I recently started tagging my blog posts for technorati, but soon realized that the place was looking a bit cluttered when all the tags were displayed. Also, one of Google's webmaster quality guidelines is not to display more than 100 links on any one page. So I decided to hide the tag links like this: <span style="display:none;"> technorati tag link 1, technorati tag link 2, . . </span> If I display the tags, I break the "no more than 100 links" rule If I hide them, I break the "no hidden links" rule. How serious is it if I hid them?
There is no 100 links rule. If you dont want to credit those links dont hide them. Use <a rel="nofollow" href="URL">LINK</a>
That is true, but I think you mean in-bound links. That would be "Too many in-bound links too fast is bad".
Extracted from Google's content and design guidelines: "Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100)." I think this is recommended to keep pages tidy and more usable. I personally don't like pages that give me too many outbound links, it's like being given too many options. So, I am trying not to do that to my readers...
As far as the hidden links... Don't do it. They look for them manually, ie., actual human beings look for them, and they will ban you. My advice is, just do not do it. Unless you want your site/s banned.
What concern is that to Google? What about the pixel sites that have thousands of links on one page? If I want thousand links on a page then that should be no concern to Google at all! Who are they to tell me how to create a web site? Is it that Googles spiders can't handle more than 100 links from a page? Why doesn't Google start selling web templates that is just right for Google? Maybe we can buy a template, host it with Google and then just have a script that we can use to fill in the pages? If Google doesn't like what we have written then they can tell us that before we can save what we want to add to the page! Maybe we can just tell them what we want to write about and they can fill it in in the right format and all....... To me it sounds like Big Brother, not Big Daddy, or are they the same? Maybe Big Brother has matured and become a father?
You may either wanty to preface that 1000 links a day is not too fast or change your advice. Google "Article Distributor" or look for various threads in the DP forums to learn more about it. As for hidden links: Don't do it. Don't hide any text, unless you have a plan to make it visible to users. Even if you hide the links with CCS, googlebot will see them and credit them, so the rel=nofollow tag is useless. The way I understand it, you want A) A nice neat page that isn't cluttered with tags 2) To try and follow google's suggestion to keep the number of links on your page under 100. To solve A, put all the tags in a <div style="display: none;"> tag, and look for JS code that will toggle the visbility of the div when they click an element informing users they're there. for example function toggle(obj){ var elem = document.getElementById(obj); elem.style.display = (e.style.display == 'none') ? 'block' : 'none'; } [...later in the code...] <p onclick="toggle('div1')>Click here to see the tags <div style="display: none;" id="div1">tag tag tag tag tag tag tag</div> </p> Code (markup): To solve B is a little easier. Ignore their suggestion and make a sitemap. The spider used to have problems with large pages. If it still does, o well. If you make a sitemap, you're a lot less reliant on Googlebot to find all your links.
Googlebot. If you organize your links in a nice logical manner, you could have thousands of links on a page and still be friendly for visitors. Take this very page for example. BEfore I made this post, there were 335 links on this page. Does that make it impossible to navigate? No, because it has a very logical structure. If this page were 20 posts longer, would it be any less easy to navigate? Again, no. A site map for visitors wouldn't hurt, but if you have a nice logical layout, the number of links on a page shouldn't make the site tough to navigate.
Let me preface it with this: Too many links too fast = bad. IMO. Especially unrelated links, or links that are already blacklisted, ie., from "bad neighborhoods" (now there's something to Google.) Want to get penalized. Go ahead and do it. YMMV.
Really? Great! What's your URL. I'll have all my buddies link to it ASAP so you get sunk in the search engines. I'll also list your link on a bunch of banned FFA pages so that you are further penalized. Then you can get banned too. Sound like a plan? Google states that other websites can't hurt your site; it is only the actions on your pages that can hurt you. Let's assume they're lying for a minute. If getting too many links too fast can hurt you, then I can sink my competitor's sites by running a massive link campaign for him that get's him thousands of unrelated links. If having a black listed site linking to yours really had any effect on your serps, why aren't unscrupulous bastards using their blacklisted sites to sink their legitimate competitors? This is not to say link to a blacklisted site is ok, just that getting linked to by a blacklisted site has no effect on you. A link is like a vote. When I link to you, I am in essence voting for you. It is not a case of you voting for you. Now I realize that was just your opinion, but the people who come along and read this thread later may prefer something more than hear-say, speculation, and rumor. You just have to think about it logically for a bit.
PR and serps are not the same. anyone can pop a pr5 with easy to follow directions but it takes linking to make search engine placement a reality. I know i have multiple pr3 pages that are #1 and #2 on all my target keywords. Pr really means nothing. its just a design guide.
Which is why your opinion is not one of fact. Nor is mine. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Like my opinion, it is an "opinion", a differing opinion, but an opinion none the less. That said, logical people tend to look at every side of a issue and make an educated decision on their own, taking into account opinions on both sides of the isle. Of course opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one!
Exactly! What does it take for an opinion to be fact? If a=b and b=c, can we say that a=c is fact? Yes, it is fundamental logic and deduction. If Google says "There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index" (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34449&ctx=sibling), and someone comes along and says "I'm going to sink your site by linking to it", can we deduce that the person is wrong? Well, unfortunately not. The loophole here is that niggling little bit that says "almost nothing" meaning there may or may not be something. Perhaps Google is not aware of anything at this time that a competitor could do to harm your site, but prefers not to use definatives so they can cover their butt later when someone does point out a way. Perhaps they mean that a competitor can harm your site by hacking into it and defacing it. Perhaps they mean that your competitor can use the site removal tool without your knowledge. Perhaps they mean that your competitor can use 302 redirects to essentially steal your page and your serp. Perhaps your competitor can claim trademark and/or copyright infringement and have you removed from Google's index. Perhaps they mean that your competitor can start buying up the sites you link to and get each one banned so you are linking to bad neighbors. Or perhaps they mean that your competitor can sink your site simply by linking to you or by having 10,000 sites suddenly link to you. Of all these possibilities, all of them look more reasonable than Googlebot suddenly doing an about-face once you've triggered some magic number of links per day. My other bit of evidence is that I wrote a program called Article Distributor that helped authors submit articles to about 350 article directories. I released it December 3rd free of charge, but it did have a "cost" associated with it. The software placed a link to it's download page at the bottom of the author's resource box. After 4 months, Google reported 120k occurances of the phrase "Submitted with Article Distributor" (this was before the Big Daddy update remember). This roughly equates to an average of 1000 new links per day. Since I now rank #1 for the term "Article Distributor", and most of my site's pages are PR5, it would be pretty safe to assume that 1000 links per day is not harmful. Opinions are like @$$holes, and everyone does have one. Some opinions are based on logic and deduction, and this is the logic and deduction that has lead me to my opinion. Some opinions are not and not every opinion needs to be evaluated, or we'd be evaluting the opinions of people who claims good rankings depend on the phase of the moon or the reading of entrails. Granted, your opinion is not on the lunatic fringe, but given the facts, how are you able to logically justify your opinion? Is it through that niggling little loophole that says "almost nothing" or do you have other evidence to back your claim?