If a page has many links on it, each link isn't worth much.
The rumour about Google looking at files called link.html and deciding that these are somehow a cardinal sin is amusing but not really worth credence....
My links pages are called links.html because when they appear in the SERPS - usually quite high, thank you, I want the human readers of the SERPS to realise they are my links pages....
In any system with 4,000,000,000 pages there are going to be some anomalies, but one anomaly doesn't makea new rule. My sites offer three counter examples to the rule that "links.html" is a Google no-no and I suggest that you ignore these distractions too!
Yeah, Derek is right. It doesn't matter what the name of the page is. Although there was some weirdness related to a Google algo rollout last year with link pages, it's not happening anymore. As Derek mentioned, pay attention to how many other sites you're sharing the PR4 with, as this will dilute it.
On the other hand don't be discouraged if it doesn't show up in your backlinks. Quite often the change is reflected in your traffic logs and/or cash register, and that's where it counts. ;)
Ignore the previous two posts sim64. Generally link.*** pages do not show as backlinks or pass PR. You can see that for yourself with your own examples, or just follow links from medium-high PR pages like
Also make sure that you follow the other off-domain links from those pages that link to you to be sure that other domains are also not showing the backlink from that site linking to you.
This is a well established phenomenon that is easily observable, and also easily testable.
I'm of the position that not-passing-pr is more due to other on-page factors in some links pages (over 100 links per page, high link to text ratio), rather than the file name, i've seen both links.html and links.htm pages in the serps, and in link: searches.
|Ignore the previous two posts sim64. Generally link |
We're not in disagreement.
|Generally link.*** pages do not show as backlinks or pass PR. |
I have been debating whether to rename my link pages for some time, and still haven't come to a conclusion. My pages are themed and named "theme1-links.php", "theme2-links.php", etc. Does the above statement apply to hyphenated names? The amount of PR they would pass is relatively small so difficult to test.
Thanks for the repliies,
Some of the sites linking back to my site are PR5 with less than 30 other links on them.
My site has had a link from them for at least 6 months. I would think this rules out the theory that too many links on the page is causing the link not to show up.
Currently these seem to be showing, or at least showing far more often than /links.tld or /links/
check where are the blacklinks located on the page, it may be a frame or size issue
Not sure if this is relevant but I usually use resources.asp.
On that page I have widget manufacturers with telephone and web links and sometimes e-mail.
Then at the bottom other pages you maybe in insterested and links and descriptions there.
I hope this sort thing helps.
|"theme1-links.php" Currently these seem to be showing, or at least showing far more often than /links.tld or /links/ |
I'm still keeping an open mind whether to rename or not, and would do so if it were proved Google was penalizing pages due to the name.
However at the moment (as discussed on another thread) I can't see any compelling evidence for this. "Theme1-links" may show up more often because the author has taken more care, included more explanatory text, or simply because the links are seen as relevant to the theme of the page group.
I verified that links.**** and links_a-z.xxx did not show on link partners with my site.
But links_keyword.xxx does. (like saying 'sites about keyword')
I renamed my pages to links_keyword.xxx format.
Any links.xxx ... did show on my sites backlinks (internal links).
Oh yeah... links_a-z.xxx was older than links_keyword.xxx and had a higher or equal PR.
I refuse links on pages with links.xxx so must other.
Hope this helps