link value dependant on page title?

I've had a link request from someone who insisted on having a link from a page where the title closely matched the anchor text he wanted?

I've also noticed other webmasters refuse link exchanges from pages where the word 'link' was in the title.

Can anyone shed any wisdom on this? or is this the beginning of another myth?

 

I think people refused links from the page with the name "link" is because Google may be filtering the PRs coming in from those sites.

 

People are too paraniod these days./

 

no , sometimes google does not follow links whose file name is "links*"

 

I use linksmanager software and they are recommending changing all the URLs of link pages to get rid of the word link. So we renamed all the html pages to eliminate "link".

But they did not suggest changing the title of the page nor the anchor text in the onsite navigation. In addition we still use the word link in the first heading on the page.

 

agree completely.

I mean, it doesn't hurt you to change it if you're worried, but I'm virtually positive they don't discredit pages with "links."

although if anyone has any direct evidence (and not just "I heard this here") I'd be quite interested in seeing it

 

I doubt they are doing that - the most genuine links come from non-professional sites which in most cases use the word links. They would be crazy not to count them equally - it's not logical.

What is logical is not giving as much weight to links from a page which has more than 100 links on it - or no weight to links on a page which has 500 links.

I would agree though that a link from a page with my preferred anchor text in their title would add significant value over one that was distinctly off topic - because of it's relevance / local rank... etc

 

My link page was named "links.asp" and carried a PR5. To be on the safe side, and not scare off the webmasters of high ranking link partners, I changed the url and did a redirect. Still showing a PR0, but it should update this next round with Google.

Whether it is true or not that Google filters really does not matter. The point is that many webmasters of major ranking sites will not consider a linking arrangement with a page that has "link(s)" in the url. Up to you, but I changed the url of my links page.

 

http://travel.state.gov/links.html

if anyone's really debating this after that I'll be rather surprised

 

I recently created a test for this at Do search engines penalize pages named links.shtml?

Unfortunately, this test is new and hasn't been picked up by Googlebot yet. It will take awhile!

 

That's a nice PR9 but doesn't prove G isn't devaluating the links from this page to others.

The page does show up in the backlinks of Kabul's page so it's not ignored but still no info on how much it might or might not be penalized/devaluated.

 

<<<<<
.... I changed the url and did a redirect.
<<<<<<

Could someone please clue me in as to how this is done?
Perhaps point me to some good articles on the subject?

Thanks.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=301+redirect+tutorial

 

i think the anchor text link with the same title would be good for google eye. because we need only link from the same category and then our link will get value.

 

I think good relevant keyword is so important

 

The word 'link' can start the alarm bells ringing as far as Google is concerned.
I understand that they can take it on face value and consider it as a 'false' link generating exercise by site owners.
All search engines want to see a natural and progressive increase in links to a site and view that as a marker as to the sites's popularity.