gal
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 1148
|
Posted: 2004-May-11 22:36
I had requested a link exchange and the response was "If you change your links page to some other name, I would be happy to exchange links. Google does not count links from pages named "links.html"
Knowing this wasn't true, I decided to check:
My links page does have a PR
Checking my backlinks, I find none that show up with "links.htm", or links.html." I did find one with "links" and no extension.
I checked backlinks for a couple of other sites, and found none with those extensions.
Did I miss the announcement? I tried a search here, but only found one mention of this but it was refuted.
|
 |
bhartzer
Staff
Joined: Jun 08, 2000
# Posts: 7042
|
Posted: 2004-May-11 22:47
Google does not count links from pages named "links.html" is just hogwash, in my opinion.
|
|
Webmaster-Toolkit.com
Joined: Jul 18, 2002
# Posts: 1098
|
Posted: 2004-May-11 22:52
I agree with Bill mostly, but I have seen some links.html pages excluded from link counts without any reason I can see
|
|
scottfla
Joined: Feb 26, 2004
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 2004-May-11 23:26
I've seen the same comments (links.htm no PR passed) but have seen a couple of examples where it just aint so. There do seem to be more than a few people jumping through the hoop though. Personally I'll need to see some evidence (more than Joe Blow lost a back link)
|
|
Enterprise
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
# Posts: 132
|
Posted: 2004-May-12 08:17
I recently put a site map on a client's site because it has a javascript menu and includes a links.html page.
The links page jumped fron PR0 to 4 and the sites which that page links to show it in backlinks.
All the linked sites are related to the subject of the client site which probably helps.
|
|
scottfla
Joined: Feb 26, 2004
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 2004-May-12 12:17
Enterprise: Could you PM me the URL. I'd also be interested in looking at URL's where people feel PR's not being passed due to links.htm. Thanks, Scott
|
|
Luca Brasi
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
# Posts: 127
|
Posted: 2004-May-12 15:04
I think Google may disregard links from certain pages and them being named links.bla may be one of the "flags" for G to do this, but the filename itself is not the sole reason. Theres too much evidence of it not being so.
I have examples of websites with PR (and ranking well) that do not pass PR at all, from anywhere on their website. They are "Pass-PR-blocked" for lack of a better term. Anyone else seen them?
|
|
bhartzer
Staff
Joined: Jun 08, 2000
# Posts: 7042
|
Posted: 2004-May-12 15:20
It's not that PR isn't being passed from a links.html page to other pages. The problem is the number of incoming links to that page and the number of outgoing links on that page.
In most cases, the links page on a site (no matter what filename it has) is a page that has only a certain amount of links going to it (usually only internal links from a site). Not only that, it usually has a lot of outgoing links on that page. Whatever PR that page has (even if it is a PR5 or PR6), the PR is spread out over a lot of outgoing links. So, if this page links to you you won't get the PR5 or PR6 passed to you, you may only get the equivalent of a PR1 passed to you.
This is why people are saying that there isn't any PR being passed. There is PR being passed, but it's not the PR of the page being passed to you.
And remember, we only see PR in whole numbers. So, that PR5 page might be a PR5.000001 or it might actually be a PR5.999999998 -- we just don't know.
|
|
Zinger
Joined: Mar 04, 2001
# Posts: 293
|
Posted: 2004-May-14 03:31
in my opinion it wouldn't make sense for google to start discriminating just because of the page name so i don't believe they will disregard a 'links.xxx' page.
|
|
d_stew
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
# Posts: 128
|
Posted: 2004-May-14 15:05
IMHO, it would make sense to avoid the name links.xxx. I'm not saying that <G> ignores all links from all pages named links.xxx, however it would make perfect sense to me that a page named links.xxx would be a flag for closer scrutiny.
|
|
scottfla
Joined: Feb 26, 2004
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 2004-May-15 03:21
"however it would make perfect sense to me that a page named links.xxx would be a flag for closer scrutiny."
To me this appears to be consistent. Nothing else however is. There are just too many examples on both sides (links.xxx being passed and not being passed) that there's any other reasonable conclusion. Anybody else been looking at independant examples? What do you think is the second kicker?
But then again... I could be wrong.
|
|
Rezac
Joined: Jan 25, 2004
# Posts: 817
|
Posted: 2004-May-15 04:55
Nah,
If google penalized for obl on pages named links.htm, then they would penalize you for ANY obl.
I can think of several sites in my industry that are considered sites of authority and they have 100x obl and still non-directory, just regular static pages with text and banner links.
You don't see those pages in the SERPS too much so there's question to the best way to go about linking.
Above anything else, the bottom line is to get on page one for those top search terms.
|
|
Luca Brasi
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
# Posts: 127
|
Posted: 2004-May-17 23:19
I think that disregarding (not passing PR to) links on links.html pages may give Google better quality SERPs. So why shouldn't they?
We have to stop using the word "penalize" when rather we mean "ignore" or "overlook" or "disregard".
|
|
Inbox
