|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
niz85
Joined:
28 Aug 2003
Posts:
107
Location:
India
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:55 am
Post subject: Links from pages that have "links" in the filename
|
 |
|
I have just heard from somewhere that Google no longer counts links from files that have "links" in the filename.
Anyone has any information about it?
Thanks
Niz |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:27 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have heard that on forums, but nothing reliable I would place any value on.
I don't care for the word "links" so I don't use it personally, but that's just me.
I know Google doesn't like link farms and FFA pages, but I've seen no evidence that it discounts links on pages that have "links" in the url at all.
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall Kennedy
Joined:
10 Sep 2003
Posts:
76
Location:
Glasgow, UK
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:41 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm in the middle of a linking campaign and have noticed that back links to a competitor's site are listed on All The Web but are not listed on Google as back links (and these sites have toolbar PR of >4).
Not a scientific investigation but all examples of this were from links from pages called "links.htm". Maybe a dozen or so sites.
This could be another example of Google's inconsistency of showing back links or updating toolbar PR. Or just coincidence. Or some other reason...
Either way, maybe its not worth the gamble if links showing up in Google is the main reason for your linking. Give the page another name and take the chance of getting your keyword used one more time...
Niall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petertdavis
Joined:
10 Oct 2003
Posts:
91
Location:
New England
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
Niall Kennedy
Joined:
10 Sep 2003
Posts:
76
Location:
Glasgow, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:21 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Niall
WW is a very useful site but I always find that it's a terrible place to find accurate information due to the fact that no-one can post URLs (usually). Therefore, people can post anything and you can't actually check it.
Having said that, it's very useful if you already have a theory and need it "confirmed or denied".
In regards to the links.html issue, it's been happening for a few months. I first noticed it well before "Florida". However, what I also noticed was that I couldn't find a page that definitely didn't have PR passed to it from a links.html page. In almost all cases, they don't show as backlinks but they still seem to help the pages that they link to.
We know that Google doesn't list all links as backlinks - it's PR based. But we also know that links that don't show up as backlinks still help a site. Seems to be the same deal with links pages.
Now, the reason for Google limiting backlinks is possibly just to show quality sites as backlinks. The backlinks function is for searchers, not for webmasters. By limiting results according to their PR, Google is ensuring that the backlinks shown will, in the majority of cases, be good pages.
They may have decided that a links page isn't worth serving up to a searcher so they've filtered them from the backlinks list.
Anyway, that's my theory - and there is a good chance I'm wrong. 
The way to test it is to find a page that has had a link from a PR4 or above page called links.html for more than a couple of months and see if it's PR obviously doesn't include the link.
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tmendham
Joined:
30 Aug 2003
Posts:
31
Location:
Edinburgh
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:27 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I've heard this and simply don't believe it.
Apart from anything else, it's too easy to get round. Just change the name. So spammers who know about these things would get round the filter whilst innocent users who've never heard of PageRank would get trashed. It would be a very dumb move by Google.
My guess is simply that a "links" page by definition contains lots of links. Therefore the PR value of a link from such a page is bound to be relatively low.
As Google tweaks the weight given to PR in its algo, the value of such a link could reduce to negligible without any need for an explicit filter.
Basically, a link from any page containing 200 other links is worth very little unless that page itself is very important (eg DMOZ).
_________________
Wyrdology - For all things strange |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
