how long does wikipedia backlink need time to be indexed

how long does wikipedia backlink need time to be indexed
as the question said i have done some editing in foreign wikipedia and it has stayed up for 5 days but it isnt being shown in backlink in semrush.so how much time does it take
You sure its present? Many times people edit the stuff in Wikipedia and then somebody re-edit it.
++++++++++++++
list of top cheapest host http://Listfreetop.pw

Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw

free link exchange sites list http://Listfreetop.pw
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
+++++++++++++++
As my own experience I can say that it takes for 1-3 days
Skype me the link and I'll get it indexed for you for free.
I think its maximum 5 days if no one re-edited that stuff.
Host4Porn builds customer loyalty through honesty, transparency, and helping customers make better-informed choices. This level of transparency means that there are no hidden

limits as far as its services are concerned. The company’s services are easy to understand and its customers have confidence in the decisions they make. Host4Porn’s hosting

accounts offer website builder options that make building websites effortless. Customers also benefit from several website scripts that change a website’s functionality.

Host4Porn’s hosting is extremely reliable and accounts leverage cPanel - one of the hosting industry’s leading web hosting panel solutions.

I have some thoughts about why news orgs are finding that people won't read long articles: pic.twitter.com/G8Zh6GTA6w— Ben Chase (@bbchase) July 4, 2020
I feel terrible for journalists who invest time and effort into doing a hard job well only to have it presented like this. pic.twitter.com/jIZxuJqVAq— Jeff Long (@banterability)

October 5, 2020
As long as news websites make their own customer experience worse than what can be found as a cached copy on the monopoly platforms there is no reason to visit the end publisher

website. That is why the proprietary formats promoted by the monopoly platforms are so dangerous. They force lighter monetization & offset the lack of revenue by given

preferential placement:
click through rate from Google search went from 5.9% (Regular) to 10.3% (AMP), and average search position went from 5.9 (Regular) to 1.7 (AMP). Since then, we have deployed AMP

across fifteen of our brands and we have been very pleased with the results. Today, AMP accounts for 79% of our mobile search traffic and 36% of our total mobile visits.
As long as almost nobody is using the new proprietary, ghetto lock-in format the math may work out there, but once many people adopt it then it becomes another recurring sunk cost

with no actual benefit:
the only voices promoting AMP's performance benefits are coming from inside Google. ... given how AMP pages are privileged in Google's search results, the net effect of the team's

hard, earnest work comes across as a corporate-backed attempt to rewrite HTML in Google's image.
Even if you get a slight uptick in traffic from AMP, it will lead to lower quality user engagement as users are browsing across websites rather than within websites. Getting a bit

more traffic but 59% fewer leads is a fail.
No amount of collaborative publisher partnerships, begging for anti-trust exemptions, or whining about Google is going to fix the problem.
"The only way publishers can address this inexorable threat is by banding together. If they open a unified front to negotiate with Google and Facebook-pushing for stronger

intellectual-property protections, better support for subscription models and a fair share of revenue and data-they could build a more sustainable future for the news business.

But antitrust laws make such coordination perilous. These laws, intended to prevent monopolies, are having the unintended effect of preserving and protecting Google and Facebook's

dominant position."
Wait a minute.
how long does wikipedia backlink need time to be indexed
Wasn't it the New York Times which claimed Yelp was holding an arbitrary grudge against Google?
The following sounds a lot more desperate:
newspapers that once delivered their journalism with their own trucks increasingly have to rely on these big online platforms to get their articles in front of people, fighting

for attention alongside fake news, websites that lift their content, and cat videos.
Well maybe that is just smaller publications & not the gray lady herself
"the temperature is rising in terms of concern, and in some cases anger, about what seems like a very asymmetric, disadvantageous relationship between the publishers and the very

big digital platforms." - NYT CEO Mark Thompson
In unrelated news, there's another round of layoffs coming at the New York Times.
And the New York Times is also setting up a nonprofit division to expand journalism while their core company focuses on something else.
Apparently Yelp does not qualify as a publisher in this instance.
Or does it?
The Times is backing the move for what is called an anticompetitive safe haven, in part, Mr. Thompson said, "because we care about the whole of journalism as well as about The New

York Times."

2 host vsan
locanto.in
joyku.com
skynethosting.net
archimedeshits.com
hostgator portal
trafficexchange.mysterious-scotland.com