An SEOer just told me that we can't use reciprocal links anymore & they will actually count against us.

Is this true?

Thanks


Michelle

Hello Michelle,
In my opinion and experience I can say that this technique is not dead. If you do it properly it can well be worth the effort - if you do it properly. Don't ask for links from a site that sells used boats if you are a wedding planner ;-)

Links have more than the one function many think about (read page rank and link popularity). If you set up a tightly themed link directory you'll be surprised at the quantity and quality of traffic you'll receive.

Sante
(removed sig link per FAQ)

Yes I know about not trading links with companies that aren't similar, but I'm not talking about that, this guy made it seem like you actually get penalized & I want to know if it's true or not.

I've never seen anyone get traffic from link pages.

Your link is buried 10 ft. deep with all the other banners & links LOL


Michelle

Hello Michelle,
In my opinion and experience I can say that this technique is not dead. If you do it properly it can well be worth the effort - if you do it properly. Don't ask for links from a site that sells used boats if you are a wedding planner ;-)

Links have more than the one function many think about (read page rank and link popularity). If you set up a tightly themed link directory you'll be surprised at the quantity and quality of traffic you'll receive.

Sante

Reciprocal Links Dead, long live Reciprocal Links.
Reciprocal Links Dead, long live Reciprocal Links.
Reciprocal Links Dead, long live Reciprocal Links.

Recip links are NOT dead, and it's absolutely NOT true that they will get you penalized. Anybody telling you that is spinning yarns about that which they don't know.

I am currently running some tests on reciprocal linking. I'm several months away from publishing any definitive findings but the results so far show that that recip links still carry weight with Google.

With that said, if you have nothing but reciprocal links then Google will see an unnatural linking pattern going on with your site and it may discount a lot of them. Reciprocal links are a excellent part of a balanced link diet... but they should not consist of the entire link diet!

[added] A poorly implemented reciprocal campaign CAN do you more harm than good (less frequency of spidering, etc) but I would not say that this constitutes a penalty.

Recip links are NOT dead, and it's absolutely NOT true that they will get you penalized. Anybody telling you that is spinning yarns about that which they don't know.

I am currently running some tests on reciprocal linking. I'm several months away from publishing any definitive findings but the results so far show that that recip links still carry weight with Google.

With that said, if you have nothing but reciprocal links then Google will see an unnatural linking pattern going on with your site and it may discount a lot of them. Reciprocal links are a excellent part of a balanced link diet... but they should not consist of the entire link diet!

[added] A poorly implemented reciprocal campaign CAN do you more harm than good (less frequency of spidering, etc) but I would not say that this constitutes a penalty.

THANK GOD

This is completely accurate… any other advice is uniformed. Merely go to Matt Cutts blog and search ‘reciprocal links’ he has discussed it many times.

I have researched, tested and written extensively about all things ‘Big Daddy’ (Google algorithm update) and I have read many, many comments and guidelines by the CUTTlefish on linking. As Goo is currently the toughest on linking strategies/patterns, it is a good indicator.

There is just so much, here are some tidbits;

The Q&A period at the recent; ‘Nov16-2005 - WMW Las Vegas Organic Site Reviews Panel’ - This panel, made up of representatives of the Big 3 and more, was giving general reviews of sites from the audience form an ‘organic’ SEO standpoint. Matt mentioned in a review of some sites for the attendees;

“TicketsToGo.com – “Matt Cutts said "tell me about your backlinks" ... uber spammy reciprocal linking campaign. said good news is no manual spam penalty, but few of the low quality links this site has are doing it any good.””

On his Blog as a follow up to the event;

“The main point I want to get across is that in 1-2 minutes, it was easy to tell whether a site was (over)doing reciprocal links or trying to buy links”

On his Blog in regards to Big Daddy and linking;

“The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site. Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling.” - www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline


My point is TRUST ME. Our friend here is very correct that advice to the contrary is simply misguided, (unless you don’t believe Matt).

It’s about linking responsibly. If you go out ‘willy-nilly’ buying links and trading with any irrelevant site you can find.. you can most likely expect to get devalued and see no measurable ROI on your link building investments.

It’s not dead… it just requires care.

Ok, thanks guys.

So who is Matt anyway? Clearly I have no idea.

I'm in the process of looking to hire a new PPC/SEO guy/gal (not many females in this line of work is there?) & I want to make sure they aren't giving me misinformation, as I've already hired people who have screwed me around b/c they think they know it all & they know almost nothing.

Should any knowledgeable SEOer know who Matt is?

Where does one go to upgrade their skills when it comes to PPC & then SEO?

How often should they be upgrading their knowledge?

Thanks


Michelle :)

Michelle,
Matt Cutts is a very influential Google employee :)

If you haven't seen any good traffic coming your way from linking referrals then it wasn't done properly - links can bring traffic and increase your visibility, this is a fact, I have hard numbers (=statistics) that can prove this.

I suggest you look at seopros.org for a professional SEO to take on your job. I have taken on small consulting tasks to define the activity and put the company in the condition to out and ask for an RFP (Request for Proposal)

Hope this helps and good luck on your SEO efforts,

Sante

>So who is Matt anyway? Clearly I have no idea.

Matt Cutts is a senior search engineer at Google. His blog at mattcutts.com is well worth checking out.

>Should any knowledgeable SEOer know who Matt is?

In a word....yes. They should be reading his blog and taking on board what he has to say

>Where does one go to upgrade their skills when it comes to PPC & then SEO?

Some companies do offer SEO training, but the best way to keep up to date with PPC and SEO is through experience, and of course reading forums like this one.

>How often should they be upgrading their knowledge?

Every day!

I'm in the process of looking to hire a new PPC/SEO guy/gal (not many females in this line of work is there?)
actually some of the undisputed leaders in this industry are females. Barbara Coll and Jill Whalen are probably at the top of that list. ;)

The rest of the advice you have received so far in this thread is accurate, in my opinion. And yes, Matt Cutts is a name that anyone you interview should probably know...

If you ask me recips have been devalued but still work, but man you need numbers.

What works better is a few links per page- you know, the ones that Matt cutts told you not to get? That is why we go out and get them.

If a link makes sense for users, it will probably make sense for Search Engines ;) So no, reciprocal linking is not dead per se. it is just that SE are more and more efficient at detecting artificial linking schemes.

Ston3y said:
"I am currently running some tests on reciprocal linking. I'm several months away from publishing any definitive findings but the results so far show that that recip links still carry weight with Google."


Ston3y, that is very intersting.

Most people who say that reciprocal linking is dead are just not looking at SERPs much. It's alive and well, and being used very effectively, and has been since...oh...1994..when the WWW started.

Sites that linked improperly and with anything and everything have often seen their results suffer, but sites that have done this properly have been rock steady, for YEARS.

I've seen it with my own eyes, again and again. It's the kind of results that everyone wants, but many people can't seem to get.

For anyone to deny it is just admitting their own lack of understanding of reciprocation done properly.

Neverthless, the "reciprocal linking is dead" crowd is a very vocal portion of the SEO world. If you are a small busienss owner who needs links, just be glad that you aren't taking their advice, and your competitors are....

Hello folks,

I've been lurking around here for years primarily as a reader but decided recently to become active in link building forums because I increasingly see misinformation with regards to reciprocal linking. Since this is my first post here, I wanted to share with you my thoughts on reciprocal linking.

Reciprocal linking existed pre-Google... in the late 90's we too found that linking with like minded sites was a great way to produce relevant traffic entirely separate from search engine returns.

Then G came along and unleashed what you all know to be PageRank. It's my opinion that may not have been such a hot idea because many unscrupulous webmasters tryed to game G and manipulate PR in an effort to soar to the top of the rankings.

As many of you all know, the search engines had to do something to deal with this surge in gamesmanship and chicanery. Now we see webmasters complaining that backlinks aren't being counted or being stuffed into supplemental results.

Webmasters must stop making linking decisions for the search engines. Do not make linking decisions based on what you think it is going to do for your rankings. Linking decisions must be made for the end user, not the search engines.

I have seen some seo companies post blogs titled "reciprocal linking is dead". I strongly disagree with these misinformative statements.

The web is built on links. That’s why it’s called the web- a interconnected, interlinked wonderful conglomeration of people, places and things. That’s the way it was intended to be. There was an Internet long before there was a web and the Internet wasn’t easy to use and navigate through mostly because information wasn’t linked to other information. Every university, science lab and government domain was an island unto itself.

Site operators naturally tend towards reciprocal linking. Bob has a motorcycle shop, and he links to Joe’s custom paint service’s site. Joe puts a link to Bob’s shop on his site because his customers are always asking for recommendations on where to buy custom parts. Joe and Bob aren’t involved in some evil scheme to artificially boost their search engine rankings; they are providing a valid and useful reference service for their customers. This is exactly what a web site is supposed to do.

What doesn’t work, and what search engines may penalize you for, are high volume irrelevant reciprocal links, publishing a long list of sites that have no connection to your business, or linking to sites that have no reason to link to each other.

Search engine engineers realize that webmasters will link to and obtain links from sites that benefit their end users. When you do it correctly, linking can be a great way to obtain relevant traffic completely separate from search engine returns.

When it comes to link building, avoid:
- services that promise X number of links over X period of time.
- services that "guarantee" X number of links for X price.
- services that obtain links for you without eidtorial discretion.
- services that link your site in high volume to sites irrelevant to your own.

If you will make linking decisions for your end users, you will enjoy long term success. If you make linking decisions for the wrong reasons in an effort to inflate your rankings, you are asking the search engines to downgrade your rankings. You do not want to do anything that will cause the search engines to look negatively upon your link strategy.

I've had a client that had put up reciprocal links pages and used automated scripts to add and check them.

They did this because their rankings were not very high and they hoped it would improve by doing this. It did - for a short while, and not very much. Then important internal pages started not showing up for searches they used to.

When I took over, I did the following:

1. Went through the list of recips for people who had stopped linking to my client. This is very common - agree to a recip, then a few months later, remove your link (or no-follow or javascript it), giving you a one-way from your victim. Like most tactics used by spammers and assorted nasties, it's a numbers game, some people check back, others forget about it or trust them. You can usually assume that a site doing this either is or will be in a bad neighbourhood, and you do not wish to be linking to them for any reason. Not to mention I'm constitutionally unwilling to allow cheaters to take advantage of me or my clients on principle.

2. Went through the remainder and removed off-topic and unwanted links. I'm generally fairly easy about what's on-topic or not, but this removed about 600(!) links.

3. Ran a PR checker on the remainder - kept most of the high PR ones and manually checked the low or no PR ones. I kept several of these because they were either good sites that were on their way to having higher PR or they were just plain useful or very much on-topic (measuring by PR doesn't take into consideration that MSN, Ask and Yahoo don't use it - never decide only on PR for anything). I also removed one very high PR site that has obviously been buying it's way there and wasn't going to last long.

4. Then I removed the automatic software and put the links in a proper, organized format.

This process lowered the number of reciprocal links from more than 1200 to less than 50.

The results were:

1. Absolutely no loss of displayed PR
2. An increase in rankings for almost every page of the site, including the ones that had been losing their rankings earlier.
3. A lot less stress and worry...

Reciprocal links can help you - but you need to choose the right ones. Be picky. If you find yourself trying to hide some links because your are embarrassed, then why the heck are they on your site in the first place?

Reciprocal links can also hurt you. I have a lot of evidence to show this, as well.

So whoever advised you was right about the possibility of harm, but wrong in their understanding of what is actually going on. Links don't hurt you - connections to bad sites do (this is not always a link, reciprocal or otherwise).

Likewise, connections to good sites can help (though if you think that linking to a few good sites will somehow fix a bad site, you are wrong).

Ian

Thanks CNVI and Ian for making this thread very sticky-worthy. Great breakdown by each of you, and Ian your numbers are very similar to the ones we got in past reciprocal clean up efforts at my last company.

If done right, reciprocals are simply links that are beneficial to visitors of both sites. The fact that they are reciprocated has really nothing to do with it, IMO.

Ian, I don't mean to argue with you here because I agree with your post, but when you drop from 600 to 50 links, many of these which were still reciprocating, could the improvement in spidering not be just about the fact that you're not linking out to junk sites (a definite help, I'm sure) but also about the fact that you significantly increased the amount of incoming one way links?

Either way, the conclusion is that one-way links are better than reciprocal, but when determining what exactly was the result of the gain, it could be one or the other or a combo of both. Regardless, I think that unless you requested that all the reciprocating sites that you dumped links to to remove the link back, its impossible to determine what exactly was the primary factor in achieving the positive result.

As a side note, I think you stepped dangerously close to being one of those in your own point #1. By removing all those links YOU have become the person that is no longer linking per the original agreement. I know exactly what you're talking about and it's true that people do this for malicious reasons, but as your case proves, removal of reciprocal links is not always malicious, spammy or deceitful.

That's a good point, St0n3y, or rather, a good point if I had done it the way you've interpreted me to.

In this case, there is a reason why I removed the automatic software last - this particular system automatically checked to see if you were reciprocating and if you removed a link through the system, the other link was automatically removed. If you removed it manually, it did not.

When I said I removed the links, I actually meant I stopped the reciprocal relationships. You are right to question me on that, since the way I wrote it it sounds like I killed a bunch of links and still let them link to me. I didn't, and I'd like to stress that would be a bad, rude and spammy thing to do.

You are also right that links can be lost due to redesigns, mistakes and other reasons not associated with the person removing them being evil or deliberately breaking a contractual relationship.

As far as reciprocal relationships go, the Golden Rule really does apply, and indeed is the basis for the whole idea. Treat your reciprocal partners the same way you would want to be treated yourself.

As an addendum, I do not believe that it's possible for the removal of links to increase PR (that's not how PR is calculated) but it IS possible, and I've seen it, where the links simply are not passing on anything of significance, and in some cases hurting your rankings for the keywords involved.

So, yes, under some circumstances you can *increase* your rankings by removing some reciprocals link on your site.

Ian

mcanerin said: "this particular system automatically checked to see if you were reciprocating and if you removed a link through the system, the other link was automatically removed. "

That statement certainly sheds the most light on this situation, when taken with all the other factors you mentioned.

Please correct me if I assume wrong, but it sounds as if this was one of those automated, non-editorial link networks. There are a bunch of them. It also sounds as if there were a lot of off-topic links.

Participants in those networks are spammeisters. They toss up junk scraper sites, join the network, and take what they get in terms of temporary traffic, then move onto the next domain, once they get hit.

It is much less likely to encounter that kind of thing in the legitimate reciprocation world. It's too much work for the spammeisters to do this work the right way, so they gravitate toward these quick and dirty schemes. Unfortunately, innocent sites get caught up in the "easy links" aspect of it, unwittingly, and not knowing the consequences.

Anytime links are extraordinarly easy to get, it's the wrong path....

Not all link exchange forums are like that. LinkPartners is an editorially-based link exchnage forum that does not generate automated links back and forth. Let's be careful here not to paint all with the same brush.

From what has been described, it was the massive number of non-relevant links to sites that were in this crappy network, and likely, from what you describe, they were mostly crappy sites.

For all to hear, loud and clear, that is NOT they way to do proper reciprocation, and it does not reflect what happens to sites that reciprocate properly.

Outbound links to legitimate sites seem to have no detrimental effect on rankings, from what we have seen here, for years.

Oubound links to large numbers of sites that are playing horrible games is the culprit, and playing in an automated, non-editorially driven link network is a very good place to find exactly that.

Please correct me if I assume wrong, but it sounds as if this was one of those automated, non-editorial link networks. There are a bunch of them. It also sounds as if there were a lot of off-topic links.

No correction - that's exactly what it was. In this case, my goal was to find other honest but naive businesses that were on-topic but had made the same mistake in choosing the wrong system, then reciprocate personally with them.

If your link building strategy is "set and forget" , then, frankly, forget it.

I'm familiar with the LinksManager, and I agree it's built in editorial system is better than most. Obviously it can still be misused in spite of this (anything can be misused if the person using it doesn't "get it"), and I've seen that happen, too. Of the group, it's the one I have the least issue with.

I still avoid any software-based links system, simply on principle. It's nothing directly against any software package in particular, but rather all reciprocal link-management software.

This is a personal and professional recommendation, rather than an editorial one, however (i.e. I don't use it or recommend it myself to clients, but I don't claim users are automatically spammers, either).

My main concern is that all software leaves a footprint, and search engines have been known to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" if they see numbers to support it, and I'm very protective of my babies... errr... clients. ;)

Ian

If done right, reciprocals are simply links that are beneficial to visitors of both sites. The fact that they are reciprocated has really nothing to do with it, IMO.

Think that is a very good point. My own personal view, is that as part of a wider strategy recipricals are a useful tool, however reliance on two way linkage should actively be discouraged.

Think may people on here have used the comparison before, however I think keeping a "natural" theme to any linkage campaign is fundamental to its success.

egain said:
My own personal view, is that as part of a wider strategy recipricals are a useful tool, however reliance on two way linkage should actively be discouraged.

To bring some unique perspective to the table...from experience. Please bear with me. It takes some explanation.

Sometimes there seems to be a conclusion that reciprocating is a static activity. That is, all the links earned by reciprocation are all you get, and the links back to the site are all two-way, reciprocated links. That is not what really happens.

There is a dynamic element to this that cannot be denied, because we have seen it with every domain we manage.

Here's what really happens in the real world: let's use a new domain as the example. Of course, the domain starts with virtually 0 back links.

We'll institute a reciprocation campaign with relevant sites. That means that we'll put up a link directory comprised mostly of sites that offer to reciprocate, are in the same realm of interest, well-categorized.

Note that the reciprocation ratio of outbound to inbound links at this point in time is 100%....no sites yet link back. Some people might gasp at this condition. We don't, because we have years of experience doing it.

We'll then request links from those sites that make public offers to reciprocate, either by email or online submission, as appropriate.

Slowly, and steadily, the outbound/inbound ratio begins to decrease, as more sites reciprocate. And over time, the total link back count to the domain builds.

However, another phenomenon begins to take place, and the reasons are diverse. As the site begins to crawl up the SERPs, they will begin to earn one-way, unreciprocated links, from a variety of sources.

This activity reduces the percentage of reciprocated links vs. one-way links, to the advantage of the site.

Quite often, after an 18 month campaign, we may have earned several hundred reciprocated links via our direct actions, but the site now may have well over 1000 links at this point (using unique domain count, and not total link count, an important distinction).

This often takes place while the client took no other action to build links in other ways.

This indicates that reciprocation was merely the foundation on which the total link popularity of a site was built. Without that catalyst, nothing much would have happened, but with it, the site earned not only the reciprocated links, but also large numbers of one-way links that actually dwarf the reciprocated numbers.

I have seen this time and again. It is an undeniable, dynamic aspect of a well-structured reciprocation campaign.

Some types of sites benefit from this more than others. Hobbyist and enthusiast-oriented sites are the ones that are most positively affected by this "link expansion". That's because the link directories on those tyes of sites are quite active, and getting a client site placed well within that realm has real impact, even if it is within the link directories.

Am I advocating that sites ignore other methods of building link popularity? By no means. We advise clients to pursue as many legitimate link building methods that they can muster. But many clients simply do not have the wherewithal to do it. Maybe they can't afford it, don't have the time, don't understand how, or don't want to.

We don't manage the entire SEO package for our clients. Our role is only to establish reciprocated links. So we get to see what happens to clients that pursue other link building methods, and those who do not, and compare the results. We also get to see what happens when basic on-site SEO is done well and when it is not.

It's a unique perspective, since most SEO houses take complete control of a site's optimization, and may tend to use the same or similar methods for all clients. That's not our role here, so we get to observe a variety of activity, and how it plays out.

I am very encouraged to see that most people who have posted here understand that reciprocation itself is not the evil gremlin that some people in the SEO world make it. That argument is manifestly ridiculous. Fortunately, we can move beyond that here, and not waste energy arguing that point.

Right now, I am presenting some of the finer points of what I have seen over the years, for what it's worth to everyone else. This seems to be one of the few linking forums where this kind of level-headed dialogue can take place, and be considered on it's merit.

To me, that's a breath of fresh air. I truly appreciate it.

thanks Link startegy, we (or at least I for sure) appreciate your candor and you taking the time to explain your thoughts. I will return soon (hopefully within the next day) to give some more specific opinions about your example.

*That means that we'll put up a link directory*

That's one of the problems, it makes these links stand out at a thousand paces...

Ian, thanks for your clarifications.

I'm in agreement with linkstrategy. A good reciprocal link campaign more often than not nets natural one-way links. That's not a recommendation to ignore other strategies, just a valid point to be made.

Here is another issue related to this mess.

What, pray tell, is the difference between a "reciprocal link" and two sites that link to each other?

See, if I make a deal with you to link to me in exchange for me linking to you, that is what is generally considered a reciprocal link in this industry - there is an agreement to link out in consideration for a link in.

But, for example, like many other here, I'm a Certified Adwords Professional. This means that there is a link to my website, along with the certification, from Google. They in turn recommend that I link to that page to show potential clients that I'm really certified and are not just stealing the logo (which is more common than you might think).

So, Google is linking to me and I'm linking to them - a reciprocal link scheme? No, of course not. The reason for the links are not consideration for the link back, but rather information and navigation. This also applies to many other organizations people join.

Also, some people link to articles they have written (or that have been written about them) that have been published on other sites. Technically, each site is linking to the other. This is common in the blogosphere, for example.

I would not call this a reciprocal link in the sense that we generally understand it, and yet, if you were a search engine - how could you tell?

Ian

I'm in full agreement, Ian. I've made the argument many times that for the search engines to discount all "reciprocal" links would "break" the Internet. Now that's an overstatement but the point is valid, there are simply too many legitimate reasons for good sites to link to each other and they should not considered less than legitimate for doing so.

If I own a small deli I might make an arrangement with the small market next to me to display each others coupons. That's just good marketing and does not imply that our relationship is less valid than any other. After all, I won't display the coupons if I don't like them and they won't display my coupons if the food sucks. Though reciprocal, it's a natural exchange.

Think it comes down to what I said earlier, about not relying wholly on reciprocal links, but keeping them as part of a greater linkage campaign.

Using the comparison before.

If I have lots and lots and lots of coupons of everyone in the market, the effectiveness of that "advertising" is somewhat dummed down, as people are going to think well he will just swap with any one, no matter how good the food.

However, If i keep that agreement limited, and instead rely a bit on people telling each other how good my food is well, then I am on to something, and that coupon to the other market is worth so much more.

Ston3y: I'm in full agreement, Ian. I've made the argument many times that for the search engines to discount all "reciprocal" links would "break" the Internet. Now that's an overstatement but the point is valid, there are simply too many legitimate reasons for good sites to link to each other and they should not considered less than legitimate for doing so.

Exactly. We could even speculate that nullifying ALL recip links has already been tested at the engines, especially G. They likely did not like what they saw. Again, that's just raw specualtion, but they've had 8 years to go after this aspect of linking, and have not done it.

Why? because proper reciprocation is not only legit, but quite pervasive, and it is a foundation of proper Web realtionships. As mcanerin points out, a lot of reciprocation occurs inadvertently. Sometimes, it happens purposely. Sorting it out is impossible.

As CNVI related, two sites in the motorcycle business have a legtimate reason to link to each other. Establishing a reciprocal relationship between their two directories makes good sense, and it is fully justifiable. Some people just pursue this more actively than others. That's just good branding practice.

Further, nullifying all recip linking would just send the SEO crowd further into paid, one-way link schemes of all manner.

I think it is kind of funny that we have seasoned SEO people here and none of you mention reciprocal link directory farms!

You could go on any webmaster forum in the past few years, even today and you still see webmasters announcing their spanking new directory that is rigged for great SEO (SEO friendly web directory), offering free links to those who submit today!

Well the problem with all this is, you get a free listing in a directory and in many cases you have no idea that a large percentage of the "free listings" in that directory (link farm) are reciprocal links!

Then the SE's target that directory as a link farm and many other "directories" that "great SEO's" summited their clients sites to over the years are also targeted and labeled by the SE's as "link farm directories".

Now all of a sudden your site or your clients is known as one that has hundreds of links in "reciprocal link farm directories", all because the SE's are busting down link farms and PR sellers today with new Algo's.

Real smart SEO, huh folks :confused: :rolleyes:

Maybe "Good SEO" is trying to get your sites the hell out of these "SEO friendly directories" :eek:

What is even a bigger blunder is buying a "one way link" in one of these scam link farm directories that offer "free links to those who reciprocate", this is a suckers game and a rip off scheme engineered by a link farm operator masquerading as a web directory!

So submitting to hundreds of directories may not be such a great "SEO tactic" after all since you have no idea of what that directory owner is doing in most cases, hell he may have 75% of his total links in his directory that are reciprocal.

This is why reciprocal links are not regarded as good links by Matt Cutts, because the majority of them are scam links as I describe above!

I think it is kind of funny that we have seasoned SEO people here and none of you mention reciprocal link directory farms!
I suspect the reason for that is quite simply that seasoned SEO's don't consider those to be reciprocals - just spam.

Sure, technically they are recips, but in the same way that machine-generated "articles" are technically content. But seasoned copywriters don't even consider them in discussions.

It's a good point for newbies, though. As has been mentioned mentioned several times in this thread, a lack of editorial discretion in linking can harm you, and rightly so.

I'll say it even more plainly - you should only reciprocate with sites that you are comfortable (even proud) to be associated with. If you feel a need to bury your links page "10 levels deep" to borrow a quote from earlier on, you are probably harming your rankings, not helping them. You are certainly not helping make the web a better place, which is my personal guideline for most things.

Here is an idea - your visitors should actually find your links page useful! How hard is that?

My opinion,
Ian

Yes, but when you pay a "so called SEO link specialist" to handle your linking, how do you really know what network of websites he is linking to your sites?

I've seen entire networks of sites built just for brokers to sell links from get stripped of all PR and shut down, all those who purchased links not only got ripped off, but they had their rankings tank and SERP's disappear!

Who are you trusting to build link campaigns, do you really know them?

PS: The reciprocal links Matt talks about are the seedy links I discuss and those from shady link brokers!

Hi!

I agree with others that reciprocal linking is not dead.

Yahoo and MSN still consider reciprocal link as a backlink. There has been no change in their algorithm. But Google has recently begun to give less preference to reciprocal links.

When we are optimizing a single webpage or a complete website for the search engines, we need to keep in mind the requirements of search engines like Yahoo and MSN.

There is a widespread feeling that Google is the only one that counts. It is NOT true. All the others matter...and matter big time!

So, don't worry...go ahead with reciprocal links. ;)

Cheers!

Medha

There is a widespread feeling that Google is the only one that counts. It is NOT true. All the others matter...and matter big time!

You forget one thing though, some of the other engines dont weigh incoming linkage to the same extent that Google does, as much of Googles methodology is weighted towards incoming linkage and its relevance/importance.

Hi!

I agree with others that reciprocal linking is not dead.

Yahoo and MSN still consider reciprocal link as a backlink. There has been no change in their algorithm. But Google has recently begun to give less preference to reciprocal links.

When we are optimizing a single webpage or a complete website for the search engines, we need to keep in mind the requirements of search engines like Yahoo and MSN.

There is a widespread feeling that Google is the only one that counts. It is NOT true. All the others matter...and matter big time!

So, don't worry...go ahead with reciprocal links. ;)

Cheers!

Medha

OK, so will you manage the submitting to directories for us? :rolleyes:

You forget one thing though, some of the other engines dont weigh incoming linkage to the same extent that Google does, as much of Googles methodology is weighted towards incoming linkage and its relevance/importance.

Firstly, I never said that Google does not matter. I said it is not the only one that matters.

Secondly, every search engine gives weightage to incoming links - some more, others less. that's the only difference.

Cheers!

Medha

When we are optimizing a single webpage or a complete website for the search engines, we need to keep in mind the requirements of search engines like Yahoo and MSN.

There is a widespread feeling that Google is the only one that counts. It is NOT true. All the others matter...and matter big time!Absolutely! Especially with certain demographics and target markets this is so. Even Ask.com has their regular users who can provide valuable traffic.