| 10:07 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
have you checked their robots.txt and meta robots infomation? is it a normal link?
| 10:26 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 10:39 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is it called
or similar if so chances are it is filtered out. This happened some time back.
Welcome to WebmasterWorld by the way.
| 10:53 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
To see if it's a G specific problem, search for the link on the other SEs.
| 7:55 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The page is links.html. That's probably the issue. Bummer. Thanks.
| 8:02 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Does Google penalize if your links page is called 'links.html"?
| 8:04 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>similar if so chances are it is filtered out. This happened some time back.
Your sources, ukgimp?
| 8:06 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Personally I feel it is asinine to remove pages based on common terms used on the WEB, literally, since day one of its existence. Especially since it allows the end user to stop at one place and see relative links. But I guess that does cuts down on people finding what they want without going back to any given search engine.
| 10:52 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with jim_w
| 1:03 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Have you checked whether other links on the page (to your competitors?) show up in a link: search?
I remember the thread about links.html pages. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was nonsense. The idea of ignoring links simply because of the file name is absurd. However, being absurd is no longer a good reason to assume it is untrue.
| 2:18 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|or similar if so chances are it is filtered out. |
I doubt very much that is true. It's a fallacy (one of many in fact) that remains a fallacy as it has never been proven. Fo every example in favor of this fallacy there are 10 to disprove it.
I have 7 catergorized link pages, links.htm, links2.htm etc and they are count in the backlinks of other sites.
As already mentioned, check on another SE to see if it's Google specific. If it's not it *might* be due to some trick used by the Webmaster. Check out the backlinks of others sites they link to.
| 2:24 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I doubt very much that is true. It's a fallacy (one of many in fact) that remains a fallacy as it has never been proven. Fo every example in favor of this fallacy there are 10 to disprove it.
Doesnt mean that it doesnt happen. It could be that Google just doesnt always catch it. Otherwise one could assume that nothing ever gets filtered or algo'd out because there are tons of exceptions to EVERY one of Google's rules.
| 2:29 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kirby, if a child always wets their bed when they have white sheets, should we conclude the problem is white sheets?
If somebody makes a claim the onus is on them to prove it, not vice verca.
| 2:31 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
kaled, The backlink doesn't show up for any of the other websites linked on that page either (I checked a sample of 10).
| 2:33 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sounds very suspicious. Can you sticky me the URL?
| 2:38 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like it has the "can have PageRank but not pass it on" penalty.
| 2:39 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I_am, A good point and a valid argument in most cases, but not with google. One of the reasons G is so frustrating is the lack of consistency with their enforcement, for lack of a better word.
Some sites apparently get banned for using doorway pages, cloaking, link farms, cross-linking and other supposed black hat techniques, while others are blatant in their use of the same techniques and thrive.
<edited for clarity>
| 2:45 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So what you are saying is, there is no way to prove or disprove anything in relation to Google? I totally agree that it is impossible (or very hard at the least) to 'prove' anything about Googles methods. This is the reason why we should never put forward assumptions as fact. If we do put forward assumptions as fact the onus is on the person to either prove it.
| 2:57 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Superpower for the URL.
I would say that it is most likley due to the volume of links on the one page, there are LOTS. Google may view this page as a link farm. Or, the have a file telling Google not to spider it.
I have checked 10 other sites from the page at random and none showed up. Although a few other links.htm pages did show from other sites.
Either way, it looks like nobody on that page will get credit. I would email Google the URL and ask them. They are the *only* ones that can answer your question.
|whats up skip|
| 3:21 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have often seen cases where the backlink is working in Google (helping with results position), but the backlink is not showing up in Google.
I find it can take more than four months.
| 3:54 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Does that page add/delete/change links very regularly? If so, google will wait for sometime before passing on the PR from such a page.
| 9:38 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Source? Here. Sorry I cant be more specific than that. It may have been in the supporters. Not at my desk at the mo to have a look for you. :)
Perhaps someone serious can help out and have a dig around or confirm.
All this assuming i am not nuts ;)
| 10:55 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|kaled, The backlink doesn't show up for any of the other websites linked on that page either (I checked a sample of 10). |
That supports the theory. However, check the source code. Is there a NOFOLLOW robots meta tag? This is unlikely but it easy to check.
| 11:04 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|All this assuming i am not nuts ;) |
I think you might be..... there was a very long thread (not in supporters) where people were claiming penalties for "links.html" and "site-map.html" but it was never concluded.
That the one you meant?
| 1:17 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As I remember a few people found them in the SERPs but they were not passing pr. I have this recollection that guestbook links were nuked in the same way.
I remember some senior people talking about finding unusual names for their links pages. You know crazy names.
I dont think I am nuts. But then what nutter does. Gibber gibber cluck cluck......
| 1:31 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|there was a very long thread (not in supporters) where people were claiming penalties for "links.html" and "site-map.html" but it was never concluded. |
I think you got to look at the thread in supporter's forum. There were 2 or 3 exceptions that we saw. But i think the original thread was started by DaveN. And soon after there were about 10 to 15 confirmations. We searched for links.htm in backlinks and could not find it. That does not mean links.htm are not passing PageRank. It was just that at that time Google was not showing links.htm and its variations in backlink searches. I know this because at that time I was also one of the person searching for backlinks which were links.htm . I tried Government sites and even their links.htm were not showing up as backlinks.
Now to come to the present issue, since we know google has done it previously, it cannot be ruled out that they might not be doing that currently. :)
| 1:34 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
the biggest hurdle is, say, an educational site will definitely have links as a filename, which is pretty much the standard. Any crude method of blocking pr of links.htm as a filename is definitely not google style. Maybe the number of links in such a file could be taken into account. I still doubt, that's crazy.
| 2:38 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I still doubt, that's crazy. |
If Google's current policies continue (and following on from the "metaphor" thread begun by GoogleGuy some weeks ago) perhaps "Googling" will come to mean "going senile/losing the plot".
| 11:42 am on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What is the count of the link? Beyond 100 links, it will take ages to show up as a backlink. Beyond 101k HTML limit, it will never showup.
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |