mentioned the CDC and vaccines in his example and that understanding the verifiable scientific facts regarding viruses, vaccines, PCR and terrain theory vs. germ theory is vital for a few reasons, not the least of which is your health, and so here’s a few resources to get you started…

“Germ theory is essentially a hypothesis put forth over a hundred years ago which all the empirical evidence that was conducted since that time has disproven” – Andrew Kaufman M.D., during an interview by Tammy Cuthbert Garcia , ‘Transcending The Plandemic Narrative’, 2023

The Contagion Myth - Why Viruses (including “Coronavirus”) Are Not the Cause of Disease - Dr. Thomas S. Cowan, 2020

Virus Mania, 3rd edition: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense

Dr. Sam Bailey

Dr. Tom Cowan

‘Germ Theory’ isn’t spreading like it used to -

Medical School 101: Virology -

Vaccines - What You Need To Know -

Kary Mullis (Full Interview) PCR Test Inventor on Science, FDA, AIDS, Fauci…

Pharma Downloaded Spike Protein Recipe From Chinese Government?! The Virus Has Never Been Isolated!

BOMBSHELL: There’s No Proof Of Contagious Viruses Causing Disease; Drs Cowan, Bailey, Lanka, Kaufman

Dr. Wu Zunyou from the Chinese Center for Disease Control admits on camera COVID NOT ISOLATED

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet, one of the worlds most respected, peer-reviewed medical journals, 2015

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts.” – Kamran Abbasi, Executive Editor, British Medical Journal, 13 Nov. 2020

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.” – John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 30 Aug. 2005

“The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.” – D. G. Altman, The scandal of poor medical research, British Medical Journal, 29 Jan. 1994

“A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. In an email exchange with me, Ioannidis estimated that the nonreplication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent.” – Ronald Bailey, How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent?, 9 Jul. 2021