| 10:01 am on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Have all of the sites' links disappeared, or just the ones involved with that program?
| 11:30 am on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, I have been waiting for a while for this to happen but I need to double check everything. Backlinks have significantly reduced on one of my sites, and as of now they are mainly identified as linkpartners/linksmanager links, but I need to confirm if all of them are related!
| 11:35 am on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Linkpartners/linksmanager links are still showing as backlinks
| 11:50 am on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Showing links is one thing, counting them is another.
Linksmanager stuff is a stitch up and there is no doubt in my mind that Google will try and detect it. If I was google I would show them as backlinks and let people still believe they have value.... I would then have a way of identifying people who are trying to artificially inflate their links by participating in these schemes.
| 1:39 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
what I am seeing is that google encourages at the moment websites having these software generated backlink directories.
I am looking at about 10 different industries and all serps are dominated by websites, which you alexa or any other similar software.
The funny thing is, none of these links show in google backlinks, but if you use alltheweb or altavista, you see them all.
One example was 14 backlinks on google and 2.300 on alltheweb, all external... and no.1 for a very competitive keyword with pr 5 beating pr 6 and 7 sites easily.
| 1:45 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Remember that google only shows pr4+ as back links.
| 3:19 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
it ingore some, maybe ones in linkpartners, I moved away from it to another product
| 4:29 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There's nothing inherently wrong with using software to manage link exchanges. There are many solutions out there including LinksManager and, when done right, a link directory/exchange that is on topic is a GREAT addition to any website.
For Google to discount those links when they are targeted and theme categorized doesn't make a lot of sense IMHO since those links were human reviewed at some point.
| 4:39 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
a while back, i stopped seeing backlinks from pages named links (like links.html, links.htm etc.)
| 4:42 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Lothar: That'S what I think, too.
I can see a decrease in the amount of linksmanager - links, but the sites showing these decrese in their backlinks still have their SERP position as before.
Maybe with the next update Google will massively reduce the count of the linksmanager sites, although in my opinion it would not make any sense, since linksmanager is not made for automated links exchange.
You could easily set up an own alternative using a MYSQL database and PHP.
| 9:04 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
linksmanager is a plague on the Internet and I wish Google would ignore those links, but sadly they haven't been.
But most linksmanager garbage pages fall into two categories: they have below (usually way below) PR4; they reside in /links/ directories or have some other obvious designation like that. The low PR ones not showing has that explaination, but if Google is getting better at recognizing the directory sections housing these trash pages then that is terrific news. Still though, I see a lot of these pages showing as backlinks, and presumabaly counted as anchor text (the much bigger problem here).
| 9:12 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
linksmanager is a plague on the Internet and I wish Google would ignore those links, but sadly they haven't been. <<<
I think calling the software a plague is a little harsh. It's just a simple way of organizing a link directory, and if used correctly can add valuable resources to a site. The automation process certainly makes life a little easier, and who would begrudge any webmaster interested in saving more time?
Like anything there will be webmasters who abuse the service, but that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bath water.
| 9:27 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Oh please. The bot is a rogue. The programs spams emails to people who don't want them, etc. etc. "Plague" is understating it.
More to the point, the links are 95% exchanged purely for pagerank and anchor text. They should be ignored completely.
| 1:44 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with steveb ... Google say clearly in guidelines: Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank ... is not the use of LinksManager et al doing just that. Sooner Google ignores those kinds of links (if they are not already) the better.
| 3:12 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google usually doesn't ignore links.htm or links.html in awarding it PR, but they dont give PR to links2.htm links3.html, etc.
Google also, usually doesn't count them in backlinks. I have several PR6 links.html pages linking to me and none of them show up.\
It's all crap.
| 4:33 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Oh please. The bot is a rogue. The programs spams emails to people who don't want them, etc. etc. "Plague" is understating it. <<
I think you're confusing this program with Zeus. Links Manager does not spider the web in search of link partners, nor does it have the capability to bulk mail. It is simply an efficient way to build a directory. There's really nothing wrong with the concept as long as the directory promotes sites related to it's overall theme. The entire foundation of the Internet is based on a network of links. Where would we be without them?
Now Google may eventually disallow such programs like Links Manager, but I don't see the fairness in such actions if the participating webmasters are using the service correctly.
| 4:45 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think you guys are getting confused between linksmanager and link partners.
Linksmanager is simply a program to easily organize links.
The real problem is the linkpartners directory and its integration with linksmanager. Without that directory, this would be a non issue.
| 7:14 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I think you're confusing this program with Zeus"
You seem to be confused about your confusion. This has nothing to do with Zeus.
Defenses along the lines of guns don't kill people just don't fly.
Not only is it fair to ignore the results of deliberate link schemes, it should be required by the Google guidelines. They have been remiss in not taking action against this web pollution previously.
| 7:39 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You seem to be confused about your confusion. This has nothing to do with Zeus. <<<
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Links Manager does not have spam capabilities. If you're going to spread imflammatory remarks about a product, at least get your facts straight.
| 7:42 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
like any tool, the question is how do you use it, I agree that the integration with link partners may open the door to abuse
| 8:08 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It is really quite simple.
You have the right to use whatever software you want to manage your links.
Google has the right to ignore those links, pages, directories or sites that use them. They also have the right to filter or penalized those sites when it comes to ranking on google.
You have the right to whine about it when they do.
You do not have the right to decide which criteria google uses to rank your site.
It is not an issue of whether or not you use it properly. If Google decides that an action will do significantly more good than harm for the majority of searchers on the majority of searches then they should do it.
| 8:45 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To say "Links Manager does not have spam capabilities" is just obtuse. No the .exe files don't magically do this on its own, so please spare that line of argument. I'm just one person and I've gotten hundreds, maybe over a thousand, emails from linksmanager users. My site is continually crawled without permission despite a robots.txt ban. The entire program is a links scheme. The pages generated are trash links. The bot is a bandwidth sucking rogue.
People can use whatever they want, and send out as many unwelcome emails as they want, but it sure will be a good day when Google (and Yahoo) recognize this poo as the worthless junk it is.
| 8:47 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You have to laugh when people say they are adding a links directory to ' add a useful resource for their visitors'.
9 times out of 10 it is there for page rank link swops. The web is dependant on links, thats how search engines find many sites to index and joe public can also find new sites when they surf, but for a site to have so many links out that they need software to organise them is a clear signal to me that they are more interested in link popularity than helping their visitors.
| 8:48 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
More to the point, if Google is looking for "signals of quality", a link partners directory is certainly not one.
| 7:13 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
steveb I've noticed a number of threads where Links Manager is mentioned and you have made negative comments. That's fine, but looking at their FAQ it does seem that they now honor robots.txt and that there is no e-mail spamming function. Maybe they've turned over a new leaf. It looks like a pretty respectable tool now. Maybe in the past they did things differently...but I don't see any of the things you're mentioning.
| 1:11 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think this is a red herring. If I were Google I would be after after links pages. Not pages generated by a specific software (though if a software leaves a html fingerprint on the pages it generates, that would be an easy way to do it).
Google has banned a few of our sites that have dynamic directories. But we built them ourselves without any commercial software.
| 1:29 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm confused by the vigour in slamming this software. I don't use it, have built my own, but it is similar.
I manage a client's site, about... widgets... Client sells 1000 different widgets on the site, has written and collated over 500 articles on widgets which are published on the site. All pages are SE friendly so site appear to google as huge. It is an authority
I have created a links directory for her, of sites people interested in widgets are likely to be interested in. Blue widgets, wodgets and wudgets.
Of course, I did not visit each site and make an executive decision on whether to link, I used software. Visit 2000 sites by hand? Um no thankyou. Google doesn't do this. they recommend sites through a formula and a crawler. Why shouldn't I?
My software tells me whether the site is of the topic I wish to recommend for my client's site visitors. It matter little that they could have found the same site through a search engine, the fact is, they are at my client's site, not a search engine. All I am doing is givine them more choices of where to go if they are after something similar my client does not have.
And why not askthese sellers of wodgets and whattha's that you sell widgets and maybe their clients may be interested so please link back to you? It will help your rnkaings, and yes people DO follow those links according to my logs. Many many people do.
I figure those of you who are bleating are sellers of the content content content line.
Tell me, how then do you compete with sites with similar sized/quality content with 500 more incomign links? You don't of course, you write to WWW and give the software a serve.
| 2:12 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What a lame thread. I use LinksManager and LinkPartners. My website is listed #1 for all of my keywords. Has been this way for over 18 months. I get quality, relevant traffic from my link swaps, and my site users utilize my links pages daily. LinksManager is a TOOL, not a linking scheme. It is basically a database and page generator. YOU supply the links. LinksManager simply organizes them in the way you want them without having to code HTML. My links pages are stored on MY web server, at the URL I chose, and are static HTML. There are a hundred reasons why a website can drop in the SERPs, lose PageRank, or get removed from the search engines altogether. To attempt to peg a drop on one individual thing is a falacy.