pages and directory structure

Altheon · 2004-10-01, 12:05 AM

I've read a couple posts regarding link lists not accepting sites that have index pages in a directory different from the rest of the site's pages.

I was wondering as to the reason for this? From a submitter point of view it seems repetitious as well as wasteful space wise. Of course that is a rather one sided approach. As someone still new to the industry, I would be interested as to hearing why some sites insist on the practice when others do not.

-A

tiny · 2004-10-01, 12:16 AM

Not a owner,but I would say for the ones that do it'd have to be SE looking at more weight to a index.html .
Wasteful I really don't see it,its just a dir 01 to whatever with afew jpegs and a index page.
I would say most do think that way its not like they get a ton of hits from having the recip,but they do weigh better in serp.
I could be wrong and more often then not am hahaha

DangerDave · 2004-10-01, 12:23 AM

Most of us want a "wholly contained" site...

Mish-mash sites get bits deleted, go 404, etc...

and there are those that expect a true index recip, as Tiny alluded too.

Mirroring entrances can cause problems in the SE's when one mirror is given weight over another..

DD

RawAlex · 2004-10-01, 12:23 AM

Keeping it all in one folder is natural. It is the way things should be. it is the way google looks at the world.

My return link will be on a doorway page, it is really unlikely that there will be much traffic actually seeing my link, except maybe the people I send myself. I need to get SOME benefit from listing your site, so having a page that might merit at least a minimum amount of PR from having an entire site.

What can I say? Is it too much to ask for an actual site, rather than just a page?

Alex

2004-10-01, 12:05 AM	#1
Altheon Heh Heh Heh! Lisa! Vampires are make believe, just like elves and gremlins and eskimos! Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 74	pages and directory structure I've read a couple posts regarding link lists not accepting sites that have index pages in a directory different from the rest of the site's pages. I was wondering as to the reason for this? From a submitter point of view it seems repetitious as well as wasteful space wise. Of course that is a rather one sided approach. As someone still new to the industry, I would be interested as to hearing why some sites insist on the practice when others do not. -A

2004-10-01, 12:23 AM	#3
DangerDave Bonged Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BrisVegas, AUSTRALIA Posts: 4,882	Most of us want a "wholly contained" site... Mish-mash sites get bits deleted, go 404, etc... and there are those that expect a true index recip, as Tiny alluded too. Mirroring entrances can cause problems in the SE's when one mirror is given weight over another.. DD __________________ Old Dollars >>>> Now with over 90 Hosted Free Sites <<<< DangerDave.com.au - Adult Links to Free Porn

2004-10-01, 12:16 AM	#2
tiny Hello, is this President Clinton? Good! I figured if anyone knew where to get some tang it would be you Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: maine Posts: 447	Not a owner,but I would say for the ones that do it'd have to be SE looking at more weight to a index.html . Wasteful I really don't see it,its just a dir 01 to whatever with afew jpegs and a index page. I would say most do think that way its not like they get a ton of hits from having the recip,but they do weigh better in serp. I could be wrong and more often then not am hahaha

2004-10-01, 12:23 AM	#4
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Keeping it all in one folder is natural. It is the way things should be. it is the way google looks at the world. My return link will be on a doorway page, it is really unlikely that there will be much traffic actually seeing my link, except maybe the people I send myself. I need to get SOME benefit from listing your site, so having a page that might merit at least a minimum amount of PR from having an entire site. What can I say? Is it too much to ask for an actual site, rather than just a page? Alex