| 7:26 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It shouldnt matter.
The PR of the page is divided up by the number of links, so a link from a link list isnt worth much anyway.
| 7:27 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would say Goodness Me is synonomous with the other term that was originally posted. ;)
| 7:29 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sunny_M, I personally stay away from any link exchanges with links pages or link farms. Unfortunately, many designers do not know that what they've developed may be misconstrued as a link farm and incur the wrath.
I also stay away from pages that have very long urls and contain the word links in the url path. They typically are what I've described above.
Just look for quality link partners and stay away from the rest of the junk. A few quality links will outperform a bunch of low quality links any day of the week. ;)
| 7:30 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I keep up 2 links pages, one with links to sites with additional info and one with links to independent program units which are part of our local branch of a national youth org.
Just went and checked based on reading this thread.
The info links page, reachable from 99%+ pages in the site and using Keyword Links in the nav bar, is a pr4, with numerous internal backlinks not showing. A total of about 75 links depart from this page, with about 50 being external to the site and the remaining ones being in the nav bar or otherwise taking folks back deeper into the site.
The other links page (Unit ____ Links) is also pr4, with numerous internal backlinks not showing. This page is about 1/2 and 1/2 links for external units and internal navigation (it's a big nav bar, probably too big, but it serves its purpose from what I can tell and was expanded at the suggestion of regular site users)
As best as I can recall, both pages, though edited since then in several ways, were pr 4 back in january also, so I'm apparently not seeing a penalty, partial or otherwise, on our links pages.
| 7:31 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now my links page is back to PR4. However, I suspect the PR0 is valid. The only link to my links page anywhere on the Net is my site's home page. Thus if it is in the index at all, it'd have to be a PR4. My home page is the only page that can contribute PR to it.
| 7:38 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here's what I've found when you see fluctuating PR...
PR fluctuates normally around an update or rescaling of the index. If you see fluctuating PR during this time, it is usually a very good indicator of what is to come.
If your current page is PR4 and you see a fluctuation to PR2, then most likely that page is going to end up at PR2 after everything settles down.
I hate to say this, but if your page is PR4 and you see fluctuation to PR0, then most likely that page is going to end up at PR0 after everything settles down.
I've been watching PR fluctuations for over a year now and my observations have proven to be correct 99% of the time. With this recent constant flux in the Google SERPs, my theory may or may not be correct. Something new is happening, that is for sure.
| 7:40 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do not see any change.
Can someone sticky email me one of your sample url?
I seem look like ann outsider...
| 7:44 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
eehrm, again: what about bad neighbourhood? Or did i miss any answer? If you link directly to the ressources, it's prob a problem with bad neighbourhood, so we'd be talking about a ancient phenomenon (filter) ...!? Everybody who moans, could you please check if some of the sites you link to have a pr 0 or unstable pr?
| 7:47 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey there Yidaki, I think we have a big influx of new members who are not aware of past conversations concerning the Bad Neighborhood concept.
For those of you not familiar with this, use the site search function at the top left of your screen and search for "bad neighborhoods".
| 7:53 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My links page which had a few other pages linking to it is ok. My links page which only had one incominglink is not.
PErhaps this is the new theory? A links page needs a few incoming links?
| 7:54 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its jumped back up! lol
| 7:56 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is toolbar PR believeable at all right now given the slow rollout that Dominic is making?
| 7:58 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>If your current page is PR4 and you see a fluctuation to PR2, then most likely that page is going to end up at PR2 after everything settles down.
Yep. My home page is bouncing between last months PR5 and PR6. My links page is bouncing between PR4 and PR0. I'm betting on PR0.
| 8:04 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Is toolbar PR believeable at all right now given the slow rollout that Dominic is making? |
When it comes to PR, yes, it is pretty accurate. Even during the update or rescaling cycle, the fluctuations that you see are usually a firm indicator of what is to come.
You would use the flucuated PR as a basis to start with. Again, if you had PR4 and you are seeing PR0 on refreshes or clicks to that page, then most likely PR0 is forthcoming.
But, who knows for sure with this pending update. Just when you think you've figured something out, it changes! ;)
[edited by: pageoneresults at 8:05 pm (utc) on May 19, 2003]
| 8:04 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks like loads of links pages in competitive areas are getting PR 0 this time round, Ok its changing but I think it will stick.
[edited by: Smiley at 8:17 pm (utc) on May 19, 2003]
| 8:07 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
L**** Partners and Manager are showing PR. These 2 would be the primary target if Google were to downgrade "links" pages.
I think you are all seeing the update working it's way through the datacenters.
[edited by: startup at 8:19 pm (utc) on May 19, 2003]
| 8:08 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I should also point out that the PR you see in the Google Toolbar is for public consumption only. What happens behind the scenes is something totally different. I'm a firm believer that PR is capped in certain industries. If a site has PR6 and for some reason can never achieve PR7, I think that is the PR Cap Theory in action.
| 8:25 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I should also point out that the PR you see in the Google Toolbar is for public consumption only. What happens behind the scenes is something totally different.
But why would Google tell us links pages *aren't* being counted if they are? GG already has posted what you suggest above is what they are doing with guestbook links. Just because the guestbook shows PR and also shows in backlinks doesn't mean Google is counting those links in reality. Makes some sense. Google wouldn't want lots of people complaining asking why the rest of the pages on their site are PR5 or PR4, yet their little guestbook is PR0. Is Google giving links pages a PR0 to tell people that linking to other sites is Bad Thing?
| 8:35 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have 39 outbound links from this page.
1 to a pr 4
16 to pr 5
20 to pr 6
1 to pr 7
However, this may be of no use since my resources page went back to pr 4 in the midst of my checking.
Perhaps it was just a shot across the bow.
| 8:39 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Perhaps it was just a shot across the bow.
Or, perhaps a glimpse of the future where your resources page gets a stake driven through its heart.
| 8:41 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thats what I meant.;)
| 8:43 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I have 39 outbound links from this page. |
This is where I differ in my linking strategies. I think there is some magic number for the number of outbound links on a page before it is flagged by a filter.
I've always kept outbound links on any single page to less than 15. Why? Well, mainly due to the way I design my resources pages. If I had 39 outbound links, then I would have 39 titles, 39 descriptions and 39 logos on that one page. My goal is to keep page load time to a minimum so I break my resources pages into categories.
My testing over the years has proved this to be a successful formula. Plain ole' links pages do nothing for the visitor or for your site as a whole.
| 8:56 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've read through this thread and I think maybe all the worry is a little premature.
It seems implausible to me that Google would punish pages using the title link or filename link. It just seems too incredible - and arbitrary - given the hundreds of naive webmasters who are not SEO'ing but use those terms and names innocently.
Check out this thread:
I think it sums things up right now: incomplete!
| 10:33 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|eehrm, again: what about bad neighbourhood? Or did i miss any answer? If you link directly to the ressources, it's prob a problem with bad neighbourhood, so we'd be talking about a ancient phenomenon (filter) ...!? Everybody who moans, could you please check if some of the sites you link to have a pr 0 or unstable pr? |
No way I am checking that! I have about 1500 external links. I imagine a lot of them are PR0 or grey-bar since they are all non-profit organizations that have a volunteer that builds them a site for free with Front Page Express or Geocities and know nothing about SEO, etc.
But my pages with these non-profit links are not PR0 (yet). Just my shopping section with affiliate links.
| 11:17 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My four links pages still have their PR5.
The anchor text that was pointing to them was "Manufacturer links", "Retailer links" etc. They all contained the word links.
The file name is links.php with one parameter "?list=mfrlinks"
Every entry has the company name as anchor text, and a one line description.
The title contains "site.com - Manufacturer Links"
I do not participate in any link farms, reciprocal linking or any other strategy. Many of the links are reciprocal in that some of the sites I link to, also link to me.
All these pages have been linked to through the standard navigation that is on every page. In an attempt to reduce the number of links per page, I now link to a main links page that then links to the different directories. This one page is not in the current index, so it's current greybar is what it should have.
I'm just providing this as another data point for those of you that are trying to figure it out. I would be disappointed to find that google is discounting any "links" page, but it would not really matter to me.
| 1:32 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've just gone through and checked all the sites that I've linked to and that linked back to me.
It is interesting to note that quite a few of their link pages are now either PRO or Grey.
| 12:42 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just checked about 100 link pages and nearly all are now grey or PR0
| 1:15 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Every links page I've checked so far has not lost it's PR.
But quite a lot of pages in this index are PR0 at the moment remember - links pages or otherwise.
I certainly see no correlation.
| 1:19 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If the home page has a PR 6 with a link to the links page (PR0), how can you see no correlation?
| 2:29 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just had a thought after reading through all these posts:
Could it be that Google is recognizing links pages and lowering their PR somehow on purpose to get a good clean index of sites that are more relevant to a search than a links page with high PR is. In other words, take this scenario:
For term widgets, suppose these were #1 and #2 in SERP's (and they often are):
#1: Waffles site with a links page for widgets with PR5
#2 Widgets site with relevant content and PR4
I just see something happening with index pages and links pages, and maybe they are trying to separate them as if separating oil and water, bring all the oil to the top so they get the best results for their searches.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it..lol
| 2:31 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
oh, I would also add that the PR to the links pages will go back to what they were, they'll just have more stringent rules for how the PR is used in searches when a page is clearly a links page