Forum Moderators: open
Should I submit these linking pages to Google myself to get the links recognized?
Google does actively filter incoming links, are you also reciprocating the links? I'm starting to come to the inclusion that unless you reciprocate the links, then they are downgraded or disqualified from the whole PR equation.
One thing to look at is the URL investigator over at AllTheWeb.com, place your www.domain.com in the seach bar, and have a look at your back links there. ATW does not have a minimum exclusion from published forwarding links.
I'm starting to come to the inclusion that unless you reciprocate the links, then they are downgraded or disqualified from the whole PR equation.
That doesn't make sense. Google won't penalise a site for not providing a reciprocal link. I have several links to Microsoft, but they just won't give me a reciprocal. However, Microsoft don't do too badly in G ;-)
Maybe there's a penalty if you DO give a reciprocal.
I believe that goggle rates each link and if each incoming link is high enough in PR value then google will show them. It doesn't mean that if the PR of a incoming link that is low, that it doesn't get counted. It just means that goggle may not show that backlink in its results.
Sure, no harm in that.
However, are those pages links.html or links.htm. or links.asp or whatever? If so, most/many/tons of similar pages don't show as backlinks for anybody, so there isn't anything to be done about it except ask for your link to be moved to a page not named links.****
I've done a check of the links in questins and in every case the page has "links" in the title:
[domain.net...]
[domain.com...]
[domain.com...]
[domain.com...]
[domain.co.uk...]
So maybe the solution is to email these people and request they change the name of the page to "resources" or something.
My link to them is from my index page, so at the moment, they are getting a PR5 link and I'm getting zip.
I fear you've been had.
Even if they do still exist, I fear you've been had.
The term "domain" in each those links replaces the actual site name which I removed.
I'll post the results of this effort in a day or so once they get back to me. I think they simply didn't know about Google's new policy of ignoring /links.html (or similar) pages.
Good idea but be prepared for the possible 1-2 month loss of page rank until Google refind their page that links to you with the new name.
At least that is what happened to us when we suggested to someone who links to us that they rename their links page (it was a high PR site).
thx
Those results have pretty much zero relevance to your own position in the SERP. Google has varied the number and selection of those links all the time. They do *not* reflect all the backlinks to your site that Google knows about, and those links they do show say little about the importance that each one may or may not have.
There's nothing to gain from "optimizing" your site to do well in such a query.
It's always nice to know who is leaking their PR to you ;-)
I'm not debating that at all. I maintain an extensive database of backlinks to my sites. But the Google "link:" search is clearly not a very helpful source to fill that database.
There are plenty of .edu and .org sites which don't care about Pagerank or Google, they will just keep adding links to their links.html page. OTOH, SEOd sites will rename the links page to whatever-sounds-different-of-links.html.
Would the PHDs at the Plex base link filtering just on the name of the pages, the absolutely easiest feature to be manipulated?
I believe that links.html pages have their (possibly discounted) weight, even if they do not show under link: commands. An evidence of this is that internal links (links to pages in the same domain) do appear as backlinks.
