The 'link' Word, the link word - undesirable? Options

[KJOKE]

At this point in time is the word (links) something to be avoided when designing or renovating web sites? I've been told recently to try and to avoid using it when designing sites to be search engine friendly.

'Links' as to do with link building and reciprocal linking, etc...

Any thoughts or observations about how SE and spiders are treating this?

This post has been edited by KJOKE: Nov 26 2005, 10:31 PM

[Jill]

Welcome KJOKE! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bye1.gif)

Not sure by what you mean by avoiding the link word. You mean don't get links? Cuz if so, that would just be silly!

[Michael Martinez]

I seriously doubt any search engine is filtering pages on the basis of the use of "links" in their text or titles. It would serve no purpose, certainly not if the intent is to strike out at SEO influenced sites. That would be equivalent to bulldozing a village just to level one building.

[josh1r]

I think KJOKE is referring to using the actual word 'link' on his/her website, not whether or not to get links. Is it better to call your links section 'Links' or 'Partners' or 'Whatever'... At least i think that's what the question is...

[Jill]

Oh in that case I have no idea, as I don't ever have "links" sections or partner sections or whatever.

[KJOKE]

I think KJOKE is referring to using the actual word 'link' on his/her website, not whether or not to get links.  Is it better to call your links section 'Links' or 'Partners' or 'Whatever'...  At least i think that's what the question is...

Yes that's kind of what I trying to get across. If the word 'link' or 'links' may have a negative effect when used in the title, alt attributes, anchor text, etc... of a page.
If it's better to use alternate wording when describing the link building portions of a website.

A friend mentioned this to me so I thought I'd inquire a bit further about possible filtering. I see now it's not a worry. I quite like Michael's "bulldozing a village" illustration.

[Jill]

OFFTOPIC:

A friend mentioned this to me Was that friend's name "someone" by any chance?

[lyn]

There was a thread here some time ago suggesting that SEs might filter out a links page that had a file name of "links.html." Don't remember if there was ever any consensus about it - don't really care about links pages anyway! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/dntknw.gif)

Never heard of any issue with using the l*nk work anywhere else, though.
Sure would make things tough on the chains and sausage markets, though.

L.

[Randy]

Just my opinion here, but this myth is one of those where the Cause and Effect was never connected.

What happened was that there were some (more than one) automated link generation software programs out there that were abused into oblivion. Basically they became completely artificial ways to try and build links in big numbers regardless of any rhyme or reason. Read: new fangled link farm.

These software packages all fed pages on each site that were named links.htm, links.html, etc.

When the sites using these programs got burned, people looked at the simplest part of the equation, that the page names were "links" with some extension. And pronounced that no one should have a links page that was actually named links.ext.

Where they lost the Cause and Effect is that all of these automated programs left other very easy to spot footprints one each of these auto-generated pages. Heck, most of them had a link leading back to the program!

So even though the engines were filtering on something totally unrelated to the page name, people saw one little thing that matched on all of the sites and thus a myth was born.

[exposure]

Think of all the pages with awesome content that would be hurt by such a silly filter. I doubt that any search engine run by people beyond 5th grade would contemplate this for long, at least nothing drastic like whacking pages on this one criterion.

[dimensioni]

Think of all the pages with awesome content that would be hurt by such a silly filter. 

On the link pages!!!!!! are you sure...

[CTPhil]

On the link pages!!!!!! are you sure...

My sites are serving a small, esoteric niche as many sites do, and in my world, yes link pages serve a vital function connecting people with the other parts of that world.

[exposure]

yes link pages serve a vital function connecting people with the other parts of that world.

Yes, that's what I meant. Some links pages are just a hodge-podge of links to any sites that would reciprocate, but a lot are actually very useful, organized, and tightly focused. Often, those pages are the most helpful on the entire site if you end up on a site that doesn't quite have what you were hoping to find. Filtering them out simply because the word "links" is in the URL would be damaging to the Web, imho.

[justicewhite]

Sounds like you're just starting out your link building strategy.

Although I do agree with the others that such a filter on the "links" word would be silly, I'd advise you to be careful about the reciprocal linking. If you still prefer using another word, you can try "resources".

In one of the articles I've recently read, the author had some evidence based on his experiments that the weight of the reciprocal links may not be as much as the one-way links.

Anyhow, good luck with your site...

[Intensity]

It probably all comes down to the trust factor of the web page.

The only credible source from which I heard that the word "link" was discounted from was SEO-GUY before he dissappeared to live his own 'Island' (< Fictional).