I look after one site that is very successful and we have a good resource page. It has a good page rank of 6. Yes I know GPR isn't everything but it does give you an indication of how good our page is.
Anyway someone requested a link to our site and turned down the offer off a link on our resources page stating:
Sorry we are not interested in that arrangement because currently resource/links directory link and link pages have no value. If our links are placed in the content page our link will get good exposure and can benefit more.
Now this gets me thinking is this true. Surely if we are both offering each other three way links this should make no difference.
If there any advantage to a content link or a resource link. These links are free links. (The exposure bit is probably true depending on how popular that content page is.)
I know GPR isn't everything but it does give you an indication of how good our page is.
Nope, no, nein. The toolbar doesn't indicate anything about quality.
we are not interested in that arrangement because currently resource/links directory link and link pages have no value.
That's somewhat off, too. There are many authoritative web pages that feature a resources page named links. What makes any "links" page unattractive is not that it's titled "links" or that it's URL has the word "links" in it. It's the inbound links going to that particular page. and the pages it is linking out to.
Many common SEO notions are accepted at face value without understanding the origins. You know the toolbar "isn't everything" but you still believe it has something to say about quality. You know the truth but deny it in the same breath.
The taboo against pages named links came from an event many years ago. That event was when pages entitled links went gray in the toolbar. This even happened to prestigious "partners" pages such as on IBM.com. Everything reverted back and the efficacy of those pages never suffered.