Rumor-or-Proof | Naming a page "Links" will "red-flag" it in Google

[! !]

Could new relevancy algorithms have been programmed that would
de-value any page named links.html or even links2.html in some search engines....


This theory has been floating around - but how can one prove it -especially on Google - which never displays ALL the links :confused:

[Wail]

I think inurl~link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=inurl%3A%7Elink&btnG=Search) disproves the theory. If "link" or "links" was a red flag term then wouldn't the synonyms (without the penality) rank higher?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I agree with Wail, I don't see any reason to think such a penalty would ever be used: It's too easy to trick and there would be too many false positives

[seobook]

I think the perceived penalty by some is reason enough not to use that type of URL for a link exchange page.

[Marcia]

>>I think the perceived penalty by some is reason enough not to use

There was enough evidence of the possibility for me to stop using it, though I had some out there already that didn't get touched.

It was seen that some pages got by just fine, but there were a number that went PR0, and there was some speculation at the time (based on observation) that it could have something to do with how the pages were constructed.

I won't do a page that's just links - never did actually. There has to be a certain proportion of regular text on pages with links.

[critter]

I think the perceived penalty by some is reason enough not to use that type of URL for a link exchange page.I agree 100% with SEOBOOK.

IMHO the majority of SEO and achieving results through organic SEO is applying all the little details necessary to make you on-page criteria as good as it can be.

Yes we all know GREAT CONTENT and quality, themed link building will boost your opportunity in achieving good rankings on the various search engines.

I believe, making sure your website conforms to the perceived SEO standards and avoiding what is believed to potentially be harmfull to your webiste will give you the greatest opportunity to achieve the rankings you desire..

Why create a directory with links in the url if there is a 1% chance those links might not get credit? It's fairly easy to make the directory called partners.html, resources.html or something else to avoid even the chance of Google discounting those links...

ALL my humble opinion, but methods have worked for me in the past!

Cheers

CRITTER

[seobook]

>>I think the perceived penalty by some is reason enough not to use

There was enough evidence of the possibility for me to stop using it, though I had some out there already that didn't get touched.
I believe that it could be a problem. it does not matter much to me though, I simply avoid the issue / situation whenever possible.

[St0n3y]

It's fairly easy to make the directory called partners.html, resources.html
if such a penalty for pages with "links" in the filename does exist then "partners" and "resoucres" wouldn't be far behind. And once those are penalized, whatever we start naming the link pages after that.

I would say probably no penalty. I think Google is smart enough to know a link page when it sees it, regardless of the filename.

(but that doesn't stop me from deliberatly NOT naming my link pages as links.htm!!!)

[fathom]

if such a penalty for pages with "links" in the filename does exist then "partners" and "resoucres" wouldn't be far behind. And once those are penalized, whatever we start naming the link pages after that.

I would say probably no penalty. I think Google is smart enough to know a link page when it sees it, regardless of the filename.

(but that doesn't stop me from deliberatly NOT naming my link pages as links.htm!!!)

I think you first need to appreciate what a "penalty" is before determining cause & effect.

Penalty = ineffective technique or tactic.

A penalty is not "all encompassing" that stops a page from being indexed. The best example of this is "same color text/background", the technique itself is ineffective for inducing better ranks because of more keywords on the page, yet pages are never "not indexed" because of "same color text/background".

So in the case of links.html - regardless of whether the use of "links" is penalized or not... the term doesn't help ranking ability anyway... except for "links" and I don't see why anyone would want to target "links" anyway as a keyword?

It's also worth noting that a duplicate content penalty works the same way - the original page is uneffected thus indexed.

[Marcia]

>>I believe that it could be a problem

What could be a problem? I got lost along the way someplace. :)

[kenpomachine]

In the kenpo site that gives me my nick I have some link pages that rank higher for some keywords than the regular one. These pages are a kind of directory, with the links descripted.

If you're refering to PR, I can't help. I don't monitor it for the kenpo site.

[Nacho]

>>I think the perceived penalty by some is reason enough not to use

There was enough evidence of the possibility for me to stop using it, though I had some out there already that didn't get touched.

It was seen that some pages got by just fine, but there were a number that went PR0, and there was some speculation at the time (based on observation) that it could have something to do with how the pages were constructed.

I won't do a page that's just links - never did actually. There has to be a certain proportion of regular text on pages with links.
I agree with Marcia.

I've also seen pages that got devalued in PR and therefore I believe it might affect ranking if not today it will in the future. I think it was because Google was able to easily spot a "links.html" or "whatever-you-want-to-name-it.html" page that was only used for link-exchange purposes and nothing else. IMO, links with the highest value on the web are those that do not need reciprocity. They are an uncoditional vote of recommended reading/viewing/buying/etc as a reference to your document.

Although we have not taken down our links pages, we have also stopped using/growing these types of pages long time ago as they are not part of our link building strategy any more.

BTW, I higlly recommend St0n3y's thread A Positive Step Forward in Link Strategies (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=530). There is a great conversation about this here.

[littleman]

It is easy enough to refer to a links page by a different term, so why take the risk? If it isn't a penalty today it can easily be one tomorrow.

[fathom]

It is easy enough to refer to a links page by a different term, so why take the risk? If it isn't a penalty today it can easily be one tomorrow.

...and so can that different term e.g. resource, resources, help, 1, 2, 3, etc.

I think we need to address "how important is the file name in ranking ability, before you jump to the conclusion that a penalty is attached?

If you call a page "seo.html" for topically related SEO links - will that truly help this page "rank" better -- in at least the top 1000 positions so you can actually have some shred of evidence... "see links.html didn't rank at all but seo.html did at #999".

How can you determine that links.html "is penalized"... guess?

I sure which like to see all this evidence - I only see -- "links" is only valuable if you are targeting "links". (maybe like the golf game)

[fathom]

I've also seen pages that got devalued in PR and therefore I believe it might affect ranking if not today it will in the future. I think it was because Google was able to easily spot a "links.html" or "whatever-you-want-to-name-it.html" page that was only used for link-exchange purposes and nothing else.

For PageRank since the scale tends to be fixed "0-1" and Google adds more pages than it loses, all pages will devalue over time, and not simply links.html.

"I don't use links.html" BECAUSE IT A 1996 thing when the cool thing online was link surfing.

Notwithstanding - this isn't evidence - can someone acrually show some... I'm obviously missing the ball here... I don't see it?