| 12:53 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It depends on how many links there are and how well you police them for turning into a bad neighborhood.
If you remove the script you are definitely passing PageRank. So Google will scrutinze them a lot more for evidence of link selling.
That's the downside, or at least one of them. One upside may be that Google uses those links to better understand your page's relevance.
| 7:08 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't Google actually understand my page's relevance even when I use a click counter script?
| 7:11 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
| 10:05 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I know someone that removed their click counters and suddenly the site took a nasty penalty.
I would suspect that a sudden surge in raw links signals a filter to engage.
| 11:06 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
using the link: operator I have seen evidence that Google counts these redirects as backlinks, and why shouldn't they? if that is the page where the user is ending up then it's still the same as a normal link.
| 5:07 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Seems like all click countered links are bad because you look like a directory and straight links passes page rank what means less pr for your internal pages and having an eye on how good are linked sites.
| 5:10 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|using the link: operator I have seen evidence that Google counts these redirects as backlinks |
Google's behaviour when it comes to backlinks and redirects is very interesting - they would show backlinks to a URL A that redirects to URL B as backlinks for link: URL B command. This certainly does not happen for all redirects but it does happen. In theory this should channel all PR value of URL A backlinks to be assigned to URL B.
| 5:37 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Google will even show backlinks that have a rel="nofollow" attribute. The report is more for webmaster information than a direct statement that "these links are helping your rankings."