Forum Moderators: open
I'm seeing quite a few sites with good PR on all pages except their links page. These pages had PR before, now they are either PR0, or grey ( not indexed ).
It seems it's more consistent at sites that have just one links page with multiple topics on it, sites with multiple links pages (directory style links pages) on topic seem OK.
the consitencies I see are:
Most have link text pointing to them called links
Most are called links.htm or have links in the URL.
Most are 1 page, multi-topic links pages, e.g., there is no targeted theme to the page, anything from greeting cards to health sites all on same page.
Could these be mistaken for FFA's?
I haven't checked fully, but many are listed on "link trading" sites. Maybe peple have created link farms and don't realize it?
I've seen this on many sites. It doesn't seem like a coincidence.
I just wanted to see if anyone else was seeing this.
Using "link" (and "directory") as the page name has been a no-no for some time. Use more creative and useful resource names for these pages that will carry relevancy.
I have deep content pages with the same PR as my main index page. My main shopping page (the index.html page of the shopping directory) has been PR0'd but the deeper shopping pages have PR's of 3 and 4 except for some of them are grey-barred. The only place these deeper shopping pages are linked to from is the main shopping page which was PR0'd. No pattern to which ones are which as far as grey bar, PR3 or PR4. Seems totally random.
I don't much care if Google PR0's my shopping pages since they really are just on-topic affiliate links. As long as people can find my content pages I'll be happy with that. My only concern is if this apparent penalty to the shopping pages bleeds over to the rest of the site.
I have a full directory of hundreds of pages named site.com/links/.
Would that directory happen to be auto-generated. I'm with engine on this one, stay away from the file name links as it has had its share of abuse over the years and I think Google either downgrades those pages, penalizes them, or doesn't index them.
If you find you've got a page or pages on your site that appear to be lacking in PR or have no PR when they should, I might consider dropping those pages or rebuilding them under another file name.
I believe another factor is the formatting of the links pages themselves. Pages with just links don't do as well as pages with links and descriptions and other elements.
P.S. I also think another contributing factor is the quality of those links. Keep a watchful eye on the PR of those sites that you are linking to. If any of those sites have PR0 and are linking back to you, there may be some issues.
We've had lots of discussions surrounding this topic. My feeling is if you have a disproportionate amount of outbounds links to PR0, then penalities may be imposed.
I have a directory of resources separated into 6 categories, no spam links, all useful stuff with about 10 links per category. Half of them are now PR0.
All of the pages are category_links.html
If this is one of the new spam filters it managed to zero out half of my useful resources section, I look forward to seeing others being applied!
I guess Google is just testing a new algo?
Google effectively wiped out a whole group of portals in the past 12 months from a variety of resources. I think most of us will agree that a majority of the links pages out there are just that, links pages. They serve no real value and most of the time offer no real quality resources.
I'm not saying this is the case with anyone posting in this thread, its just something to watch out for.
We've had lots of discussions surrounding this topic. My feeling is if you have a disproportionate amount of outbounds links to PR0, then penalities may be imposed.
links.html
My pages do not have the word or anything remotely like it in the name, and they appear to be fine for now.
badgeruk
Powdork,
>Is it possible that with the many backlinks missing we are linking to some pr 0 sites that normally have pr.
Oh, ah, yep, sure! Are their any pages you link to that have a pr0? Is their pr changing / unstable? I'm pretty sure you link to one or more pages that are penalized themselfs.
Clicking back and forth to these sometimes results in PR0, other times results in their former PR.
This behavior doesn't happen to sibling pages.
Something's up...
But then why my little links page with all of 3 links being PR0? These are to related sites, and would pass any hand check if the question was raised these links were just to raise PR. I can only imagine it was the name of the page. Looks like Google is now zapping legit links pages also.
[edited by: netnerd at 7:24 pm (utc) on May 19, 2003]
Wouldn't it be good to degrade all these links-sites out there? A link should be more relevant when it comes from a content-page. There are too many sites offering 100s of reciprocal links. Isn't it true that most of you prefer PR7 backlinks from a main site and not from a ./directory/reciprocal-links.html?
