Links Page Name On Google

[customle]

It was brought to my attention from a link partner of mine that Google has changed how they calculate link popularity. He had this to say:

"Incoming links act as votes for a website and help them rank higher. I would like to continue our link partnership, but Google has decided to target pages titled links.htm or links.html. Any links on such a page don’t count towards a website’s link popularity."

Does anyone know if this is true? If so, how are you changing the structure of your sites to include link partners without messing up the appearance of your site? I hardly think that just changing the page name would work.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

[cbp]

Its just not true - or at least there is no evidence for this.

During almost every update that Google has done in the last 12 monmths, there has almost been at least one post in a number of forums claiming this. Usually this is based on a low PR given to one particular page called links.html or a page called that is dropped from the index ... almost immediatly after that is a post showing that is not the case.

No one appears to be treating this seriously as a possbility from the latest update.

Google would be silly to do that - what about all the link farms that exist that the page is not called links.html (or whatever) - it would be asy to change the name of the page ...

Email them back and ask where they got it from - I am curious.

CBP

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by customle

"Incoming links act as votes for a website and help them rank higher. I would like to continue our link partnership, but Google has decided to target pages titled links.htm or links.html. Any links on such a page don’t count towards a website’s link popularity."

This is not the whole letter, is it? What else did this guy have to say?

I am with cbp in his response above. That particular rumor is pure speculation at best.

I have seen people revamp their entire link directories because of this too by changing the directory names to something like "resources" or "topics".

It makes no difference what they call the directories, because it is obvious to Google or any other crawler what those pages are just by what is on them -- large quantities of outbound links. You cannot hide that fact, period.

Some unscrupolous site owners change the directory name under this guise just to delay or hope for more delay in having them crawled with the outbound links on them. Sometimes they just post a little blurb on these new(?) directories saying "We are adding more topical categories, and your link is here somewhere". yeah, right...it is exactly where it was before...just under a new name.

If that is what this guy is up to on the other end (that is why it would be nice to see the rest of that letter he sent) then my advice is to pull his link and be done with him....you have better things to do with your time. But at least he sent you a letter....most of em dont.

[customle]

Thanks for your reply. This is what my link partner had to say when I questioned his information:

"Google may be planning further changes to degrade the benefits of link exchanges. Currently they do not give link popularity for links on pages named links.htm or links.html I was wary to believe it at first, but after some research I found that this matched fairly well with how many links I was missing when I typed link:http://www.1010tires.com in Google. I also went through the first 30 pages of that search and what do you know, not a single hit with a page named links.htm or links.html. Since about ¼ of my link partners use such a filename, one should’ve shown up in the first 300 results. The only exception I found was a links.htm page in a subdirectory. Feel free to do your own research, but I am completely convinced that this is true and I will do everything in my power to get my link partners to rename their links pages. If the cost is losing a couple link partners, I think it’d be worth it to raise my link popularity by 200-300 links. If Google is going to throw obstacles in the way of people wanting free marketing, all we can do is sidestep the obstacle and warn others."

I did not think that this was true because it would not make sense for Google to target just a page name, since it would be too easy to change, but I did not know for sure.

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by Excerpt From Letter

I was wary to believe it at first, but after some research I found that this matched fairly well with how many links I was missing when I typed link:http://www.1010tires.com in Google. I also went through the first 30 pages of that search and what do you know, not a single hit with a page named links.htm or links.html. Since about ¼ of my link partners use such a filename, one should’ve shown up in the first 300 results.

For one...he states that a quarter of his link partners use the filename "links.htm" or "links.html"...why just those two in such a large proportion. Is he so vain to think that his link is on the main entry page to these other people's link directories???? (assumption is made that link.xxx is the entry point...usually is)

The odds in having one quarter of his link exchanges just happening to be on a page named link.xxx is astronomical. In fact...if you go down through his listing of linkbacks at Google, you would be hardpressed to see any duplication of page names. Everyone has a different way of naming them.

But doing a links check at Google for him, I found entries with the word "link" in the filenames and the directory names. So this guy beleives that that is okay? Here are some examples --

links_other
favorite_links
gal_industrylinks
autolinks
coollinks
auto_links

Also it is okay with him that link.xxx is not a bad thing if it has another extension.... as in link.asp ??? Such is the case on page 6 of his results with such a page listed.

Also -- not all links are reported by Google...not as linkbacks anyway. It does not mean that they are not known to them.

If you do this search at Google +"http://www.1010tires.com" +link+htmyou will find the link pages named links.xxx.

Just tell him that you just checked Google and they are showing linkbacks -- and that you do not know why he would come up with such a hypothesis. Tell him your checking revealed different.

Shoot him back this list and don't tell him how you got it. ;-)

http://www.carmanuals.com/Links.htm
http://www.advancedracing.com/links.php
http://sdtransport.com/links.htm
http://www.directautobodyparts.com/links.cfm
http://motormadness.net/links.htm
http://www.myautobodyparts.com/links.cfm
http://www2.ocn.ne.jp/~chevys10/links.htm
http://www.arrowheadradiator.com/all_links.htm
http://www.tsautoart.com/Links/links.html
http://www.nationalcustomcarassociat...ml/links.shtml
http://www.racetep.com/links.html

Here are a couple in directories named "links". Ask him if this is okay to use "links" in the directory name.

http://www.southwesternautosales.com/links/tires.html
http://www.autowarranties.com/links/tires.html

Also tell him that your backlink checking revealed that he has (or someone in his place) did posting in some forums. They have done some submissions to Guestbooks also. Let him know that although Forums might be okay to have your link visible in, the Guestbooks are definitely not. Let him know that it would be advisable to seek out those Guestbook entries and have the links removed...it is considered spamming if overused.

After reading his letter, it is obvious that he wanted his link moved to another page. His intent was maybe you would create one for him...and probably he would be the only one on it, or have a lesser crowd around him. It also sounded like he was giving you an ultimatum too.

I have had these letters too. They want me to change my pages to accomodate them for some reason or another. I want to keep it clean, so I won't say what I write them back with ;-)

[cbp]

I found that this matched fairly well with how many links I was missing when I typed link:http://www.1010tires.com in Google. I also went through the first 30 pages of that search and what do you know, not a single hit with a page named links.htm or links.html

I do not think this guy knows what he is talking about. Google never show all the links to a site in response to that command. They only show a sample. One of the criteria for a site to be in the sample appears to be a PR of at least a high 3 (there appears to be other criteria as well)... given that I guess most pages that are links.html are buried deeper in any site, they would likely have a PR <4, so they won't show in the sample of backlinks.

CBP

[fathom]

No song and dance from me...

Pure Rubbish!

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by cbp

I do not think this guy knows what he is talking about. Google never show all the links to a site in response to that command. They only show a sample. One of the criteria for a site to be in the sample appears to be a PR of at least a high 3 (there appears to be other criteria as well)

True. I will buy that.

Originally Posted by cbp

... given that I guess most pages that are links.html are buried deeper in any site, they would likely have a PR <4, so they won't show in the sample of backlinks.

Think about what you just said for a moment.

Given that most pages named links.html are usually in fact link pages that tend to be buried deeper into the site as a norm...they would also tend to have a PR lesser than a 4 and not appear in Googles results for backlinks.

Therefore...pages named links.html do not normally appear in the results for site backlinks at Google.

Did you just make an argument for the Defense? Or did I misinterpret what you said?

One should re-interpret that interpretation by saying, given that most link pages are buried within a site (thereby giving them sub-4 PR's) should not show up in a linkback check at Google at all. Which is probably true to some point anyway.

Rule of thumb...your link should not be more than two clicks away from the home page -- three clicks is unacceptable -- and the name of the page has no bearing.

[cbp]

Think about what you just said for a moment.

You are right - I am probably being a bit hasty in making an assmption that most links pages are <PR4 - I was trying to make a point about the email from the chap above as to why so many of his links pages may not have shown up - it could have been that they are <PR4 and nothing to do with the name of the page (ie /links.htm)

CBP

[customle]

Thanks for the info. That is kind of what I thought, but I needed the assurance.

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by customle

Thanks for the info. That is kind of what I thought, but I needed the assurance.

Rest assured -- you are okay.

I want to add that a part of his letter left a bad taste in my mouth :

• but I am completely convinced that this is true and I will do everything in my power to get my link partners to rename their links pages. If the cost is losing a couple link partners, I think it’d be worth it to raise my link popularity by 200-300 links. If Google is going to throw obstacles in the way of people wanting free marketing, all we can do is sidestep the obstacle and warn others."

His "Chicken Little theory" of the Google sky is falling as you know is unwarranted -- but his scare tactics and threatening to pull your link (if I interpret it correctly) rubs me the wrong way. He is implying that the link exchange will be lost if you do not change the names of your pages...that irks me no end.

[fathom]

ronniethedodger your logic is quite sound here.

I professionally have been going this for a very long time, and every few months I get clients calling because a drastic change has occurred.

They sit and watch - link popularity, PageRank, ranked results (on but a few words or phrases) and think that this is what SEO (optimization) is about... it's not.

SEO is about change -- and you can't decision-make based only on todays results on but a few characteristics while comparing this to only a few characteristics from "last month".

The worst thing you can do in any business (on and off-line) is make drastic changes without analysing all variables, weighing all the risks, and planning for changes in each... which is going to occur -- regardless of whether you want it to or not.

[1010tires]

well I'm here to defend my view as I was getting bad mouthed behind my back. I thought it was rather rude that ronnie posted an e-mail which I sent to him with the confidence that it would be between him and I.

I am surprised at how many closed minded people there are on this forum giving advice based purely on personal opinion. You were all so quick to put down the links.html & links.htm theory. Well did any of you do research to back up your view? Links.html & links.htm pages are indexed by google, but they currently exclude them in determing page rank. When 1/4 of my links are on such a page, why wouldn't one of them show up in the first 300 results? And don't even dare mention page rank....that is technology that google scrapped since they didn't have the patent. How can you go public when your major technology is owned by someone else. They have added a line in their new algorithm that basically states that if the reciprocal page is <url>/links.html or links.htm then the links are ignored. What easier way to degrade the benefits of link exchanges and instead only use quality links to vote for websites.

Since I have over 1000 link partners, explain to me why only 770 would be found by google? Are you trying to say that the fact that 250 link partners use links.htm or links.html and I am missing about 250 return links is just a coincidence. It explains it all perfectly and my research backs this up.

As for ron's little "<ur>" +link+htm search, that only finds text on a page. It doesn't determine if a link is used in determining link popularity.

If someone is going to dispute this, please back it up with some proof, not speculation.

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by 1010tires

well I'm here to defend my view as I was getting bad mouthed behind my back. I thought it was rather rude that ronnie posted an e-mail which I sent to him with the confidence that it would be between him and I.

For the record:
I do not know this guy.
I did not receive any email from this guy.
I do not know why he is making the accusation that I betrayed his confidence.
I did not not publish the contents of that email. Someone else did.

I only read the email as it was published, and reiterated certain portions of it.

Originally Posted by 1010tires

I am surprised at how many closed minded people there are on this forum giving advice based purely on personal opinion....blah, blah.

That is what forums are for...the discussion of one's opinions.

I for one, do not take anyone's opinion as the Bible either.
Just like I do not watch CNN and believe everything that they tell me.
(Sorry, have to get one CNN bash statement in at least once a week ;)

Also, these discussions took place in a public forum...and not behind your back.
Further -- a lot of the discussion did not deal with pure opinions or speculations.
A lot dealt with known factors that do exist.

Originally Posted by 1010tires

As for ron's little "<ur>" +link+htm search, that only finds text on a page. It doesn't determine if a link is used in determining link popularity.

If someone is going to dispute this, please back it up with some proof, not speculation.

I disputed it....I layed it out as I saw it, and with facts and figures to support it.
If you wish to read what I have to say, then it is a couple posts above this one.
Other members offered other information in support of this hypothesis.
A lot to the discussion dealt with factors known to be true.

It is only my opinion though. If you have anything to invalidate any parts of my opinion,
then I invite you to offer them to us right now. This is a two-way discussion and I welcome
your views on the matter.

[cbp]

1010tires

If someone is going to dispute this, please back it up with some proof, not speculation.

And you have proof?

This topic has come up an almost every webmarketing & SEO forum at some point in the last 12 months. No one is taking it seriously except you

CBP

[cbp]

1010tires

that is technology that google scrapped since they didn't have the patent.

Absolute rubbish. Its still a key component of their ranking algorithm.

Where are you getting this stuff from? I have seen this issue re the patent being offered as a theory, but no one ie really taking that speculation seriously.

It is funny, how an idea/theory gets posted in one place on the internet and it turns up as a fact somewhere else .. (seem to remember saying that a lot recently).

CBP

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by cbp

It is funny, how an idea/theory gets posted in one place on the internet and it turns up as a fact somewhere else .. (seem to remember saying that a lot recently).

Yea, you do! ;0)

It is true though. Have you seen the movie Gossip?

Basicly...some kids start a rumor. They just tell
one person -- then sit back and observe how the
rumor gets gossiped about. The rumor, by the time
it gets back to them, is totally and wildly different
than the rumor that they originally started.

The movie tracks the process of the rumor. Little bits
of the story gets skewed, then blown out of proportion.
Eventually the rumor becomes fact somewhere along the line
because someone says that they actually saw part of it
going down (the eye-witness to something that never happened)

Same thing here...no different.

Rent the movie -- I give it two thumbs up.

[minstrel]

To be fair, since this was the first post for 1010tires, the discussion actually was in a sense "behind his back" until he got here. In retrospect, I think I'd also agree that it would have been better if the email quoted had been made anonymous - the points would have been as legitimate without pointing to the author by name, especially since he wasn't a member at the time.

Still, now that you have posted, 1010tires, this part confused me:

Originally Posted by 1010tires

Links.html & links.htm pages are indexed by google, but they currently exclude them in determing page rank.... And don't even dare mention page rank....that is technology that google scrapped since they didn't have the patent.

If PageRank doesn't matter because it's "scrapped" technology, then why does it matter if they used to exclude links/htm* pages from PageRank?

Since I have over 1000 link partners, explain to me why only 770 would be found by google? Are you trying to say that the fact that 250 link partners use links.htm or links.html and I am missing about 250 return links is just a coincidence?

Possibly it is - Google rarely reports ALL of the links pointing to a site. Actually, 75% seems pretty good to me. Do you have any way of knowing that the 250 "missing" pages are the links.htm* pages? solely? all of them?

Rather than watching Ron's movie, I think reading another thread started by cbp here, and especially the article he references there, would probably be more informative.