"links.html" not passing PR?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

<<<<
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