Is it true G does not like links.htm?

[insidejakarta]

All,
is it true G hates files called links.htm, or link.htm?
Actually on another forum I've heard this is a myth, that G still likes it.
I use links.htm name for my links page.
When I looked at my link partners' backlinks, they have no backlinks from my site! My website has PR 4 on the links page.
Thanks

[wyrickj]

Really I kinda thing it's a 1/2 and 1/2 story. You say your links don't show but yet mine do show. I once think Google had a filter on because people would think this is a nice place to buy / sell links for the PR. Now I think Google is not filtering links.htm or links.anything because Google is probley trying other ways instead of blocking the links name.

[I, Brian]

It's best to avoid naming files as "links", simply because it waves a big bright flag to search engines that there could be a links exchange going on - ie, a way of trying to manipulate the search engines for higher rankings.

Better for webmasters in general to use more keyword specific titles for their link exchange pages, simply because it helps make the pages look a more natural part of the site in question.

For general guidance on setting up link exchange pages, you may find this article useful:
http://www.seo-lab.com/webmaster-articles/link-exchange-webmasters.php

Hope that helps.

[kenneth]

It is a new for me, but I think there is no problem with name "links.htm"

[sem4u]

I don't think it is really a problem but to be on the safe side I am calling mine 'resources'.

[jocelyn]

I had the problem with links.htm, remamed it and then it showed in my partners backlinks. Now they all show... but do they give weight...
I don't use and don't accept links on links.xxx and links.xxx files.

[SEO_AM]

A while back I changed my "links.asp" to another url and did a 301 redirect. Prior to that my link partners were not seeing the BLs, now they are with a PR5 to boot. IMO, it makes a differnence.

Like Jocelyn, if someone wants me to link and their link page url is named "link(s).xxx", sorry but I will pass. Your decision, but, given the choice, why be dumb. ;)

[seobook]

I have seen backlinks from links.whatever pages, though it would be logical to not have your links pasted on files using a different filepath if possible.

recently google has been a bit shady showing somethings as backlinks that they were blocking. stuff like the weather underground and other similar sites are now showing as backlinks when they have had their pagerank blocked in the past.

[jlknauff]

I have heard that they weigh links.htm lower than other pages. Something else that mayplay a role in your links not showing (I'm assuming that you are talking about when you search fro BLs) is that G only shows BLs with a PR of 3 or higher.

[jocelyn]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]Something else that mayplay a role in your links not showing is that G only shows BLs with a PR of 3 or higher.[/QUOTE]
My links.htm page was a nice PR5 page and stopped showing in any partners BL, but still showed in my internal backlinks, so it was no bug. This was verified by many good SEO at many forums... the threads are under the big pile of new ones.

[wyrickj]

Yup links.htm give less weight than any other name. I agree with seobook and Joc. that I would not allow links.htm to be in my list of link partners.

[seobook]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]Yup links.htm give less weight than any other name. I agree with seobook and Joc. that I would not allow links.htm to be in my list of link partners.[/QUOTE]

I do have people linking to me with links.whatever and it is showing as a backlink, it is not something I recommend going after though. if there site is of high quality i would link to them and maybe ask if they could link to me in or near a certain article about something related to my site.

[jocelyn]

Yes... they are all back... me too I have some that never showed... but do they carry PR ? Google puts a block on PR now... so the BL are there... but they are empty backlinks. Why show the people what has weight and what doesn't...

[sunny]

links.htm/html pages didn't show up anywhere in the backlinks untill their last backlink update which they had a week ago.

Also seen bloglinks return in the backlinks...dunno what's cooking at google

[jocelyn]

[QUOTE=sunny]...dunno what's cooking at google[/QUOTE]
Why help SEO's showing only the good links... lets mix the crap with it and confuse them even more. Before all you had to do to get good backlinks was to look at a site backlinks and contact them to get one... now you may do It for a page that does not pass PR... cool stuff wouldn't you say. I never understood why they did not do this in the 1st place...