What happens if your number of links on a page exceedes 100?

[slainthe]

Om my site, http://www.whisky-distilleries.info, I removed the frames some weeks ago.
As my visitors really like to be able to surf from one distillery to another one without needing to reload another page, I have added direct links to all of them. There are about 110 by now. This links are nested in a DHTML menu. On the other hand, I have another DHTML navigation bar... which also appears on each page.
Of course, I use Serer Side Includes in order to reduce the maintenance on my site.
I read on the Google guidelines that I should not exceed 100 links per page.
My site is updated very regularly, and Google visits my home page each second day. A complete indexing happens on a weekly basis.
My pages are well found, on the most relevant keywords for me (like "whisky" or the name of a distillery). This is because this data is in the title of the page and in the URL.
But none of the terms used in the text (beyond the table with distillery data which is to find on top of the page) is indexed.
I tried out to browse my pages with Lynx (which Google recommands to check its own behaviour), and I can see all my data, but it is still not indexed.
Can this be the sanction of Google for the use of so many links on the pages?
And if this is the case, does anybody have any suggestion about the best way to amend my pages without having to reintroduce the frames?

Thank you


http://www.whisky-distilleries.info: informational site about Scottish distilleries and their whiskies....

[cbp]

What happens if your number of links on a page exceedes 100?

Nothing.

CBP

[slainthe]

Thank you, cbp

If the problem is not coming from the huge amount of links, do you have any idea why Google seames to index only the beginning of all of my pages (except the home page, but this one just contains about 20 internal links)...

[cbp]

Your home page is 183k - Google usally only indexes the first 101K ...

CBP

[slainthe]

Thank you. This looks like it...
Indeed, when I search on "site:wwww.whisky-distilleries.info", Google tells me my pages are 101k. And probably that the size of the pages is caused by my DHTML menus.
So I will have to reduce the size of them.
Thanks again.

[rlrouse]

CPB is correct but there are a couple of things to consider:

1 - A hundred or more links on every page will dilute the PR that is passed to the others pages. You'll probably end up with higher ranking pages overall if you divide your links into a few categories and create a mini-sitemap for each category, then link to the mini-sitemaps from each page.

2 - Having a hundred or more links on a page makes navigation a nightmare for your visitors. I would think that many wouldn't bother sifting through a long list of links to find what they're looking for, so I would again recommend splitting up the links.

[minstrel]

To exoand on what rlrouse just posted, 101k might be the limit for spidering and 100 links Google's recommended limit for links, but do remember you are not designing for Google -- you're designing for your visitors. And the practical limits for many of your visitors are going to be substantially below those Google limits.

A 101k page, even if Google spiders the whole thing, is going to be a slug to load -- and remember that load speed is relative so that even those with high speed/broadband access aren't going to wait for your page to load when they can back-click and grab the next fast page in the SE listings. Similarly, even 100 links is way too many for most visitors -- even if what you're offering is valuable to them, 100 links looks like a spam site or link farm -- it certainly doesn't suggest a selected list of resources so why wouldn't I just skip your slow loading page and get 100 links from Google?

[slainthe]

You are completely right when you say there is no need to develop for Google, but for the visitors.
The dilemma is in fact that my regular visitors ask me to let a direct link to each page dedicated to a distillery, without having to go through another page. They consider this as a very nice navigation tool.
The links are meaningful for the site, and my problem is just how I can be sure Google is indexing my pages, and my visitors still can get het menu they like to have...
I'm currently trying a workaround, which consists of putting the relevant text (which is now missed by the spider) before my DHTML menus.
THe result is that the meaningful content of the pages are loading first, then the buttons...., and usin layers in the lay-out, visitors will not notice the data is placed after the heavy DTHML parts of the page.
It seems to work. The idea is that Google can stop spidering when he likes, my important data is within the first 30k of the page.
Does this make sense?

[minstrel]

The idea is that Google can stop spidering when he likes, my important data is within the first 30k of the page. Does this make sense?

Yes, in the sense that I understand what you're trying to do. It also makes sense to follow the feedback from your visitors rather than anyone here...

But I must say I that I just now went to the site to see if I could suggest a better way to both satisfy your regular visitors and be more friendly to both NEW visitors and search engines. I'm on dial-up here (so far my only option where I live) -- I got the home page eventually to load and clicked on one of the navigation buttons and then frankly gave up -- that site is simply WAY TOO SLOW. You may well keep your regulars happy but if you are hoping to attract new visitors and new business I would again strongly suggest that you trim those pages way down.

Jusy my opinion, of course -- feel free to ignore.

[slainthe]

Thank you Minstrel for having had a look on my site. I'm very grateful for this.
I perfectly realise that features which are made for human eye (like the DHTML menus) are not always very nice for machines, and that a slow site is not really attractive for people who are coming per chance on a site.
The balance between great features and slow loading is always very difficult. This remains a dilemma.
On the other hand, a few years ago, nobody used ADSL for instance. It is true that not everybody uses it now, but this is also a element in the decision.
There is another consideration which is important as well I guess, and this is the choice of the browser.
I have abandonned Microsoft Explorer some weeks ago, just because of performance problems.
I have tested the changes I made yesterday night on my site (loading the DHTML menus after the meaningful data), and Microsoft Explorer just waits till everything is downloaded before beginning to display the page. So it seems very long. In fact, it is very long.
Using Firefox, I see clearly first my data appearing, then my left menu, and later my right menu. I can begin reading the page, scrolling before the right menu is displayed.
I also perfectly realise most of the people use Microsoft browsers but according to my own statistics, there were 93% of them in March, and in August there are 87%.
I use XP on my PC, and installed SP2 (nearly obliged by MS, as the automatic download happens currently without asking me if I do want this...), and there are new features in Explorer which are really irritating. For instance their "pop-up filter". Other browsers use it since a while, but none of them is so irritating. I do not need a gingle and a yellow bar in my screen when I'm just debugging a local html file... Mr Gates thinks this is what I need...

I'm just wandering how long Microsoft Explorer will be the market leader on browsers. It is one of the slowest ones. Many people use it because of possibilites it offers through directX for instance, but we need to be carefull as they begin to realise the security gaps in this technology, and the daily patches everybody gets around the world sometimes empeach a Microsoft based web application to run.
Is this what we want?

http://www.whisky-distilleries.info

[sandis.viksna]

if you use DHTML menus, there is option to have that all menu stuff saved in diferent JS file. And that's it. Your page will look small and without links ;P

But okey, just a guess.

[slainthe]

This is great news...
I'm generating the menus from Fireworks, and I'm not aware of this possibility.
Can you tell me more about this, or tell me where I can find more information?
This looks really like a great solution for my problem

Thanks a lot

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by slainthe

The balance between great features and slow loading is always very difficult. This remains a dilemma.

It's only a dilemma for the designer -- the average surfer (this doesn't necessarily apply to certain niche servers, like, for example, gamers) simply doesn't see those "great features" as a priority -- the priority is fast-loading pages that supply the information as quickly as possible. That was one of the factors that made Google so successful. If you don't provide those fast loading pages, there are 10 other sites on that search results page that will get their business.

On the other hand, a few years ago, nobody used ADSL for instance. It is true that not everybody uses it now, but this is also a element in the decision.

It is perfectly valid for you as a site owner to decide that you are not going to worry about that proportion of visitors who are on slower connections or those that are still using 800x600 resolution... as long as you don't fool yourself into believing that is not still a substantial number of potential customers lost to your website.

There is another consideration which is important as well I guess, and this is the choice of the browser. I have abandoned Microsoft Explorer some weeks ago, just because of performance problems.
I have tested the changes I made yesterday night on my site (loading the DHTML menus after the meaningful data), and Microsoft Explorer just waits till everything is downloaded before beginning to display the page. So it seems very long. In fact, it is very long. Using Firefox, I see clearly first my data appearing, then my left menu, and later my right menu. I can begin reading the page, scrolling before the right menu is displayed.

Do you think that makes much difference to most visitors? I do agree it helps a bit, but with Internet Explorer many sites load partially or in stages -- the fact that I am looking at somethbing while waiting for the page to load doesn't convince me to linger at all -- unless what I am able to see very quickly says to me, "wait -- there is something on this site that no other site has to offer you so you'd better go get a coffee and let it load". Put bluntly, I'll wait for Windows update if I have to -- I won't wait for your site to load unless you give me a very compelling reason to wait.

I also perfectly realise most of the people use Microsoft browsers but according to my own statistics, there were 93% of them in March, and in August there are 87%.

I think that drop is out of line with most statistics, though, and may reflect problems MSIE visitors are having with your site rather than a real drop in the number of people using IE. But for the moment let's say they are accurate: are you willing to lose 87% of the potential clients who come to your site?

Bottom line: it's entirely up to you. Get the data -- make an informed decision -- take the benefits and the negative consequences of the decision you make. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't personally make a decision that I felt was likely to alienate, discourage, or annoy approximately 90% of potential visitors to my site.

I use XP on my PC, and installed SP2 (nearly obliged by MS, as the automatic download happens currently without asking me if I do want this...)

That feature is easy to turn off if it annoys you - it's turned off here and has been for quite some time.

there are new features in Explorer which are really irritating. For instance their "pop-up filter". Other browsers use it since a while, but none of them is so irritating. I do not need a gingle and a yellow bar in my screen when I'm just debugging a local html file... Mr Gates thinks this is what I need...

I haven't yet installed SP2 and won't until I have more infromation about its glitches but I am virtually certain those features can be turned off if you don't like them. That's always been Microsoft's policy in the past - they do make some irritating decisions about what the defaults should be but they always give you the option of choosing another way...

I'm just wandering how long Microsoft Explorer will be the market leader on browsers. It is one of the slowest ones. Many people use it because of possibilites it offers through directX for instance, but we need to be careful as they begin to realise the security gaps in this technology, and the daily patches everybody gets around the world sometimes empeach a Microsoft based web application to run. Is this what we want?

We've drifted off topic here I think but since you raise the issue I keep hearing how much faster Mozilla browsers are -- I haven't found that to be true personally. As for how long Microsoft will be the leader... we have been hearing stories for years now about how the latest greatest alternative browser is going to knock MSIE out of first place -- it hasn't happened. But back to your website: even if it does happen in a few years, are you willing to design a site that will annoy that many people for the next X years? And of course you are assuming that people using Firefox and ADSL won't be annoyed by having to load a 101k page -- I think you're wrong about that.

[GSO]

Here is an excellent browser feature reference chart and also a good tutorial on using DHTML and keeping page size low:
http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/99/41/index3a.html