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]

"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]

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.nationalcustomcarassociation.com/html/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]

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.



... 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]

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]

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.


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.



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]

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:


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 (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=10802), and especially the article he references there, would probably be more informative.

[1010tires]

ok well it sounds like everyone is here to dispute this theory. cbp you mention that this has been coming up on almost all marketing forums. Do you really think it would constantly come up without people doing research to see that this theory is true. I personally wouldn't be here arguing this point unless I was extremely confident that I was right. My apologies to Ronnie....I meant customle who was the one who posted my e-mail without asking me. Minstrel I slipped on the wording in my post about page rank...it should've been 'they currently exclude them in determing search rank'.

All of you are still discrediting the links.htm/html theory without any proof. I have 250 links directly on a links.htm or links.html page, not on a subpage. Some of these websites have decent search rankings, so there is no reason that they would all end up at the end of a link:<url> search or not show up at all. The only way to explain this is that google is either A. not counting these links at all or B. ranking them so low that they are fairly worthless. Until I see a <url>/links.htm page show up on a link:<url> search I am firmly believing A.

Look at it from Google's point of view. People discovered the power of link exchanges and started getting top rankings for free. These people were not having to pay google for ads and they were also getting high rankings when their site wasn't necessarily relevant. So in either in a push to make their results more relevant or in a push to get more advertisers, they degraded link exchanges. What easier way to implement this and target link exchanges than to go after links.htm/html. Theoretically they could check the number of external links, but in my opinion that would make their site indexing code quite inefficient considering how many websites are in their index. Each page would have to be crawled through once just to check the link structure. Then it would have to be crawled a second time to credit external links.

Page Rank is old technology and Stanford does have the patent. Do you think page rank is being used when a page with page rank 0 can be at the top of a search result? Google is trying to go public and that is more than just a rumor.

A lot of you seem to arguing over the existence of rumors instead of focusing on this particular one. Sure there are rumors out there and a lot of false information. Perhaps there are some SEO's trying to get extra business by making it difficult for people to get correct information on this topic. A rumor is just a rumor until you do research to back it up.

[janeth]

I will put my two cents in here.

This looks like a great topic but I only have a minute and did not get to read everything.

At this time I do not think Google is doing anything with this.

However about two months ago we decided to stop using with the words link in any of our link pages.

We still have a lot of pr5 link pages but have changed the names and are waiting for the pr to show up on the other link pages and then will remove all those pages.

It is not because I think there doing something now but because they could do something in the future.

[janeth]

Hi fathom,

It is nice to see you around again

Now for the proof go to link:www.BlueGeckoDesign.com

Look around about #18 and there is a link to bluegeckodesign from geeksonsteroids link.htm page


Just my two cents

[fathom]

All of you are still discrediting the links.htm/html theory without any proof.

hmmm... if I had a page called links.html and others called page.html, bell.html and fast.html -- are you saying that google will bias better ranking to "links.html".

From my vantagepoint you research is flawed (at least on this point). ButI also could be mis-reading your comments as well.


I have 250 links directly on a links.htm or links.html page, not on a subpage


Excerpt from Google

Design and Content Guidelines: (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html)

Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.

Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages.

Create a useful, information-rich site and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.

Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.

Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images.
Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.

Check for broken links and correct HTML.
If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a '?' character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them small.

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

Seems Google suggests that 250 links is way too many - and since they have the inside scoop on their own ranking abilities -- I stick with their research.

It would be interesting to note though -- did you check all links off your page and see how they fair, and did you note if any other influences (such as other peoples links) were involved.

I don't wish to argue these points - as I know "I don't have all the answers" - but your suggestions do not inspire me to take a closer look.

[1010tires]

fathom the 250 links on a links.htm/html page are all on separate websites. As for sticking with Google's research...Google isn't going to tell you exactly how to get top positions, nor will they tell you everything that affects your rankings. I only came on this forum to defend my views from all the people who so quickly put them down without research. To be honest, I didn't want to argue this point on a forum, because it doesn't benefit me if everyone knows this. I wanted to keep it within my network of link partners so we can help each other. Believe what you want, but this is what I very strongly believe and it all makes sense to me. Until I see a <url>/links.html page show up on a link:<url> search on google, I will keep believing this. I don't have the time to waste arguing this point, so you all can either accept this fact or stay in the dark and don't believe it.

A lot of you are mixing up what the point here is. Changing your own links page name won't necessarily help your own website, but it will help all your link partners by giving them a link that google recognizes.

[janeth]

Is this not what where talking about or I'm lost?

go to link:www.BlueGeckoDesign.com

Look around about #18 and there is a link to bluegeckodesign from geeksonsteroids link.htm page

[1010tires]

the link is: www.geeksonsteroids.com/mlinks.htm
perhaps they changed it since you last checked.

I'm pretty sure it is only affecting this format:
<url>/links.htm or links.html

Other extensions aren't affected (yet), nor are subdirectories affected....so <url>/somedirectory/links.html is fine.

[rlrouse]

"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."

I have seen no evidence of this at all. If Google did this they would really distort the "democratic" nature of the web.

Not all links pages contain reciprocal links and not all reciprocal links are on links pages.

It would be too easy for Google's algorithm to automatically detect and penalize reciprocal links without considering the page name or file name at all.

To blanket penalize pages based on this criteria would be like doing major surgery with a hatchet instead of a scalpel.

[cbp]

cbp you mention that this has been coming up on almost all marketing forums. Do you really think it would constantly come up without people doing research to see that this theory is true

Yes it has been mentioned on many forums - but usually its one post by one person in a long thread and it gets quickly dismissed as wrong.

There is not one professional SEO recommending what you are.

I have a /links.htm page on one of my sites - Google is counting it and passing on PR (I know this as one site linked on this page is another site of mine and its the only link that this site has --> it has PR and this is the only place it can be getting it from).

I agree with rlouse - there are some many links pages called resources.html etc. It is incredibly unlikely (or absurd?) that Google would target the name of a page for a penalty - they have a much more sophisticated algorithm than that.

What is more likely, and there is a lot of support for this speculation, is that reciprocal links may be devalued (or ignored) in the ranking algorithm (but not ignored when calculating PR).

CBP

[ronniethedodger]

I'm pretty sure it is only affecting this format:
<url>/links.htm or links.html

Other extensions aren't affected (yet), nor are subdirectories affected....so <url>/somedirectory/links.html is fine.

Now I am confused. You say that "I'm pretty sure it is only affecting this format"? Did something change overnight, and I missed something.

Also, it is okay to have links.html as a page name...as long as it is in a sub-directory?

Here are some pages that are not on pages that have the word link or links in the page name. These are your link partners pages with your link on them.

http://www.clicktogamble.com/links/Autos-Transportation_2.html
http://www.askufo.com/cars.html
http://www.number1auto.com/links/wheelsandtires.html
http://www.zcar.com/links/index.php?ParentID=4
http://www.aztrucks.com/links/links-automotive-miscellaneous-products-1.htm
http://hp-car.com/links/index.php?action=displaycat&catid=17
http://www.hondaswap.com/links/index.php?cat=4
http://oldtrucks.org/links/index.php?viewCat=4
http://www.layitlow.com/cgi-bin/links/links.cgi?action=view_cat&category=3
http://www.trustmymechanic.com/links/tiresandwheels.html
http://www.texassynthetics.com/links/tiresandwheels.html
http://www.autoelf.com/category.php?category=47&sort=pick%20desc,title
http://www.oilypages.com/links.asp?page=tyres
http://www.number1auto.com/links/wheelsandtires.html

I can probably list a couple of pages of this stuff, on and on. These link pages are not named link.html.

But they also cannot be found in your link:(url) search at Google for your site. Check the pages out, these are real link pages with your linkback on them. Then check to see if they are listed at Google for the link:(url) search....I bet you will not find one of them.

The reason they do not show in the link:(url) search at Google, is because they are all PR2 pages or lower. But Google does know about them, and they do add up over the long run...and feed you PR.

Never assume that if it does not show up under the link:(url) search, that it does not affect your PR. It does not matter what the name of the page is, a link is a link is a link, and it always affects PR no matter how minutely the change might be. That is how the PR algo works.

I do not buy into your statement that 25% of your link partners is displaying your link on a page named links.html. I did not check every last one of the links that Google is aware of...but you would think that I would run into at least one links.html result every now and then. I didn't....I went as far as looking at 30 different pages of results in random area of the listing from page one to the last page and was hard pressed to come up with 3. That is 3 out of 300. 1% is a more plausible number.

After looking at a lot of your linkbacks, I have to commend you on some of these. They are damn good ones (can I say damn?). There are some very nice links where it appears that you have taken out an Ad for the page. And the one where you are converging with Volco tires. Well done...and my hat is off to you.

So I am asking myself...this guy seems pretty savvy. Why would he make such a blanket statement about 25% of his linkbacks being on a page called "links.html" and then it hit me.....

....you are part of the LinksManager/LinkPartners system. I know that when they send Link Exchange requests that there is that one statement in the e-mail that makes reference to "You can find your link at www.stupidpeoplewhouseLM.com/links.html". Email after email after email....it is the same thing. You can find your link on such&such/links.html.

But the email also says later on...we put you in our "automotive" category. Your link is not on the actual links.html page....it is indeed on another page isn't it? Come on.....fess up! ;0)

I will believe that you have 250+ links or there abouts within the LM system. Looking at some of the results, it does support that claim. But those pages are not all named the same.

I can get into what I exactly think about LinksManager and their "pyramid" scheme of linking. But that is for another topic altogether.

The problem with your links not showing up is because they are on low PRed pages from this system, and not the name of the pages.

This is not my opinion or speculation, it is fact. Fact that I too am listed at Link Partners, and fact that I have been watching those linkbacks, and fact that I know why they do not show up at Google....and the FACT is that it is not because of the page name.

It is FACT that they rotate their listings and your link will be there on Page One on one day and FACT that your link will be on Page 134 the next. It is FACT that if you are not on page one of any given category, then it is FACT that you will not even have a chance to appear in a linkback result.

Any page with a PR four or better, stands a good chance of showing up in the Google results. Admittedly, even some of these LM Exchange sites...such a site that you and I have in common is that Corvette Salesman with the nice looking site. Both you and I are showing a linkback from this guy. I think your are on page links_38.html and I am on links_24.html to boot. ;0)

My suggestion (and this is not an Expert opinion) is that you should steer clear of these LM exchange sites. Being listed in LinkPartners is okay, as long as you pop up that screen that you can exclude requests from....then click on every single one of the categories except for anything related to Auto. I noticed that you have quite a few Casino links and the like....you probably do not know that they were there. These guys will add you to their lists automatically....and even if you reply "No Thanks" they do not delete you from them. This is bad in my opinion.

[1010tires]

Well I was going to end my side of this discussion, but I figured Ronnie's lengthy post deserved a response. First off, when I say 1/4 of my links are on a links.htm or links.html, they are really on those pages. I periodically check return links and keep information including the location of the return in our database. I could spend hours and hours trying to find other similarities between the websites that aren't recognized by Google. The fact of the matter is, none of the links on links.htm or links.html show up. These pages are not all hidden in the websites' navigation. Many of them are one click away from their homepage. I never claimed that it was the word links alone that was being affected. It is only particular filenames so far...links.htm & links.html. I found it rather amusing that you went through the 300 return link search results, only to not find any links.htm/html pages either. The links.htm/html pages are on a wide variety of websites with varying page ranks. One should show up, unless this theory is correct.

As for link manager....I signed up to attract link partners, but all my link verification is done manually. Often I get requests from unrelated websites for link exchanges, but those are all declined.

All of you are going on about how smart Google's algorithm is, claiming that it would be able to check for reciprocal links. These are obviously views of people who do not do programming. Google's index algorithm needs to be as efficient as possible to be able to index so many websites in a reasonable time frame. To check for return links, they'd have to either constantly jump back and forth between websites, or have all the reciprocal links in a database. Imagine the time it would take to check each and every link for a return link.

Anyways I know I have about 250 links out there that Google is not recognizing. Not only are they lowering the total number that Google reports (currently at 770, should be 1000+), but they're also not showing up within the results. So far nobody has given me a reasonable explanation for the missing links. Then there's the fact that about 250 of my links are on a links.htm/html page. I challenge any of you to find a <url>/links.htm page in search results for link:<yoururl>. I just need to see that and this theory would be completely disproven (is that a word?).

Please stop mentioning page rank too. When a page with a page rank of 0 can be at the top of search results, page rank is obviously not being used.

[ronniethedodger]

Your accounting of 250+ links missing from Google is a sound one. I do not dispute that figure. I DO dispute that all of those pages are named links.html.

I checked 30 pages of your 100+ pages of links. This represents 300 pages out of 1000+ total pages that have your link on it. That is very easy to determine, and I believe you when you say that you have 1000+ links.....I have seen this to be true.

Of those 30 pages I scanned pages at random between page one and one-hundred+ in that listing. I only came across 3 named links.html. This suggests to me that you do not have 250+ links of that name.

Based on this sampling you only have approximately 10 linkback pages named links.html, and not 250+. There may be a slight margin of error in this...but not to the tune of 240 pages.

I also provided you with a list of 14 linkback pages in my previous post. I compiled this list from the same results that I did the 30 page scan of for your links.html pages. None of these pages in that list I provided are in your link:(url) check at Google, and none of these pages are named links.html.

This list was very easy to come up with....and if I had continued on with it, I probably could come up with every linkback page that is NOT in your link:(url) check at Google. And I can almost guarantee you that in that 250+ list...there will be approximately 5 pages with the name links.html.


Please stop mentioning page rank too. When a page with a page rank of 0 can be at the top of search results, page rank is obviously not being used.
Show me one result of PR-ZERO that has ever shown up at the top of the search results. I am not asking for 5 or 10 examples....one will do.

These two statements from the same paragraph contradict each other. These are your own words.


First off, when I say 1/4 of my links are on a links.htm or links.html, they are really on those pages.

and

I never claimed that it was the word links alone that was being affected.
First you seem to be saying it is the problem, then in the same breath you seem to be saying it isn't.



As for link manager....I signed up to attract link partners, but all my link verification is done manually. Often I get requests from unrelated websites for link exchanges, but those are all declined.
As well you should. I do the same thing. Nothing wrong with that approach.

I also take it a step further and restrict their users with category restrictions. You can find this in your account control panel at Link Partners. Have you checked into that yet? It cuts down on a lot of the crap.

Also remember that just because you decline the offer, it does not mean they actually delete you from their link pages. If this is not a concern for you, then don't worry about it. I only mention it, because it does concern me.


So far nobody has given me a reasonable explanation for the missing links. Then there's the fact that about 250 of my links are on a links.htm/html page
We did give you a reasonable explanation. I listed some link pages that prove our explanation. And NO - as far as I can tell, you do not have your link posted on 250+ pages named links.html.

[1010tires]

I have a database that shows 250 links on links.htm or links.html pages. Before I e-mailed each and everyone asking them to rename their link page, I verified the link page and that our link was still there. The fact that you cannot find our links on those pages just further assures me that I am right. If you'd like I could send you a list of every one of those urls. Or you could accept that I am telling the truth. That list is now down to 200 as I have convinced some link partners to rename their pages. No I am not wasting my time over 10 links.

I understand that all links do not show up in the results of a link:<url> search. It only lets you view the first 30 pages. I find it rather unlikely that the results that hide contain about 50% pages with links.html. Google just obviously doesn't value these links at all.

You want a result with page rank 0, search for michelin summer tires. We are right on top with a page rank of 0. The second page has a PR of 2, the third has a PR of 4.

You seem to be having a hard time telling the difference between a link with the word link in it and a page titled links.htm or links.html. Those 2 particular filenames are all I am claiming is affected. Don't send me a list of links which simply contain the word link. Google couldn't base this exclusion on a word alone as that would screw over anyone with the word links in their domain name. Their exclusion is nice and easy....just 2 basic filenames which account for a good portion of the links pages on the web.

As for the link manager thing with nonrelevant sites, I doubt that google would lower rankings based on what an outside source does. That would make it too easy to lower competitor's rankings. Instead I believe that these links are of very low value and possibly not used for determing rankings.

I was going to continue this discussion, but it just isn't worth it. I have no reason to come on a forum and make things up.

[cbp]

I understand that all links do not show up in the results of a link:<url> search. It only lets you view the first 30 pages

That is incorrect.

Google only returns, what a Google employee refers to as, a "sample" of backlinks. Nothing to do with the first 30 pages (I just checked yahoo and was able to scroll through 70 pages).

Historically, only those pages that the link was from that met a certain PR threshold (probably a very high 3) would be returned. It always took a couple of the traditional style updates to pick them all up - occasionlly a lower one got in and a higher PR one was missed.

Since the change to the continuous/rolling update months ago, the criteria for the sample has changed - though a PR threshold is still one of them, but there now appears to be others (could also be a random element in there)

CBP

[1010tires]

geez this forum is critical...jumping all over me for minor technicalities. I guess some of you decided I was right about links.html/htm and figured you needed something else to argue with me about. It's pretty funny that cbp is still going on about Page Rank. Give it up...page rank is old technology that Stanford owns the patent for. A couple weeks ago it did only let me go through the first pages and now it let me go through 76, so that correction is just an out of date statement.

[cbp]

...page rank is old technology that Stanford owns the patent for

Yes they do, but its licenced to Google. Do you know the terms of that license or contract? Why do you know that they are going to give it up?

I know about the speculation posted (I think at JimsWorld) about this - but its pure speculation based on no knowledge of the nature of the contract between Stanford and Google (I think the author w=even acknowledged that).

....funny how speculation posted in one place on the internet becomes fact when posted somewhere else.

CBP

[ronniethedodger]

I found 1000+ linkback pages. You can only find 750. The difference is 250. Which 250 am I showing that you are not? I am going on the assumption that this is the 250 that you cannot find. The same 250 that you are claiming to be named links.html.

What I said was in those 1000+ pages I did a 30% sampling. In that 30% I found 3 pages of the criteria that you set up to be found. Simple math of this sampling comes up with possibility of only 10 linkback pages with the name links.html.

I find evidence of only about 10 pages, give or take a few. You keep saying you have 250+.

There is one way to settle this.....

Provide me with a list of just 30 pages with your link on it named links.html as the page name and I will retract everything that I have said. I do not need the full 250, just 30. And you can do that by private email in complete confidence.

And I am with you....I am done. You are not going to hear another word out of me on this matter. I said my piece and I stand by it.

On to other matters.....

My advice on the LinksManager system was sincere. Do not take that the wrong way. I also said in that advice, if you have no concerns over it...then don't worry about it.

I have observed that you do take great care in the building of your link exchanges. So the advice about LinksManager in particular was directed toward that end.

If you feel that having links popping up all over the place on Adult websites, casinos, and other non-relevant websites is not an issue...then that is your perogative....and that is kewl. I just happen to feel the other way about all that.

[minstrel]

Okay, all:

Personally, I think this is an interesting debate and I'd like it to stay open. Again, I think it's unfortunate that one of the posts quoted a private email referring to a specific website and a specific individual and I would ask everyone to keep in mind that this is neither necessary nor fair to the site owner - moreover, as I previously said, ALL of the points made in this thread could just as easily have been made and debated without reference to that specific website or individual.

Those of you who have posted here may find minor changes to your posts - while normally I would send a private message to each person involved explaining what I had deleted or editied and why, I don't have the time to do that tonight and I don't want this thread to escalate out of control. Calling people liars is not conducive to a reasonable discussion - Accusing people of calling you a liar is also not conducive to a reasonable discussion.

As somebody said elsewhere in these forums this morning, an opinion is an opinion - that's all. And simply because you disagree with the conclusions of another person does not make that person a liar.

What I see in this thread are some observations about "missing links" as reported by Google. 1010tires has offered his conclusion about what that means - like many of you here, I think he's incorrect in that conclusion but all that means is that in my opinion he has based his conclusion on evidence that has an alternate and more plausible explanations - period.

[excell]

My 2 cents... if google was discounting pages titled links.html/link.htm etc then wouldn't they also be penalised within the search engine results not just missing in action on the link: lookup?

It's my opinion that Google figures artificial or unimportant links in a different way than what the pages are named.

I don't think Google is penalising pages that are named in a particular way and can see plenty of links.htmls coming up in both link: and serps.

Links are good and are what the web is based on, if anything the thing to watch out for would be the artificial manipulation of links that would show unnatural patterns to the search engines.

I have a thought about reciprocal link requests etc.. and that is that if you are in the business of providing a good resource for your site visitors and you link to a good resource - then why would you remove that good link just because the person doesn't reciprocate or has a page named in a certain way?

It seriously bugs me that so many folks chase links for the purpose of inflating popularity instead of to provide good quality resources for their visitors.

My comments are not directed to individual posters here, just expressing something that really bugs me about the whole links thing :)

[Jurgen]

It seriously bugs me that so many folks chase links for the purpose of inflating popularity instead of to provide good quality resources for their visitors.

Here is my point. Earlier in my "internet dreams" I heared and listened to all this link exchange, and how good it will be for your website to have a LOT of sites linking back to you. I even signed up in one of those LINK FARMS. Fortunately, I got -smarter- (WPW showed me the way). Yes I do have a link managment program to handle all my links. But only 'good' sites will be added after checking them out. I don't mind if they are in competition with my site. If customers like us they will buy, if not, they will go some place else anyways....

Guess I lost a sale in that case, But I sure feel good of not cheating anybody..... :-)

It did run 'link.html' pages and 'resource.html' so far I did not see any difference what ever the file name has been. My opinion.... link.html or xyz.html, Mr. Google don't care... Just make it honest and real...

Jurgen
www.absolutelyfabulousflowers.com

[ronniethedodger]

It seriously bugs me that so many folks chase links for the purpose of inflating popularity instead of to provide good quality resources for their visitors.


Inflating popularity by link exchanges is part of the game. So is paying for advertisement on high traffic sites...another form of inflating link popularity. Paid inclusions too. Buying radio time with your web address in a promo piece, that too inflates popularity.

There are different forms of inflating popularity. And link exchanges are sometimes the cheapest and usually the only viable option for most people.

Chasing links just for the purpose of getting a link of little quality, is not something I subscribe to though. I prefer to go after a quality link, in that the site is not mixed in with some linking scheme as discussed earlier. That site could be a competitor or similar product base, it does not matter.

What I would like to do in lieu of link exchanges, is possibly a page exchange or prime page link exchanges. Mix it in with the content or possibly some articles that pertain to both our sites. This subject is glossed over in another thread around here -- and it appears to be a more interesting approach.

But in the meantime...yep, I will still chase down and add a link or two every week if possible. A lot of the time, they chase me down. Some of the chasers I accept, some of the chasers I shoo away. I am in no hurry....I am a slow and easy-going chaser! ;0)

[Jurgen]

I am in no hurry....I am a slow and easy-going chaser! ;0)

Isn't that a African/South American animal [sloth].... :-)???
Yeap, you are right Ron, no hurry, just quality....

I sure have a lot of requests lately for link exchange.... wonder why????? :-)

Jurgen
www.absolutelyfabulousflowers.com