links.html etc. definitely not showing up in backlinks

[oceanplanet]

If you do link exchanges and do a link: on your site any partner pages linking to you on a links.html links.htm links.php etc. will not be shown, afaik this is happening 100% of the time at the time of this post.

The page must be named links.something, if it is links2.html it will still be counted. Also most likely PR won't be counted from links.something as well.

Question to seo guy, from your experience do you think anchor text is still being counted though. It may be possible that while backlinks and PR aren't passing through, anchor text is still being taken into account.

Perhaps you can set it up as a test on seo-tests.com?

[jagan]

Hello Friend

You are right!

google is not counting back links form the pages like link.html, links.html. I have seen the backward link of my one web site just 5 minutes before and i have found that google is not showing the backward link to my web site from PR 5 page named as link4.html. Link4.html has PR5.

Interesting Posting by you! and Interesting results in google
link:http://www.mydomain.dom

[clasione]

I recomend not even using the word links at all in the url....

We don't know whats going to happen in the near future....

Better off callling it:

other-webs.html or something to that effect.... Something that will never be targeted....

[dilligaf]

I certainly don't know, but to me it would be counter productive or at least a waste of time for Google to filter out links from pages named links. People would just change the name. Beyond that it is standard nomenclature.

[seokid]

People are just changing the name, I think google was realizing that people who have a links page where just filling it with links to different, non-related sites so they canned it, but people who where naming the files, investingresources or investinglinks, would naturally have investing related sites on there, sure lots of people who where not abusing their links.htm pages got kicked out too, but I think google preffered to see so much of the link spamming get kicked out the door.

[dilligaf]

seokid, so it's already in place? If so, does it just not value the links on the page or is the site with the links page penalized in some fashion?

[jagan]

hi again

Now the question is that if google is considering PR share from that page or not
(link.html or links.html) to other pages listed on that. I think G has no value of Link.html and Links.html according to its recent algo.

[nameeta]

So would it mean that simply changing the name of the page will keep the importance of such pages or would such link pages be penalised.But what about the people who are not abusing such link pages.If only by changing the name the benefit can be taken then surly there will again be no benefit of dropping the link pages.

[seokid]

From what I have seen, the links.htm page WILL have PR but it will simply not pass on to any links on that page. Also the keyword in the anchor text is not counted or the link would show up as a backlink. I'm not 100% sure if it discounts pages like domain.com/links/resources.php. I just haven't tested it yet, as soon as I find a page like that in my daily searches for links partners that has a PR 4 I will be checking everyone on that page for backlinks to test it.

Either way, when you're doing searches for link partners, I don't recommend discounting them as a partner, just simply explain whats going on and give them some literature on the subject, 95% of the people I've run into have been really appreciative about it.

[dilligaf]

Well I've been looking a bit and found a couple of sites that break down their links as site.com/links.htm > categories. If this were true, and it seems so much of the time, would it be reasonable to expect all category pages to have PR-0? Most seem to have PR-0 but some are PR 2-4, and none of those category pages have any back links.

[seokid]

Then that would suggest that only outbound links don't get credit, internal links could still be allowed to have PR. OR the lower category pages could have links from other pages in the site that are less than PR 4 so they just don't show up. What are some other peoples thoughts on this?

[dilligaf]

I checked the backlinks outside of Google so that everything would show. I've sent the webmaster a link to the thread and asked permission to post the URL's. Do we have anything concrete on the PR not being passed other than a couple of missing back links?

[dilligaf]

The webmaster responded giving me permission to permission to post a link.
http://hotels-spanien.costaholidays.de/links.htm

Thanks for your time, It'd be nice to get this sorted.

[eCommando]

what if the link page is named like "shopping-links.asp"? will that be penalized?

[dilligaf]

e-commando: The prevailing thought is, no, but why not use something else. I'm still thinking that there may be no penalty at all.

[seokid]

finally found a link domain.com/apsc/can/links/index.htm and that page is passing on PR and backlinks just fine. It's a PR 4 page. So it's just pages that are links.htm or links.whatever

[dilligaf]

SEO Kid, What about my example? Links.htm passes PR just fine.

[oceanplanet]

[QUOTE=dilligaf]SEO Kid, What about my example? Links.htm passes PR just fine.[/QUOTE]
As SEO Kid has mentioned, it may pass PR just fine to pages on the same domain, but outgoing PR may not be passed. There aren't any outgoing links from your example page so you won't be able to tell from there.

[jagan]

yes, i am also agree that there is no outgoing link for this page http://hotels-spanien.costaholidays.de/links.htm

So we can not have any idea from this page that if it will be counted as backward link for outside web links or not and as well as PR share.

[dilligaf]

O.K. So where are the examples of PR not being passed to outside pages? Have there been more than a couple of specific examples anywhere that we could look at? The web is a pretty big place, there must be a 10^100 examples.

[oceanplanet]

It's easy to find examples, they're all over the place. Just do a search in Google for links.html:

http://www.google.com/search?q=links.html&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Then go to each of those pages, get the list of partner sites listed (outgoing links), then do a link: in Google for each of those partner sites. You'll find that the Google results don't contain anything that has links.whatever at the end of it.

[dilligaf]

Thanks, not 10^100 but a bunch.

[SPARKO]

Hmmmm whats everyone using instead of links.html; a lot of people are using 'resources' I think I'll go for directory, or sommet. I have to change a lot of my link texts to help in ranking neways. There's been some debate on whether to use dashes or underscores as well. I think dashes are best advised. :cool:

[eCommando]

In a few months, resources will not pass any PR.

[seokid]

I'd have to scrub my history to get that one link I posted above as I didn't use the actual domain. But I'm convinced on the matter. If you'd like to get some research going into this I'd be happy to try and find some examples

[seokid]

found perfect example http://killeenroos.com/links.htm PR is 6, then go to the link at the top of the page to humanities course with the domain as kkknightsstuffstuffstuff and click on that and then look at the backlinks, they have lots of backlinks from domain.com/link/stuff.htm but not a singe one with stuff.com/links.htm

[jagan]

yes, this is the good example given by you. We have also many examples, but we need admin approval before psoting those examples.

[Maureen C]

[COLOR=Magenta]Hello to all,
I just want to say all of my link pages have link.html and everyone of them have a PR of at lest 2.

Thanks

Maureen C[/COLOR]www.lingerie4two.com

[serps]

After the the last update, It now looks as though links.html pages are now showing up as backlinks.

[powerofeyes]

After the the last update, It now looks as though links.html pages are now showing up as backlinks.

yes even i saw that too, Also some guest book links are showing as backlinks before that it was not showing as backlinks, dont know whether google has removed guestbook filter or this is just for testing purpose, Have to see how it works out,

[jocelyn]

[QUOTE=dilligaf]O.K. So where are the examples of PR not being passed to outside pages? Have there been more than a couple of specific examples anywhere that we could look at? The web is a pretty big place, there must be a 10^100 examples.[/QUOTE]
I had links.htm pages that did not give BL to any partners.
I removed all links and just kept that page for internal use since BL are ok for internal pages. I renamed the other that were affected and they were fine after. If links_something is used it's fine. Chances are link.htm will show now. Because even BL of PR1 pages show in backlinks now. They are showing lots of backlinks, not only the ones that counts the most anymore. This is logical, you only had to check backlinks to see who had high PR and ask links from them. So we get a mix of good and crappy links now... lol

[powerofeyes]

Where do you see links with Pagerank less than 4, I dont see anything like that, Do you see any static link which is Pagerank lesser than 4 showing in backlink, if so please post it here let me have a look,

I did give an explanation before about dynamic links,

But the topic of this discussion Google showing backlinks with lesser than PR4 is not true, What ever google shows in the link: command is the Pagerank which google knows, What ever which we see in the toolbar do have a slight difference, Especially with dynamic links,

Toolbar PR is not proper dynamic links, There are 1000s of example for this, Sometimes Yahoo SERPs show a Pagerank of 5, But the fact their results are blocked in robots file, I have seen sometimes my Inbox in hotmail showing PR of 6 but the fact google cant reach those pages, Also we have studied the backlink command of google extensively, We have analysed more than 1000 links,

If you can find a static page with PR lesser than Four show me, It is never possible, Toolbar PR is more clear on static URLs,
Doubt about dynamic URLs do a research on the Origin of those dynamic links showing in the backlink, Definetely that page will possess a Pr4 or more,

It appears that more and more < PR4 are showing up under the toolbar.

it is just because more and more Dynamic links are showing in the backlinks of a site, Dont worry too much what the toolbar shows for dynamic links,


I didnt see any change in this update, if you notice any static links let me know,

VIJAY,

[jocelyn]

They are all from dynamic forum pages, PR0 and all.
All the static pages I looked were 4 and above as you say.

[wyrickj]

Speaking of the links.htm passing PR well there was a debate on this at SEOChat about whether or not the filter ever exisited. I know the links.htm still show up in my BL's. Some said Google removed the filter but I dunno, it does not sound like Google to remove stuff.

[Millionaire]

Any update on this?

[Virginia SEO]

Check out the test results at http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/test-filename-links.shtml.

[Bela Flor]

How does it apply to directories - www.somesite.com/links/travel.html. In this case would it knock out the whole directory or will it leave it as is?