How should you handle a link page on a new site in 2012?

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I'm launching a new project and it will have a "links" page, which is a page of links to other quality sites in this niche.

The problem with this niche is that most top ranked sites on the subject are as old as the internet, poorly coded, ugly but full of amazing first hand information. While I DO want to link to them I DO NOT want to write an article about each to link to them from there and I DO NOT intend on adding links casually within articles to them since, again, the articles won't be about them. Think ford talking about cars, it would make no sense to link to GM from that page but it would make sense to mention other car makers somewhere.

A link page is also required with this niche because the only way to get a mention from the majority of these sites is to use their old "link to us first and we'll link back" scripts. They each have link pages (which suggests it's not detrimental to site rankings) and those pages only have links to top quality sites, they DO take the time to check out link partners.

Some questions about ideal setup, I'd like to get it right from the start.
~ Use nofollow on every link on the links page?
~ Use a robots noindex meta tag at the page level instead?
~ If a robots noindex meta tag is used, nofollow all links to the page?
~ Use a robots.txt exclusion on the entire page

Some questions about proper wording on the links page
~ will using wording such as "these are quality sites that have linked to us" be frowned upon by Google?

There was a discussion about this subject a year ago here - [webmasterworld.com...] - and it was mentioned that wikipedia uses nofollow on 100% of outgoing links but it doesn't mention if that works for wikipedia because of an already established trust factor(remember wikipedia did not use nofollow at first) and it doesn't cover the fact that many people still report wikipedia links showing up as trusted backlinks in various analytics and reports(perhaps because nofollow is only relevant to Google).

Hard question but - how would YOU set up the perfect links page in 2012?

[Planet13]

Personally, I think I would play it straight.

I would make them do follow links (not no follow links) and I would let google index the site, so no, I wouldn't block it in robots.txt file.

If the visitors would find the links of value, then I think it is probably best just to have a well curated links page whether they link to you or not. When I look at well curated link pages, I notice that they often get LOTS of natural quality inbound links from lots of other sites.

[buckworks]

I agree with Planet13, play it straight and use dofollow links.

A well curated links page can give useful signals to support the search engines' perceptions of what your site is about. That would be especially true if you include some informative descriptive text along with each link.

Sometimes a simple old-fashioned links page is the most natural approach of all!

[Robert Charlton]

I wouldn't use any nofollow links on a links page. If you don't trust the site, don't waste your visitors' time.

Depending on the type of site you have, I would link either to appropriate resources related to the topic of an article, or... for some types of sites... I'd have a resources page.

From a "Reference Links" page, link only to the best available resources you can find, and organize them carefully, for maximum utility to your visitors. Put some work and thought into this page. Add maybe 5 to 25-word unlinked descriptions following each link, so your visitors know why the link is useful to them. Make sure your wording is original, based on your view of the site you're linking to.

I've never used link exchange as a criterion for linking, but if you can find some sites that you really feel are good that you can include in such pages, no harm in trying to get links back from them. But definitely don't overdo it. Opportunism is easily to observe.

Note also that if the sites don't carefully organize their links to you, you may not get much benefit from the exchange. In general, don't make optimized anchor text a part of the exchange, in either direction. Very occasionally, you might.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

~ Should I link to this reference links page from every page on my site from somewhere like a footer position or should I minimize its exposure to say the index page or even an about page (1-2 clicks from index) ?

reason for asking: there is a drain going on from this page.

I've only ever used links to other sites where I was directly talking about something on another site, never from a links page. Wondering just how detrimental it might be in Google's eyes.

[ken_b]

or should I minimize its exposure to say the index page or even an about page (1-2 clicks from index) ?

When I run across that kind of stuff when deciding whether or not to link to another site, I usually don't give the link.

If the links you are putting up are worthwhile to your visitors, why would you hide or limit the access to the page?

The link to my resource section is right there in the main nav bar at the top of every page on my site.

[Robert Charlton]

Sgt_Kickaxe - I recommend that you reread this thread, one which you in fact started in Aug 2011. We discussed the possible benefits of outbound links....

From around the web
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4356511.htm [webmasterworld.com]

The takeaway I would suggest from the discussion is that outbound links might well help, but they are not a purely check-list kind of thing. The user experience is going to have a lot to do with it. I'd further say that anything you can do to make Google's indexing parallel a good user experience is likely to be more helpful than trying to obfuscate what you're doing.

The concept of "drain" is more subtle... to be discussed... but, on a typical site, the actual effect to the home page of, say, 30 links on a Links Page, where the single link to the Links Page is coming directly from home, is going to be miniscule, and will be far outweighed, IMO, by the benefits of linking out.