| 7:23 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Please let us know how this works out for you.
| 7:45 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you do a search for links.html or links.htm etc it looks awfully like they get spidered, indexed, have toolbar page rank etc. Whether they count as PR passing backlinks - you'll need to do your own research...
| 7:52 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
that was then what about now.
you dig a hole in the uk and you see roman coins - it doesn't necessarily mean that the romans occupy the country now!
I'm not saying it is true but you can not definitively say that in the comming update that it is crawling for now that it is not true.
| 7:56 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A few months ago there was a thread in supporters forum where many members noticed that google was not showing links.htm pages as backlinks.
So google does have a quick and dirty way to not pass PR from links.htm . The word has gone out and many people do not like to link to pages named "links". HTH :)
| 8:50 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A couple of days ago the same subject was discussed in the thread "Google and pages named /links" at
| 9:29 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Whether they count as PR passing backlinks - you'll need to do your own research... "
| 9:34 am on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Also keep in mind the possibility that Google might decide to not show pages named /links.htm (or anygivenname.htm, php, asp, etc) with the link: command but still count the links in the algo. I think they still realize there actually are good pages named links out there, they just want to stifle the fervor a little.
Remember, in the days of ww things happen fast. Nowadays, a links page still named /links.htm may actually be a sign of a site that is not optomized, thus activating the UOB (un-optomized bonus).;)
It's after 1:30 here. Please don't take anything I say without a grain of salt, a lime, and Cazadores.
| 2:15 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
why would they do that, a normal site has a link page where they refer to other sites they think could be of interest and that what the Google PR system is about, Im 100% sure they will NOT ban sites that end/only have link.htm.
| 8:43 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they don't count external links from links.html pages to prevent PR leak. ;)
| 11:21 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our sites have pages called links-directory, links-page and link-exchange and these have higher pr than some of the other pages.
Links have and always will be a valuable part of the google ranking process, aren't we getting a little paranoid here?
| 12:03 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Our sites have pages called links-directory, links-page and link-exchange and these have higher pr than some of the other pages."
Well then you have no idea what you are talking about here, right? links-page or whatever is not links.htm is it?
| 1:10 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
And just like in all the other discussions on this tired old subject, I will say again:
Google IS NOT filtering *only* on the name links.*
If there is any filter blocking pages with that name, it also has to meet other qualifications.
All my links pages, including links.html, and links.php, pass PR (yes, you CAN tell, when your link counts for a large percentage of PR going into a page) and they also show up as backlinks.
If your links.htm page is being filtered, then you might want to consider changing the format of your links page rather than just changing the name. What if they expand the filter beyond links.* to all names once they are happy with the results?
| 1:19 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My links.htm pages are mostly PR4 and passed PR to my new site. They were the only links to it and it was a PR3 it's first update.
| 2:04 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"What if they expand the filter beyond links.* to all names once they are happy with the results?"
Well obviously that is probably likely, but also just another trivial tangent. Whether some pages pass PR or not is completely unimportant no matter how many times someone says it. If 90%+ of the top 1000 links.tld pages don't show as backlinks to other pages or pass PR, and links.tld pages that are changed to anything.tld get their PR passing ability back and show as backlinks, then making a change would make sense for most people, regardless of what might occur in one webmasters little world.
Honestly, this poor dead horse has to be put out of its misery. If you are making a new page, there is no reason to name it links.tld and some reason not to. If you have an existing links.tld page that is not passin PR or showing as a backlink to other domains, go ahead and change it if you want it to. If you have links coming to you from links.tld pages that aren't showing as backlinks or passing PR, ask to get your link moved to another page. None of this has any negative to it, aside from taking time to contact the other webmasters. The only thing that is more complicated is if you get asked to exchange links with a site that wants to put your link on a page that isn't sending any benefit to the pages it currently links to.
| 6:56 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
not true. This is can never happen due to the logical implications behind this.