Does Google penalise links to certain parts of a page?

ie. pages/page.htm#middle

[fishfinger]

I was checking an existing site that has been re-worked where we have a large 'features' table outlining various services. Each feature links through to another detailed page and that page then links back to an anchor point in the table so you don't lose your place.

I noticed that the toolbar shows a PR4 for the page but PR0 for every url including an 'anchor point'

i.e <a href="../services.htm#service1">..back</a>

Does this mean Google sees them as different pages and therefore duplicates?

[tedster]

First, there's no "penalty". It's just that Google does not assign PageRank to parts of pages, so the toolbar will not show any PR for a ur with a named anchor.

Now the question becomes whether their current handling is giving any "credit" for an internal backlink to the main url, if the only links on that url go to a named anchor on the target url. I just don't know -- it's certainly possible for it to to be either way in reality. Seems like a page with many named anchor links pointing to another url "should be" counted as one backlink, but I can also see how it might not be.

Thing is, I can't see how to test this. I'd suggest having one regular link on the page too (with no named anchor on the end.)

[fishfinger]

Thanks for the reply.

Google does not assign PageRank to parts of pages, so the toolbar will not show any PR for a ur with a named anchor.

It makes sense for them to do that, but then I'd expect the toolbar to be either grey or show the PR4 that the page has.

I'm not concerned with these not being counted as links, rather I'm concerned that they WILL be seen as spammy links. Does anyone know for sure that they won't?

[tedster]

100% certainty is hard to come by with Google. But the scenario you describe is so very common on the web, that I would be astonished if it was causing a ranking problem. Has anyone seen a case where it clearly was?

[jimbeetle]

You're using the anchor as you're supposed to so there's no reason at all for those links to be seen as spammy.

Do I know for sure? If anybody in this business tells you they know something "for sure," well...

[oaktown]

I have a theory. It's only a theory.

The pages in question are .asp, meaning that they are assembled, if I understand correctly, "on demand".

I could easily have missed some clues, but it looks to me as though only the pages accessed directly from the nav menu have PR. My theory is that maybe, just maybe, the bot sees the link pointing back to the "name" anchor on a page it just left and ignores it to avoid getting caught in a loop.

A crackpot theory, but it's the best I can do.

hooting and derisive laughter are welcome, as always:)

[fishfinger]

Thanks for all the replies guys. My gut feeling is that it would be stupid to say the least for Google to penalise this as it is standard HTML.