100 or more links on a page

[frobn]

On my 3 template sites where I don't have unlimited pages to use I have also lost PR on my recip pages. I tried to write a small paragraph above the links (keeping these pages at a max of 100 total links since I simply don't have the space) but I guess I'll have to add some content under the links.

I also thought that having state/country titles and descriptions with each link would count as some content but obviously these recip pages aren't loved by Google. At one point I even think they were de-indexed but are now cached again.

When you say "recip pages" are you referring specifically to your directory pages, your main page or your total site? This gives inportant clues as to the direction Google is moving in.

Do you remember when you lost PR or were de-indexed? Google massacred hundreds of sites with directories between 7/22 and 7/28. Some of the sites have since been restored but with lower PR.

[kensmith]

She is talking about her link pages, would not call them directory as they are not organized in any way. Just look at http://www.orland-park-real-estate.com/ and go to "Relocation Partners". Hope that helps a little.

[frobn]

She is talking about her link pages, would not call them directory as they are not organized in any way. Just look at http://www.orland-park-real-estate.com/ and go to "Relocation Partners". Hope that helps a little.

Thanks, it is helpful to know. I use the term "directory" liberally and wanted to check to make sure that this was the case. This is the type of Google behavior that I have been examining. It adds evidence to Google "actively" de-valuing what they consider 'artificial' linking and or directories. If other web site pages lost PR it likely be an external problem with incoming links. Though the two are intricately linked (no pun intended) the indications are, as you suggest, to take better care with web site organization.

[judyo]

My Orland Park site is my newest site & has been on the back burner as I've been busy. Here's a better example & one of the actual pages that has been "tossed around" in Google:
http://www.oak-lawn-real-estate.com/...age_87335.html

I truly tried to offer this page as a chance for people in IL to search sites in other areas that they might be interested to relocate to down the road, purchase vacation property in or are just interested in what prices are in other areas. The only link that should be on a different page is Sarah's PC Property Mgr. page. The rest are real estate resources in other states.

When I first started recip linking I didn't understand why we might want to lose a potential referral by providing them with the link to another agent's website. IMO (not talking SE's here), it doesn't matter that I have them all on one page on my 3 Point2 Agent sites or if I have them more organized & separated on my other site with extra content. I feel I have my pages somewhat organized by listing the states alphabetically. Those few links that don't fit exactly under a particular state are separate. Many recip pages have absolutely no organization at all.

We're all exchanging links with other agent's sites. We ask for surfers to contact us if they're really interested in purchasing in a different location so we can "refer" them. Will they really come back to us if they're interested in a link partner's site in Florida? Will anyone actually click on any of these links?

When I was checking out real estate in AZ for myself I clicked on one of my AZ recip link partners & used their MLS search. This is what I am offering other web surfers. I am trying to offer it as a "relocation & referral" page rather than just a link directory.

If I didn't have to trade links to please SE's would I do this? No. It's a pain.

[judyo]

Do you remember when you lost PR or were de-indexed? Google massacred hundreds of sites with directories between 7/22 and 7/28. Some of the sites have since been restored but with lower PR.

I really can't remember. Those dates seem too recent. I thought it happened prior to those dates & I believe the pages were indexed & de-indexed more than once (although I had another site it also happened to on & off, so I might be confusing the 2). The 2 sites affected were my oldest sites (my 2 Oak Lawn sites).

However, the loss in PR definitely happened with the last PR update.

I see other sites with more links (over 100), less content (just a list of links with absolutely no other content at all), less organization than I have & many of these pages haven't seemed to suffer.

[denns25]

It seems that any dry link exchange isn't worth that much anymore. The best thing to do would be to get people to link to you without you linking back to them. We do that on a number of our sites.

Another thing that seems to be coming of age is the "presale page". In your link directory you take the visitors to an page on your site where you sort of introduce the person. THEN you provide links to their site from the presale page.

[melodiousrose]

Ted,
I've had the same problem, particularly with some z57 sites. I've gone back and found one guy who stuffed over 1300 BLs on his exchange page. Another agent with a z57 site had over 600. I removed my links to them and emailed them to explain why and to ask that they remove their links to me.

Hey don't blame Z57! Realtors with Z57 sites have control over every page. Check out the link page on this z site: http://www.redr.com/professional1.shtml. It's just a matter of doing something with it. If people think a $598 template site should come ready to kick @ss in search engines then they are dreaming. It takes a little effort.

[pcdoc]

Check out the link page on this z site: http://www.redr.com/professional1.shtml. It's just a matter of doing something with it.

which references this page

http://redr.com/professional14.shtml

which shows no google cache, so your point is?

[kensmith]

Check out the link page on this z site: http://www.redr.com/professional1.shtml. It's just a matter of doing something with it.

which references this page

http://redr.com/professional14.shtml

which shows no google cache, so your point is?

Actually the original page the poster said to go to isn't cached either. But more importantly it is indexed.