Are links from pages with the word "links" in the title devalued?

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I've often heard that if in the title of a page it read "links" links from that page were usually discounted. Made sense to me.

However, now I'm in a niche where every university has a page called "useful links (for learning French)" or "online resources". However, those pages often have just a dozen of links on them (and sometimes read those links have been carefully selected, etc.)

Is there any truth to the assumption that a link from a page which has the word "link" in the title doesnt count much/anything? Or does it all come down to the number of links on the page and how much link authority is diluted (but the mention of the word "links" in the page title doesnt matter much)?

What if it says "submit" or "add" on that page? Does Google catch on if such a word is mentioned? After all, it's just a normal word? Maybe G catches on if it's mentioned in the footer?

I'm really wondering if there's any truth to this or if it all comes down to how many outgoing links are on the page and the whole "if it says links in the page title" might involve as much guessing as the "links from .edu domains count more (but we cant even tell, because .edu domains have more link authority anyway)" theory.

Any experiences?

[JohnW]

I think that, in practice, it is mostly true that these type of pages linking value is low or even 0 but not just for an arbitrary reason. IMO the reason it often works out this way is because of a few reasons that are indirectly related but not necessarily a cause-and-effect situation.

Linkbuilders often search for targets using queries that include targeted kws along with "submit link" "links" "submit url" "add url" etc. as additional query terms. When successful, this often results in crappy links pages in part because sites that invite (and are easy to accept) links are often poor places to get links from. The worst ones are those that require a reciprocal. The relevance and the number of links on the page are really important, along with how deep (or how well internally linked) the so-called links pages are.

So I do feel that these pages are often devalued but not simply because of the words on page, tag, or url, but because of the behavior - so just use good common sense about it.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Thanks for the reply JohnW,

that is exactly what I'm wondering: I am perfectly aware of the fact that a page that has 100 links on it will only pass 1/100th of the link authority to your site if you get a link on it...thus normally not much value in it.

However, in my niche, there are opportunities from such pages, which look rather neat. 10 or so links (to good site), that seem to have been carefully selected (sometimes they even state that fact..that they have selected them carefully).

Normally, I'd love to get a link from those pages (for traffic coming from the links AND for SE rankings). However, if there's some truth to the fact that if it says "links" in the page title such pages don't pass on ANY link authority (or significantly less) that would make me re-think that.

[JohnW]

IMO the word "link" in url, title etc. does not hurt the value, at all, by itself. It depends on the other stuff that's going on along with it. Sounds like you have an "opportunity" to by a link, if thats what you are talking about, be careful. I only buy links from sites that I proactively seduce, where I am the first and only paid link - never from pages that sell links.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Hehe, yeah if I ever bought a link, I'd be damn careful and do it the same way you suggested it, but don't see the need for it in my market.

I hope I can get on those pages by simply having the right content, that's a perfect fit to many such pages.

When you use the words "IMO", is that really just your opinion (a guess / based on your experience of how the algo usually works)? or have you ever come across any evidence that makes you think so? I'm just curious, because I was thinking that one would be able to test (rule out) whether such pages do not pass *any* link authority..and that someone on here might have tried it before.

Personally, my guess would be the same, though. If it's a page packed with links then the fact that so many links are on it kills the value of a link on that page without having to complicate the algo some more.

I'm starting to think I might be confusing what I think I remember having read...maybe Ive only read the claims that its done when it reads "reciprocal/change links", etc.? (im really thinking i might be confusing it now)

[Angela Charles]

I don't think it's fair to throw all links pages under the bus. The key is whether all the links on the page are related to one another or whether it's a hodge-podge of different stuff.

There are lots of link pages that rank well on Google, if you look at them, you'll see they target specific niches, for example manufacturing directories like ThomasNet.

[jag]

Not so if you maintain page quality. We can have word "links" in title and file name and also some additional theme related words in title and the main part is about how many links the page holds and this cannot be greater than 30 to 40 links - reason PR distribution and those links should be someway or other related to each other and no link dumps


Is there any truth to the assumption that a link from a page which has the word "link" in the title doesnt count much/anything? Or does it all come down to the number of links on the page and how much link authority is diluted (but the mention of the word "links" in the page title doesnt matter much)?

Best,

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Thanks for the reply jag,

I think this is a really interesting one:

what makes you think 30 or 40 is the upper limit? Ive only heard the number 100 thrown around in this context before (which Im not sure i believe in, because 100 sounds more like a guess). Is anyone aware of an actual upper limit?

My guess is that the amount of PR that is passed on to another domain is A) divided by the amount of links on the page, which B)are all weighted depending on their location on the page (and other factors such as located in text or not).

In other words, unless there is an upper-limit, you shouldnt say there shouldnt be more than 30 or 40 links on the page, because a link on a page with even 60 or 80 links on it would still pass on pagerank, and could pass on 5 times as much pagerank if the page itself has 10 times as much pagerank flow to it.

Another thing I just started wondering:

If there is an upper limit such as only 100 links on a page can pass on page rank at the most...would those really be the first 100 links (reading the page from top to bottom) or would that be more likely to be the first 100 links depending on date of creation of the link (which can be different if its an alphabetical listing)..or maybe it's only the 100 most importat links (importance of them judged by location, etc.).

I guess you only said 30 or 40 links in order to say "the more links are on the page, the less valuable a link from that page is" without suggesting there's an ultimate limit, right? (not trying to piss you off or anything, Im just curious if I understood your point :-))

[JohnW]

Any limit existing or that used to exist is/was probably more of a technical limitation than policy. But the amount of PR that a page has to pass along is divided by the number of links from it, so fewer is always better...

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Yeah I agree with that one obviously :-). However - (and I know this is hardly something actionable that will help me improve anyone's ROI but im still wondering :)) - Ive also more than once heard the idea that links at the top of the page (or that can be seen without scrolling down), etc. get more weight than other links, thus if you want to know how much pagerank a link can receive its obviously its not as simple as only running a computation such as:

pagerank page can pass on / number of links

but more something along the lines of:

pagerank page can pass on / number of links * weighting factor

(and the weighting factor being a combination of the location on the page ando ther possible criteria)

In other words, even if a site has a bunch of links on it, but y ou can get a link on the top of the page, it might be a better deal than it seems (I believe).

[jag]

As John stated it's up to how many links you try to pull down per page for the reason page rank distribution. It works for me upon some experiments so I liked to share also it relates to code bytes limitation


I think this is a really interesting one:
what makes you think 30 or 40 is the upper limit? Ive only heard the number 100 thrown around in this context before (which Im not sure i believe in, because 100 sounds more like a guess). Is anyone aware of an actual upper limit?

Best,