homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.21.9.44
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 272 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 272 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 > >     
link pages being removed?
site has good PR, links page has PR0 or not indexed.
moehits




msg:185238
 5:24 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this has been discussed, or just a coincidence but,...

I'm seeing quite a few sites with good PR on all pages except their links page. These pages had PR before, now they are either PR0, or grey ( not indexed ).

It seems it's more consistent at sites that have just one links page with multiple topics on it, sites with multiple links pages (directory style links pages) on topic seem OK.

the consitencies I see are:

Most have link text pointing to them called links
Most are called links.htm or have links in the URL.
Most are 1 page, multi-topic links pages, e.g., there is no targeted theme to the page, anything from greeting cards to health sites all on same page.

Could these be mistaken for FFA's?

I haven't checked fully, but many are listed on "link trading" sites. Maybe peple have created link farms and don't realize it?

I've seen this on many sites. It doesn't seem like a coincidence.

 

pleeker




msg:185448
 6:00 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

That doesn't mean that Google might not adjust its algorithm to favor pages that use contextual links over pages that are nothing but link lists. Such an approach might make a lot of sense, because links that are embedded in text or which are accompanied by annotations are more likely to have value than standalone links.

Interesting thoughts on the value of a contextual link as opposed to a link appearing in a list of links, and this may deserve it's own thread (if the moderators so desire).

From my perspective, I'm not sure I agree that a contextual link is any more valuable than a link on a links page. Yes, it can be, but is it always?

We know the premise is that a link to another site is a "vote" in favor of that site -- an endorsement. On my 100+ links page, every site that appears there is related to the content/theme of my site and all have value to my visitors -- in short, every link on that page is an endorsement.

But when I'm writing original content - articles, news blurbs, etc. - I might link to a site in such a way that the link is not necessarily an endorsement. Google can use word relevance, and analyze the text surrounding the link to see if I'm saying "avoid this site" or "this site is wrong" or something like that, but that remains a less-than-perfect method and mistakes are bound to be made, aren't they? Whereas, the sites listed (with descriptions) in the big list on my Links page are 100%, no questions asked, "endorsed" links. Google can count those outbound links accurately never worrying that it's calling a link an endorsement when it may not be.

In a nutshell, I guess what I'm saying is that all contextual links are not necessarily votes/endorsements the way SEs think they are, whereas all the links on a Links page are votes. So to give more credit for contextual links seems to open the door for mistakes when factoring relevancy.

pageoneresults




msg:185449
 6:09 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure I agree that a contextual link is any more valuable than a link on a links page.

Plain Link = 0.5 Vote
Link with Contextual = 1.0 Votes

This would of course apply to links pages only. Links that lead to other resources from within content are valued based on their surrounding text and other factors.

stevegpan2




msg:185450
 6:25 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

hi guys,

is there a way to find out in google search box

"PR>5 link"

pages?

any google shortcut?

regards,

Yidaki




msg:185451
 6:30 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>From my perspective, I'm not sure I agree that a contextual link
>is any more valuable than a link on a links page. Yes, it can be,
>but is it always?

>contextual links are not necessarily votes/endorsements the
>way SEs think they are, whereas all the links on a Links page
>are votes.

pleeker, so what are the links that are listed at my niche directory? They are neither a "vote" nor a real "contextual link" - allthough they have their individual description. They just fit into a specific category of a specific compilation.

>Plain Link = 0.5 Vote
>Link with Contextual = 1.0 Votes

pageoneresults, sorry, erm, ... he? Who says this - based on what?

>This would of course apply to links pages only.
>Links that lead to other resources from within content are
>valued based on their surrounding text and other factors.

You can't say this without giving a clear definition of content. (Which is impossible, imho.)

skipfactor




msg:185452
 6:32 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>any google shortcut?

search for:

http

start at the top & work your way down. :)

Google directory is perhaps a better way to look at a lot of PR6s together, etc.

littlecloud




msg:185453
 6:35 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

How are you all checking the pr on the new index?
All of my www.mydomains.com/links.htm pages are still showing pr4 on the toolbar.

pleeker




msg:185454
 6:37 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

pleeker, so what are the links that are listed at my niche directory? They are neither a "vote" nor a real "contextual link" - allthough they have their individual description. They just fit into a specific category of a specific compilation.

If you're allowing a site to be listed in your directory, it's most definitely a vote -- just like any site added to DMOZ is a vote. (And a miracle? Whoops, sorry.) You may not like the site, use the site, or think it's useful/attractive/whatever, but just by putting it in your directory you're saying there's value to your users.

Yidaki




msg:185455
 6:49 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

> just by putting it in your directory you're saying there's value to your users

hmm, i wouldn't call it a vote ... just a simple listing without a given individual value. I've allways thought that vote means something like recommendation!? However, if this is meaning of vote in english, i'd stand corrected. ;)

IITian




msg:185456
 6:56 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

What if I don't like a site and link to it to show my visitors how bad that site is, should this still be counted as a vote for that site? What about anti-vote with weight of -1?

stevegpan2




msg:185457
 6:59 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

this is great idea.
I wrote a very provocative article and all people will link to me.
then I get popular, then I sell my stuff there.

hmmm that is cnn doing...

pageoneresults




msg:185458
 7:10 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yidaki, I was just using that as an example of how I think votes might be measured when it comes to links pages.

I'm going to go back to something I mentioned in one of my very first replies to this thread. Make sure that those resources you are linking to are not so-called Bad Neighborhoods. We know for a fact that Google does not like it when you link to these neighborhoods. If you have 20 links on a page and 5 of them lead to PR0 sites, then there may be some issues, I'm not certain though, I'm just guessing as many of us are.

If you've done your homework and have fully reviewed those sites that you provide links to, then I don't think you have much to worry about.

If your links page sits at a long abusive url, and contains nothing but links, then there may be issues.

If your links page is only linked from a few areas of your site, then you are probably not transferring enough PR. Also, your links page loses relevancy when it is not intertwined with the main structure of the site.

You have to learn how to harness the PR and transer it through the site. My resources pages are always linked from the main navigation so the link to those pages appears almost everywhere on the site.

If your links pages sit at the root level of your web, they would of course carry more PR than if they were sitting at /sub/links/. Unless of course you have harnessed the power of PR. It takes a little while longer to harness PR and transfer it through sub-directories. Knowing how to structure your on site links is very important in this entire process.

Unfortunately, once you've harnessed this power, then all the power hungry link exchangers begin to hound you. They see that you offer a quality reciprocal and next thing you know you are dealing with requests from all sorts of people. ;)

pageoneresults




msg:185459
 7:37 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not to take this too far off track, let's talk about your links (resources) page. Do you treat it as part of the site? Or, do you look at it as a means of just exchanging links? If it is the latter, then you have approached the whole concept of linking the wrong way.

I put as much time into my resource pages that I do into any other page of the site. They are all my children and I don't favor one over the other.

I go out and find the sites that I want to link to. I don't let incoming link requests dictate how I have chosen my resources. If you do that, then you probably have the makings of a nice little link farm in the midwest somewhere. ;)

When visitors come to sites that I build, they can be assured that when they visit the resources page, they will find quality information relative to the industry that site is targeting.

I take the extra step, go out and grab logos, read the home pages, look at a few other main pages, view the source of a few pages and then create my linked title and short description. I then include a logo from that resource so there is a visible identity for the visitor.

Now, take those three elements;

Linked Title
5-7 words properly describing the resource.

Description
160-200 characters properly describing the resource in summary.

Logo
Small enough to be not intrusive, but large enough to clearly see it. Logo is linked, alt tag describes the logo (ABC Company Logo) and img title describes the link reference.

Put those three elements together, and you can start developing quality links pages. I hate to refer to them as links pages anymore and try to use the term resources as much as possible.

Yidaki




msg:185460
 8:04 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

pageoneresult,

>I was just using that as an example of how I think votes
>might be measured when it comes to links pages.

OK, accepted.

>I put as much time into my resource pages that I do into
>any other page of the site. They are all my children and
>I don't favor one over the other.

How much in % or pages of the content are your ressource (link) pages? I guess, your listing example could change if we'd talk about 50+% ressource pages. Description would be waaay shorter, no logo ...

However, your example sounds really good ... never thought about a logo button for the listings in my niche directories ... could bring some $$$, he, he ...

pageoneresults




msg:185461
 8:17 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

How much in % or pages of the content are your ressource (link) pages?

That would all be relative to the industry, size of the site, etc.

If it were a directory type structure, of course 80-95% of it would be resources. But, my pages would be structured just as I've mentioned above with the logo being an option.

If it is a corporate website, there may be anywhere from 1-5 possibly 10 pages of resources at the most. Keep in mind, that I usually try to limit the resources to 10 per page due to the above structuring. More than that and there may be usability issues. I don't know about everyone participating here, but I sometimes find very little value in a page that has a bunch of links populating it with no real structure.

pageoneresults




msg:185462
 8:21 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Oh, I forgot to mention one very important secret in the sauce, you ready for this?

Don't use a bot to develop your links pages. Most bots are programmed to extract similar content. What happens is you end up with a bunch of directory style pages out there that are almost duplicates of one another.

You need to be sure that you hand develop your linking resources. Or, that you are providing information that is unique and not duplicated amongst other linking resources.

Take a look at a majority of those PR0 directory style pages out there. Look at the format. Look at the titles and descriptions. Many are scraped from existing directories, many are bot driven and pull the same content. I think I'm saying that correctly. ;)

dougs




msg:185463
 8:21 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now confused.

We have a clean site of nearly 1000 pages, we have a resources directory with 200 pages integrated into the site...but with the words add link on the page. We manually check all sites that we want to join and who request to join to make usre they are decent. Very few pages have more than 5 external links and 10 internal links.

The word directory is in the text linking to the resources pages and in the url. Our main site was a PR6 and now is a PR 3, our resources are was a PR4 to 1 and is now all a zero.

And now to really throw it...our google positioning has increased drastically and our traffic has exploded.

Doug

MeditationMan




msg:185464
 8:24 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Pageoneresults:


If you've done your homework and have fully reviewed those sites that you provide links to, then I don't think you have much to worry about.

Au contraire. If you've done your homework, reviewed the sites you link to, and your links page has been PR0ed, then I think there's a lot to worry about, not least that many people won't want a link from a page that is PR0ed. Goodbye reciprocal link requests, and in fact goodbye lots of existing reciprocal (good quality, on topic) links.

But really, what you seem to be hinting at in your post is that we were "asking for it". Go back and read the posts. Those of us to whom this have happened are experienced webmasters.

If your links page sits at a long abusive url, and contains nothing but links, then there may be issues.

I'm afraid I've no idea what this means! An "abusive url"?

If your links page is only linked from a few areas of your site, then you are probably not transferring enough PR. Also, your links page loses relevancy when it is not intertwined with the main structure of the site.

My links pages suddenly dropped from PR5 to PR0. I think your suggestion just isn't relevant to what's actually going on.

You have to learn how to harness the PR and transer it through the site. My resources pages are always linked from the main navigation so the link to those pages appears almost everywhere on the site.

Right, and I'm sure it's the same with most of the rest of us. But I'm afraid that PR0 is not the result, in this case, of not knowing how to harness PR.

If your links pages sit at the root level of your web, they would of course carry more PR than if they were sitting at /sub/links/. Unless of course you have harnessed the power of PR. It takes a little while longer to harness PR and transfer it through sub-directories. Knowing how to structure your on site links is very important in this entire process.

I thought you'd know better than this. Your directory structure may affect guessed PR, but it has no relation to real PR, which follows links.

Unfortunately, once you've harnessed this power, then all the power hungry link exchangers begin to hound you. They see that you offer a quality reciprocal and next thing you know you are dealing with requests from all sorts of people. ;)

You're in danger of sounding smug, pageoneresults. The problem seems to be mainly that links pages with "link" in the filename are being PR0ed. Now this hasn't affected everybody, but when myxamatosis started sweeping through the rabbit popularion, it would have been foolish to say "Hey, there's no problem. I'm a rabbit and I'm not sick." Google's index is huge, and a change is coming round. Hopefully it's just a temporary screw-up. Let's hope so, yeah?

pageoneresults




msg:185465
 8:30 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I guess my smugness comes from not experiencing the same issues that are being described in this topic. Since I am somewhat familiar with past issues surrounding this topic of the term links in a url, I've maybe avoided the penalties because of the process I've described above. I am not disputing that there is something in the midst. Unfortunately this update has thown us all a loop, we have no clue what is going on. We can only guess at this point and there sure are a lot of quality guesses flying around. ;)

This same exact thing happened about 6-8 months ago, it is nothing new. It is only new to those who have recently seen the light (they found WebmasterWorld). Unfortunately there is a steep learning curve in this industry. If you are not part of it then you will sometimes follow the path some of us know to avoid.

martinibuster




msg:185466
 8:55 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

If your links page is only linked from a few areas of your site, then you are probably not transferring enough PR. Also, your links page loses relevancy when it is not intertwined with the main structure of the site.

Wow, that statement couldn't be more wrong when it comes to this update.

I just reviewed a Partners page on a squeaky clean site- This is NOT a recip page, it's a straight up Corporate "Here's our Partners Page" that now has a PR Zero Whitebar (down from a PR5).

This page has a Partner button on every page of the site- It's on the navbar along with the Buy and About Us buttons. It has been this way forever.

This Partners page consists of a blurb about how proud they are to be partners with these companies, company logo gifs, followed by a blurb about the partner and a link to the corporate partner, now it's WHITEBARRED.

This just doesn't make any sense.

I'm going to wait until this settles down before I make my "GOoGlE GuY hELp mE PLeAsssssse!" post.

martinibuster




msg:185467
 9:02 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ugh, never mind.

pageoneresults




msg:185468
 9:23 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

martinibuster, it has been acknowledged that there is something going on with PageRank right now. I'm seeing pages on sites with PR0 that had PR5/6 yesterday. These are somewhat newer pages, last three months, and they appear to be treated as though they've not been indexed yet, although they are still in their respective positions as previous.

I just saw a thread that states the update is over. That may be true, but now we have PageRank to contend with. I think Google is doing some rescaling. And, during this process is when the PageRank gets really unpredictable.

Take a deep breath and give it some more time. If those pages that you see with PR0 are not showing up in the SERPs, than I might begin to have a concern. If they are recently added pages, or recently renamed, moved, pages, I think PR will restore itself once whatever Google is doing settles down. GoogleGuy has commented that they were going to slowly bring backlinks into the mix. I think a lot of what we are seeing is relative to that statement.

P.S. I still think we are going to see a Perpetual Update process. It would be similar to Freshbot but more robust and more inclusive. Just a wild guess at this point. It would definitely put Google that much further ahead in the Freshness contest.

parabola




msg:185469
 9:41 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Pageone..

Some of these comments are not only smug but absurd. When a link page drops from PR5 to 0 what does that have to do with transferring PR when nothing else has been changed?

What makes you think you have been doing this for so much longer than anyone else?

The condescending tone can be quite annoying here at times. Some people here who don't post a lot or have come in lately have made quite a bit of money on search traffic and don't need children's advice.

Geeshh! You may have PRO because you don't link from enough pages? That's the advice?

rfgdxm1




msg:185470
 9:51 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>P.S. I still think we are going to see a Perpetual Update process. It would be similar to Freshbot but more robust and more inclusive. Just a wild guess at this point. It would definitely put Google that much further ahead in the Freshness contest.

GG has hinted at this with comments about bringing in more backlinks and anchor text gradually over time. In the past this was never done other than at the time of the dance.

PatrickDeese




msg:185471
 10:01 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry to jump in so late, but here is my experience.

I designed a PR 6 site for an international chapter of a major environmental group with chapters across the US and the world.

They have two pages with links. One has thematic based links and another is regional. They are both PR0. One is links.htm and the other is "regional-name".htm

What I see is that the predominant content on both of these pages is links, ie very little text.

I believe this is what Googlebot is penalizing for: pages with links and no other content.

Ironically linking to the National site of the [environmental] organization, among other sites all related in some degree or other are all PRO, though the rest of the site remains PR6.

Now, I have another PR6 site that has fairly lengthy biographies of individuals (~5000 word biographies on average), and links to related sites. These are not affected.

This is leads me to believe that there must be some sort of content to links ratio thresh hold.

Has anyone else observed this?

stevegpan2




msg:185472
 10:02 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

my feeling is that google now realize so many webmasters from all over the world are cracking their algorithm.

Google only has that many people work for them.

But webmasters everywhere.

So they now behave bizaarly on purpose to confuse the web masters.

I do admire the webmasters or SEOs from East Europe. They have done much better than north america and asia.
They
1. have more time than West Eu and North Am
2. have enough knowledge and maths skills.
3. knows English better than Asia.

Google has to admire these SEO too.
its like you can design it, we can reserse engineer it!

pageoneresults




msg:185473
 10:03 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Geeshh! You may have PRO because you don't link from enough pages? That's the advice?

Sorry, didn't mean to sound condescending at all. But yes, PR0 if something has changed in the algo where pages not linked to heavily or properly within a site structure end up losing PR.

Everything I've said up to this point in this thread has been an educated guess. Nothing I say is the general rule. I only speak from experience and what I do and what I see working. I haven't attacked anyone, tis not my nature. Bear with me here and try to come up with some logical explanations as to why there is a problem with these types of pages.

What makes you think you have been doing this for so much longer than anyone else?

In most cases that is true. Since 1996 to be exact. I've been through all the wars as many others have been here. We learn from our past mistakes and then learn more while we discuss possible solutions in an open forum such as this.

Thanks for your confidence though, much appreciated.

Marcia




msg:185474
 10:06 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Terrific post up there, pageoneresults, definitely one for re-reading and "email this page." Internal linking structure is one of the most important things to look after, and it's too often over-looked. I've had to wade through sites that are nightmare - loads of incoming links and homepage PR just fine, but the sites can be a PR sinkhole. Thanks!

It's too soon to be concerned about PR right now, there can't be a doubt that something has been going on and it sure doesn't look like it's all done with at this time.

rogerd




msg:185475
 10:12 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

DougS, do you use any particular software tool to create/manage your 200 page link directory?

pageoneresults




msg:185476
 10:36 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm afraid I've no idea what this means! An "abusive url"?

In response to MeditationMan, here are some examples of what I perceive as abusive urls...

keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword.com/keyword/keyword/links.htm

(note that I have 3 hyphens in the url)

I think any extremely long url strings are problems.

Then, some things I might consider to be poison...

/links/
/links.htm

But, that does not mean that everyone would be poisoned. There are many factors involved with this whole linking thing.

I'm guessed out for the day! ;)

martinibuster




msg:185477
 11:00 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Internal linking structure is one of the most important things to look after

Marcia and pageoneresults, that may be true, but not in this weird case of the Corporate Partner Page that isn't a recip link page.

Did you skip it over? It's message #229. It's a real anomaly because it's linked to from about 1,000 pages through the navbar, just like the About Us page.

When a Corporate Partners Page gets slammed, that's weird, and I have to lean toward thinking that something may not be working the way it should be.

rfgdxm1




msg:185478
 11:22 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

It may be martinibuster that Google is penalizing pages that it determines are just links to other sites. Your Corporate Partner Page my be collateral damage in a part of the algo that is trying to squish pages that amount to little more than swapping links to boost PR.

This 272 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 272 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved