Re: page vs site
- From: Paul Burke <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:32:02 -0500
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:41:40 +0200, Borek
<borek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:11:32 +0200, Paul Burke
><webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> External site wide links are bad, that's nothing new.
>>>>> At the same time internal site wide links should be OK?
>
>>> Yes, your own site wide links internally are not bad. If it was so most
>>> sites out on the web would be penalized for having nav bars with the
>>> same links on them.
>
>> I have 2000ish links from SITE A (my site) to SITE B (the other site)
>> The links to SITE B is just below the nav bar.
>
>Probably history of accruing them plays some role too. Did they all
>appear overnight? When the site B was new?
>
>Best,
>Borek
Hi Borek
Site B is about 14 months old ....... Site A, about 12.5 months.
I added them in batches, not all at once.
--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston-crafts-handcrafted-jewelry/beaded-ear-threads-page-1.html
Ear Threads - the hottest fashion item.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
- References:
- page vs site
- From: Borek
- Re: page vs site
- From: David
- Re: page vs site
- From: Borek
- Re: page vs site
- From: Paul Burke
- Re: page vs site
- From: Euro Stacey
- Re: page vs site
- From: Paul Burke
- Re: page vs site
- From: Borek
- page vs site
- Prev by Date: Re: Firefox tool for Adsense
- Next by Date: Re: page vs site
- Previous by thread: Re: page vs site
- Next by thread: Re: page vs site
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|