Linking to pages named link.html? Does this include the Title bar?

Does this include the title bar, link to us text?Please help:)

[frenzy77]

Hi
everyone:)

I have a few questions. Hope you don't mind:)

I've read through some threads about not linking to sites named link.html, my first question is: Q.1. Does this include the text in the "title bar"(element)?
Q.2. Does it also include the link text in the navigation menu? Ex. "Link to us"

This last question might be a dumb question but i just don't want to be penalized for linking to these sites.

Q.3. Can i link to sites that have the term "link to us" or anything "link" in the navigation menu?(text) Is this a dumb question?

Q4. Does the not linking to idea only mean "title bar" and "file name"?
Q.5. It's not the actual *clickable text* in the menu? Right?

[neuron]

When a cat sits on a hot stove it learns quickly and will never sit on a hot stove again, but neither will it sit on a cold stove.

I'm not going to do your research for you, I'm too busy linking to sites that say "link to us" and getting links from /links.html pages.

However, I believe the misinformation you are referring to happened about 2.5 years ago when google banned sites using Zeus linking software for a couple of months. Most of these pages were called links.html. The ban passed into oblivion, but it did shock a lot of people, and the after-effects can still be felt, as exemplified by your post.

A more recent, modern equivelent to this "urban legend" is about paid links that pass PR. Google did some site banning in the early stages when people were advertising text link ads for the purpose of passing PR, but this has pretty much fallen by the wayside also. Still, I expect to hear someone in this very same forum a couple of years from now say they've heard buying links to increase their ranking can hurt them.

Is it okay to sit on a cold stove?

[GuitarZan]

Hey,

I agree with neuron; this is foolish.

I am not calling you a fool, but the idea itself. Google knows that people participate in link exchanges, and they would have to ban a lot of stuff if this was the case with links.html.

I am not sure about a page that looks like a link farm though, (100's of links, barely any text).

I keep my link pages to 20 links, and each one has a description.

All the Best,

C.K.

[martinibuster]

Two or three years ago there was an incident where Google graybarred pages named LINKS, and even ones called PARTNERS. I even saw it on IBM's website.

The 2.5 year ago incident happened a couple years after the Zeus incident, which was a different event altogether. The Zeus banning happened something like four years ago.

So if you ponder the (non-zeus) incident from two or three years ago it may give rise to some questions.

• Why did Google do that?
  
• Was it an algo implementation gone wrong?
  
• Were they implementing a dampening factor, or some other analysis for scrutinizing links?

I dislike link pages that are called Links. But what can I do about it? At worst it'll be a useless link. At best it's nothing to worry about. Then there's everything in between.