2_much
msg:416160 | 8:18 pm on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I'm avoiding link, links, .htm, .html, and many variants of this. I've created codewords for the different types of pages, it's been fun :-)
|
onedumbear
msg:416161 | 12:51 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0) |
some of my favorite inbound links are from pages ending with link.html or links.html
I have noticed that many of these pages with the ending of link.html get spidered very frequently with almost daily fresh tags. i am not saying they are crawled frequently because of the pages being named "link.html"
What i am saying is i don't think googlebot cares.
|
layer8
msg:416162 | 1:07 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I haven't seen anything until today. My main links page is link.htm and it still has a pr of 4/10. The links1.htm etc (sub pages) were pr3, now they are 0/10. All links are good quality and inline with website. Only thing I can see that might be a problem is the name of the .htm files (sub pages such as links1.htm) so im not saying its bad but it might be a bit pointless. I'll change the names and see what happens ;)
|
ranksmith
msg:416163 | 10:46 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0) |
You can only make out its pointlessness after the links.htm is assigned zero page rank. To my best of knowledge it's better to get your link placed on pages other than link.htm or links.htm, so that though google takes any drastic action, you face no problems. search for this : allinurl:link.htm or links.htm and check out all the pages listed in the serps. If all the link pages show zero page rank, it justifies the pointlessness of the link.htm and links.htm pages.
|
Lilliabeth
msg:416164 | 7:22 pm on Oct 17, 2003 (gmt 0) |
ranksmith, I don't understand what you're saying. What drastic action has Google taken?
The search phrase you suggest leads to pages with PR. So what is your point/ what is your position?
|
kiril
msg:416165 | 3:12 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
For what it's worth, I rummaged through the top 20 allinurl:links.html, and the result was pretty interesting. Many (but not all) of the pages were gray bar (undefined PR?), yet were on sites with main pages that had very high PR (6 or higher). I didn't see any white bars. Anybody care to interpret this?
|
Lilliabeth
msg:416166 | 5:45 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I searched allinurl:links.htm and this is what I found:
66675
57656
66857
66776
Not a single grey bar.
|
lbobke
msg:416167 | 6:36 am on Oct 18, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Why should Google be doing this? Just because some webmasters exchange links with sites not relevant to their topic.
These would presumably be the first ones to chane their link file to a random word from the dictionary, while scientists, artists and the like who are not in Web Site Optimisation would just continue to use "links" for referencing valuable sites. For that matter: what is the difference between a links page belonging to an authority site and one belonging to a directory like the ODP? After all, the author of an authority site may be even more into his subject than the Meta editor editing in one of the sub categories of a directory? Last not least: If you put up visible links to irrelevant sites, human visitors will quickly get annoyed.
When I come to a site and find lots of banner exchanges, links to a huge variety of unrelated subjects and the like, I'll quickly leave - and I suspect many others would intuitively regard this the same way. Laurenz PS: what else can one do to make ones site look unprofessional? Some things I can think of off hand: use many different fonts, various marquee effects, blinking text gifs, elaborate, obtrusive backgrounds...
|
Marketing Guy
msg:416168 | 5:06 pm on Oct 20, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I categorise my links pages to target related keywords. They are all VERY relevant! ;) If I had named them: links1.htm
links2.htm
links3.htm Would they be less relevant than having called them: keyword.htm
keyword2.htm
keyword3.htm ? Scott :)
|
mfishy
msg:416169 | 1:32 am on Oct 21, 2003 (gmt 0) |
<<Would they be less relevant>> No. Will Google count them the same way? Maybe.
|
|
