Why a 100 link limit per page?

[fulleffect]

Why does Google recommend only 100 links per page? What is the theory behind this? Is it for PageRank purposes?

So if i have 150 links, do i need to prioritise them and the bottom 50 make them rel=nofollow?

Or is it best to add rel=nofollow to things like

• Contact Us
• Search Page
• Create an Account
• Links to XHTML validator, etc

Therefore im left with links to category and product pages. Any real world examples would be great!

[wige]

The 100 links per page was an old recommendation, that I believe was removed from the guidelines a long time ago. As I recall, when that was written, they were assuming a correlation between links and page size. Google was only able to index approximately 100k, which was equated with a page containing about 100 links. Anything after the 100k mark would be ignored.

Today, Google will index up to the first 512kb of a page, and will index over 1Mb of text if the page is considered important enough.

[Canonical]

Originally Posted by wige

The 100 links per page was an old recommendation, that I believe was removed from the guidelines a long time ago. As I recall, when that was written, they were assuming a correlation between links and page size. Google was only able to index approximately 100k, which was equated with a page containing about 100 links. Anything after the 100k mark would be ignored.

Today, Google will index up to the first 512kb of a page, and will index over 1Mb of text if the page is considered important enough.

Exactly... Old, outdated guidelines...

HOWEVER, the 100 links per page is actually still a good rule of thumb IMO. I shoot for even fewer if possible, like 50ish...

The more links on the page, the less link juice that gets passed out to the pages being linked to.

[imvain2]

Although OLD, I agree with Canocial, that I still use it as a good rule to follow.

WHY?--IMO

1: Less chances of being considered a link farm
2: A well designed/organized page really doesn't need that many links
3: It's always good to have a hard number to go by.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wige

Today, Google will index up to the first 512kb of a page, and will index over 1Mb of text if the page is considered important enough.

Total file size; or, "content" only?

And, is this "official?"

[wige]

Everything I posted I got from Google in response to a question about why the mention of 100 links was removed from the basic guidelines. (Where did you find a reference to the limit by the way? Did they put it back on the webmaster help site?)

And that is supposedly the total file size, not including media or external files such as scripts.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wige

(Where did you find a reference to the limit by the way? Did they put it back on the webmaster help site?)

As I made no mention of finding any "reference to the limit," perhaps you were referring to another post?

Originally Posted by wige

And that is supposedly the total file size, not including media or external files such as scripts.

Good reason for keeping the amount of white space to a minimum; and, where applicable, for using CSS rather than Tables.

[hairtrader]

We see top 3 rankings on google from competitors with over 250 internal links from front page. Does anyone have proof of a test to show seo results before and after of over 100 links?

[thefandango]

How can anyone say it is an "old recommendation" - what are you basing this on other than spreading utterly false information. What makes it even more worrying is that a moderator on a SEO FORUM is the one spreading unresearched opinion.

Rather than spreading rubbish to make SEO even more difficult for people why not just spend 30 seconds reading googles current webmaster guidelines:

Webmaster guidelines - Webmasters/Site owners Help

"Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100)."

Pretty clear isn't it, and in March this year Matt Cutts also reitterated it as something to bear in mind in his blog. Sorry but I find the fact that a mod on a forum about SEO is getting the basics so totally wrong extremely concerning.

[Canonical]

Originally Posted by thefandango

How can anyone say it is an "old recommendation" - what are you basing this on other than spreading utterly false information. What makes it even more worrying is that a moderator on a SEO FORUM is the one spreading unresearched opinion.

Rather than spreading rubbish to make SEO even more difficult for people why not just spend 30 seconds reading googles current webmaster guidelines:

Webmaster guidelines - Webmasters/Site owners Help

"Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100)."

Pretty clear isn't it, and in March this year Matt Cutts also reitterated it as something to bear in mind in his blog. Sorry but I find the fact that a mod on a forum about SEO is getting the basics so totally wrong extremely concerning.

Hmmm I'm not sure why you're getting all bent out of shape. Everything Wige said was basically true except "I believe was removed from the guidelines a long time ago" which he did not state as fact... I'm not sure anyone knows how big a page can actually be before Google stops indexing the content these days...

But the whole 100 links limit was based on an old 100k per page indexing limit as Matt Cutts himself explained in the blog post you eluded to:

The original reason we provided that recommendation is that Google used to index only about 100 kilobytes of a page. When we thought about how many links a page might reasonably have and still be under 100K, it seemed about right to recommend 100 links or so. If a page started to have more than that many links, there was a chance that the page would be so long that Google would truncate the page and wouldn’t index the entire page.

Will Google index pages larger than 100k now? absolutely.... Will Google index and follow all links on a page with more than 100 outbound links? yes... unless other signals indicate that maybe they should not... It's not a cut-and-dry limit... That's why they call it a guideline... a rule of thumb... not a hardfast rule. Even Matt says so:

But in some cases, it might make sense to have more than a hundred links. Does Google automatically consider a page spam if your page has over 100 links? No, not at all. The “100 links” recommendation is in the “Design and content” guidelines section, and it’s the Quality guidelines that contain the things that we consider webspam (stuff like hidden text, doorway pages, installing malware, etc.). Can pages with over 100 links be spammy? Sure, especially if those links are hidden or keyword-stuffed. But pages with lots of links are not automatically considered spammy by Google.

Nowhere in Wige's post did he say to put 500 links on a single page. He was simply giving the history or where the "guideline" originated (it's an old one based on old limitations at Google) and pointing out that they now index more than the first 100k of the page.

The main thing to take away from all of this is that the more links you have on a page, the less power each link has... the less link juice will be passed out on the outbound links. All major search engines have something similar to page rank (though I doubt any of their PR equivalent factors are as sophisticated and complex as Google's link popularity calculations) and it's likely that the # of outbound links are used in most of those calculations to figure out how much "juice" is being passed to the target pages.

So in general it can have negative affects to put too many links on a page even if they are all followed and the target pages all indexed. It's just a bad idea IMO from an information architecture point of view to have 500 links on every page because it makes it hard for the search engines to understand the structure of your site... and which pages are more important than others.

That's why I pointed out that while the 100 link limit is an old guideline based on old limitations at Google, it is still a good rule of thumb.

[thefandango]

The words used by wige were:

"The 100 links per page was an old recommendation".

Canonical you then said:

"Exactly... Old, outdated guidelines... "

Quite simply it is not old, it is current, so was therefore 100% factually incorrect on both of your parts.

[Canonical]

I also said it's still a good rule of thumb... i.e. it's still a good idea even though the 100 link limit / 100k page size limit are really no longer limitations at Google. It's a guideline that was based on old limitations at Google.

Forgive me for mispeaking... Guess I should have said, "Old guideline based on outdated limitations at Google."

[inertia]

Originally Posted by thefandango

Quite simply it is not old, it is current, so was therefore 100% factually incorrect on both of your parts.

Did someone use the last of the milk before you got up this morning?

So what if it still says it in the Google guidelines. Aren't people entitled to their opinions, even if they differ from what Google says in the guidelines? It's not as if Google are on the ball with keeping everything up to date. Hell, we only got suggestive search on G.co.uk... last week!

Personally, I dont usually worry about the 100 links thing. If it's justified then so be it... But i am firmly of the belief that the overall trust and reputation of your site affects crawl depth.

[Doc]

The Google guideline referring to a limit of 100 OBLs on a page was in fact, removed, at least for a while... I recall reading about it. Perhaps they reconsidered and decided to replace it.

Attacking the credibility of the moderators on ANY forum is generally not a good practice, thefandango, particularly when the basis for your attack is you being less aware of changes than that moderator.

[wige]

Originally Posted by Canonical

But the whole 100 links limit was based on an old 100k per page indexing limit as Matt Cutts himself explained in the blog post you eluded to:

Thanks, I've been looking for that post for a while now.

Originally Posted by thefandango

The words used by wige were:
"The 100 links per page was an old recommendation".

As far as I know, that limitation has been there since the webmaster guidelines were first posted. To me, that makes it old. When the guidelines were rewritten (2008, I believe?) the line about the number of links was removed. Apparently it has been put back (last revision 8/09).

The original poster, I believe, was asking for perspective on the guideline: the effect on PR, if any; the limitations on crawling; the reason for that specific number being used. That is what I tried to address in my reply, and although I did not realize the guideline was back, I stand by everything I said.

This guideline is not a bad thing - limiting the number of links helps streamline your distribution of Page Rank, and improves your user experience. However, this is not in any way a strict limit. If for some reason you need 110, 150, or even 200 links on a page, those links won't get you a penalty, according to the posting by Matt Cutts.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by inertia

Did someone use the last of the milk before you got up this morning?

Sorry; that was me. I spilled it.

PS - If the kitchen floor seems a bit sticky at spots, that's because the cat wasn't able to lap it all up before it dried.