| 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
| 2:37 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
when i use
I have many pages greyed out.
but main page pr increaded by 1
what is 18.104.22.168?
| 2:39 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would normally say something like:
"Don't be silly... applying PR0 to link pages would be like saying don't put any links on your sites... it would be Google trying to blow a hole in the entire concept of the world wide web"
However - given recent events and recent Google decisions, I'm saying nothing! If they were to take that path it would be the most counterproductive decision ever taken by a search engine (and jeez... we've seen plenty of those!).
| 2:43 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? |
Because I also see that a lot at the moment for pages which are *not* links pages.
| 2:46 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For me links page is one of the most important pages I look at. It allows me to find relevant sites quickly. Like a human-assisted directory.
Also I think links.html is a good name.
| 2:47 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Glad to see I'm not the only one. This looks strongly like a poison word problem. Definitely not a bad neighborhood issue.
It looks strongly like a poison word issue because I too have a spotless 3-link link page. I'm kicking myself because I knew for a long time that naming something "links" could blow up on me down the road.
I'm renaming this sucker and taking down the old page, the penalty is probably temporary anyway.
| 2:54 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do not use the word "links" anywhere and my links pages have gone from PR4 and PR6 to PR0(grey). These pages have inbound links from PR6 and PR7 sites.
Whats going on?
| 3:02 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have another theory as well:
How many of you use spacer gifs that are named "transparent.gif" and how many of you have them living within your Links Directory?
Your source code would then resemble something like this:
|<img width="80" height="1" src="../../link/transparent.gif"> |
Completely innocent, but the words "Link" and "Transparent" being so close together in the source code is not only scary but makes me wonder if the Google algo is tripping over it.
Anybody else seeing this?
| 3:12 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can confirm that the penalty is NOT for bad neighborhoods. I have a link page on a hobby type site that has had PR 5-6 for 6 months with it's only links to Yahoo, DMOZ and a charity site ( because the page is basically under development) and it is PR 0 now while the rest of the site remains PR 6
| 3:16 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a /links.htm page with 8 external links, title is "x y links", anchor text from main page is "y links", and the PR is holding at 5. They are all excellent links to sites with PR, one is to 1 of my 2 DMOZ cats, all pertinent.
Another data point for the baffled. I'm not changing anything anyway... the page stays as it is.
| 3:22 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe this helps to explain a lot of the problems being discussed in other threads regarding loss of keyword rankings. If Google is penalizing links pages then obviously incoming links to our sites have been devalued whereever someone has linked to us from a "links" page. Consequently...anchor text contained in those links will not be considered.
Just a possibility.
| 3:45 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I doubt that genuine links pages are going to be penalized. My guess is that Google algo is looking for link farms otherwise links.html name is much better for a visitor than say relevant_site_for_keyword1.html page.
Reminds me of a bar I used to frequent. Instead of naming restrooms Men and Women, it had some fancy graphics on the doors to indicate the same. After having a pitcher or so, I used to get confused about which one to use.
| 3:49 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hello Everyone... first time post, but I've been lurking for awhile.
Looks like they're wanting to remove the (sometimes artificial) boost that link exchanges give to sites. My link pages are in a /links/ directory. Looking through my link partners, it seems like any page in a directory entitled /links/ or with a filename of links.htm and link.htm are being PR0'd. There are probably some some others...
This is similar to what Google did a while back to Zeus users by turning all pages titled "themeindex.html" into PR0, thus negating any PR boost from these link directories. (Unless the Zeus user was smart enough to rename the directory index page).
Once this shakes out, we'll need to figure out which filenames are a no-no, and rename everything accordingly. (and encourage our link partners to do the same). I've been looking at my link partner's pages, and it looks like links.htm is now being PR0'd, but links.shtml or links.asp is not. Of course, this may change once all of the datacenters are updated.
I've been looking at a very highly-ranked website which has a large links directory... his pages are not being PR0'd and his links pages have the links pages in directories in the following format "/theme-links/theme.htm" and "/anothertheme-links/anothertheme.htm", so it looks like the word "links" isn't necessarily evil, just when used in certain ways, like "links.htm" or in a directory like "/links/"?... BTW, these links pages have LOTS of outbound links.
| 3:55 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I doubt that genuine links pages are going to be penalized. |
Although I respect your opinion, please be mindful of the words you choose. There are a number of well known people here (including myself) who have already stated that they have clean link pages that are being penalized.
Are you calling us liars?
| 3:58 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
a little question:
the german word "links" means "left".
why should google have any problems with directories which are named /left/ or with pages which are names left.html?
| 4:03 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>why should google have any problems with directories which are named /left/ or with pages which are names left.html?
Was this meant as a political question? ;)
| 4:12 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Are you calling us liars? |
Google does not have interest in penalizing genuine link pages and any PR0's people are seeing on their links pages could be a temporary phenomenon. I have seen lots of PRs fluctuate and I believe that when things stablize links pages would do okay.
Of course, there would be some exceptions, and then some of us will have to write to Google.
BTW I think new PRs have not been calculated yet. Give it some time, say 2 weeks or so.
| 4:15 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Was this meant as a political question? ;)
political content filters are an other subject.
but ..., they have the same problems: the web is international.
| 4:29 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I certainly hope that links pages are not ignored over the long haul. I would not mind it they are ignored occasionally for an update cycle. This would devalue it for those that really depend on their reciprocal linking programs, and that way they would return value to those that use their link pages as originally intended.
Links pages are, after all, a tradition older than the web itself. I remember plenty of "other BBS and FTP sites" files.
| 4:29 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|could be a temporary phenomenon |
Thank you, I think that expresses your idea better.
I agree with you, this could be temporary, however I'm not seeing the usual bouncing around of the PR, which leads me to believe that this may be permanent.
| 4:38 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I'm not seeing the usual bouncing around of the PR |
I'm not seeing the "usual" of anything but that doesn't mean I can draw any conclusion on it because this is not a "usual" update.
| 4:40 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just to add to the mix, see GG's comment:
>the links = PR0 sounds like a red herring, but
>I'll be happy to root around and read it. :)
(msg. #'s 44 & 45)
| 4:41 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Links pages are, after all, a tradition older than the web itself. |
If really Google starts ignoring links pages, people who design their websites without the knowledge of this or the people who designed their websites much earlier and now making changes to names would be big hassle, would suffer. Does not make sense.
Imagine Google trying to penalize people for keeping HOME navigational tab because it interferes with their algorithms for finding pages with HOME (as in physical house) as the main theme.
|...however I'm not seeing the usual bouncing around of the PR, which leads me to believe that this may be permanent. |
A barrage of complaints, including one from me, will let them mend their ways.
| 4:41 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This might be temporary, but I seriously doubt it. Not taking anything to chance, I am taking out the word Link and links.html from every single page on my websites and replacing it words like "sites.html" and other safe words.
It will only take me 2 hours and is not a big deal really. I just wish all my link exchange partners would do the same.
I am also enacting a new link exchange policy to only trade "resource listings" from content based pages where there are no more then 5 outbound links on that page. In otherwords, instead of going for mass numbers, like i used to, I am going after content page based high quality link exchanges. The links look more like adwords or premium ads. I've done this before and those reciprocal links have shown traffic numbers too significant to ignore.
That's what I am going to do to counteract this possible algo change. Any other suggestions?
| 4:52 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My site is new and has links from very few, but high quality sites.
One of them linked me from their PR6 links.html page with about 30 outgoing links (15 internal, 15 external). It still is PR6.
One of them is a high-quality directory. It had a page for describing my site and link to my site (only external one) with about 15 internal links. It used to be PR5 and now it is showing PR0.
Interesting part is that Google is just using my index page and it has moved up nicely on my main 20-30 keywords searches, generally in first 1-3 pages. Not complaining here, thus far.
| 4:53 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I sure wish Googleguy would comment on this topic...
| 4:55 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Note that in this thread (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/13306-3-15.htm) GoogleGuy states that:
"Napoleon, the links = PR0 sounds like a red herring, but I'll be happy to root around and read it. :)"
The concept is just too stagerring to believe. PR0 for having a page linking to other sites? Just because you happen to call it by a logical name like 'links.htm'?
That would be just unreal, as well as highly damaging to Google itself. Maybe he will post further on here. We'll see.
| 5:06 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The problem has nothing to do with the word "links". It's ridiculous to even think that's the problem.
My links pages do not have the word links anywhere.
My links-in pages do not have the words "links" anywhere. These pages are not linked in from any pages with the word "links" anywhere.
The word "LINKS" is not the problem!
| 5:08 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I am taking out the word Link and links.html from every single page on my websites and replacing it words like "sites.html" and other safe words. |
Don't know if it should be us who change... maybe it should be Google, but like I said, my links page is site.org/links.htm has it in the title, on the page, and it's still PR5. It can't be a blanket penalty for using those words or it would be PR0 too.
| 5:20 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just did a Google search for 'links' and found many many pages with PageRank 5 or higher containing 'links' in the title and all over the page. One with PR8. Some of these pages are called 'links.htm' or 'links page'. I am not sure what most posting here are seeing, but perhaps it stems from an incomplete index going live. That is, many have speculated that this index is incomplete, with missing backlinks, missing anchor text, and missing pages from the last deep crawl. Googleguy kept saying that these data would be added AFTER the crummy -sj index went live at all the datacenters. Maybe there is still hope.
| 5:40 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looking into this phenom on my own sites, I see it is only effecting pages named links.html or blank_links.html
All others seem to be okay. I am changing the ones as mentioned above.
I don't know why people are so surprised Google is doing this. 2 reasons why. People have been manipulating the old algo by pumping up their PageRank through link exchanges. Also, they have to make room on the PR scale for the additional pages they are crawling. Google has said they want to hit 10 billion pages.