somebody on this forum recently posted that sites named "links.html" did not pass pagerank after the last update (the one before the BL update perhaps). can anybody verify this please?
This seems to be inaccurate! There are a number of rumors regarding links and resource pages. I have as yet never seen research results confirm that these do not pass PR. Note: there are a number of websites that will not trade links to links pages. This may be reason enough to change the name of the files. IMHO.
Good question, but how could we tell short of making a SEO test for indications? For the first time my links page is not showing up in any of my clients selection of pages Google is showing as a backlinks. However is this enough to conclude it is not passing page rank? I think not. One way around this possibility would probably be to put some meat on the bones of those links which would totally ruin useability of pages for anything other than spam. Search Engine Optimization in many instances is in direct opposition to producing attractive user friendly webs. I for one do not believe changing the names of a links page makes any difference. Google well knows the term "resources" etc is just another word for links. Shannon
Why would Google waste their time with such "dumb" algo patches? 1. it won't improve the SERPs 2. even if it does, sooner or later all such pages will be renamed, so this is a stupid solution 3. every search engine puts effort into algo improvements that don't have easy workarounds The perfect search engine ranking algorithm should be able to rank the results very well, even if everyone knew its ranking details. Example: Everyone can learn the PageRank specifics, but apart from buying PageRank, there's no other easy way to get it. That's a great solution. Patching complex software with lame specific cases such as "links.html" does not work in the long run, and no search engine engineer is ever going to think about such "solutions". There was an interview with a major person at Google, who said that every algorithmic change requires about 6 months of developing, thorough testing, debugging etc. before going live. What's the point of wasting resources on alog patches that are guaranteed to fail in the long run? Enough said.
I have seen some BL coming from .links.html pages in my back links as well as mine showing up on others... so that can't be.
It did seem to be the case about 2 or 3 months ago, but only during one back link update, it's back to "normal" now though.
There is a test, Do search engines penalize pages named links.shtml?, running right now. Reliable results are not expected until the next PR/Backlink update.
Great. I will be interested in hearing/reading your report. My links pages all showed up until this backlink change. 20 of the pages I follow dropped drastically in number of shown backlinks but if you use the @www.domain.com command they seem to be present. One page picked up one more link that previous showing and my e-commerce site jumped from 22 to 123 reported links. The 123 links had been in place forever. Wish I could discern why that site is showing nearly all its links and others so few. Shannon
<<<< somebody on this forum recently posted that sites named "links.html" did not pass pagerank after the last update <<<< All kinds of dumb comments are posted on forums - does not seem to be in G's interest to do so as alot of genuine votes/one way links come from websites (often without even a reciprocal linking programme) with a links.htm page!
here i will repost this For all your people who think the problem of "links" pages in nonsense I can tell you that you are wrong in my experience I created a link directory in which the main page was "links.php" linking from "links.php" where the categories depending on the site I then installed the link directories on 26 sites NOT one site , 26 different websites A awhile went by and all the sites shortly after had pr 5-4 But I noticed that non of the links pages had pr actually not all but about 22-23 sites I did site searches on the sites and non of the pages BENEATH the "links.php" page where in the index on like 22 sites The pattern that the sites had in common was that they had the "links.php" and also the only link to that links page had "links" in the anchor text the sites that used the same directory but used different anchortext to point at the main links page got spidered in and got pr. So then I decided on most of the effected sites to link the linkspages right from the homepage but I left some alone Shortly after the sites that had the direct links had their links pages in the index , next pr update they had pr the ones I left alone never got indexed So then I changed them all Now to clarify the actually text on the "links.php" got spidered in, it was the pages that where linked from it and only it that didn't spidered At the time it was very difficult to find "links"* backlinks that is no longer the case