Reciprocal links dead

[inpursuit]

Its pretty clear that recipricol linking is dead and not looked upon good anymore by the search engines..

3 or 4 years ago yes it was good to have a links page on your site and gaterhing a crap load of links but nowdays i find i dont even create a links page as search engines are frowning on the whole pages full of links its not natural

[ExposureTim]

Personally I never believed reciprocal linking was "alive".

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon thinking the reciprocal linking was the way to go because it does bring inbound links, and that/was is an important thing to do. But it always seemed sensible that an inbound link couldn't be as viable if the linked page also linked back to the source.

If it ever was viable, it is dead now.

[projectphp]

Who says it is dead?

I bet that 99.9% of the links online are reciprical in some way or another, and reciprical links are still a pretty viable option. Problem is, that is ALL some people plan to do. That is like only doing pushups and hoping to get fit to run a marathon.

Variety and moderation in all things, even moderation!

[ExposureTim]

Nice analogy projectphp!

I think it's not the benefit it may have once been, if ever, and certainly it's ideal to be aware that you shouldn't be planning your entire link strategy around the concept, as some may have in the past.

[Greatlinks]

Recips are a good starting place in your linking campaign. They aren't going anywhere. Variety is good. My site will have one way links in the future.

[sem4u]

I wouldn't say that recips are dead, but if you do use them make sure that they are only part of your link building strategy. Also only link to relevant, quality sites.

[WebGeek182]

Its pretty clear that recipricol linking is dead and not looked upon good anymore by the search engines..

3 or 4 years ago yes it was good to have a links page on your site and gaterhing a crap load of links but nowdays i find i dont even create a links page as search engines are frowning on the whole pages full of links its not natural

I agree with you...it's dead.

[BuckfastMonk]

reciprocal linking is not dead in the sense that it still brings traffic.

[ExposureTim]

I agree - if the site you're getting the link from is a legit site with relevant traffic.

For example, if you are a vendor of a certain brands' products it'd be nice to get a link from that brand as well as you could link to their pics, specs or support docs as well.

This could 'reciprocally' drive traffic both ways and is a natural type of link and strategy.

[dayweb]

Amazing thread. Especially since the big 3 give you their requirements for linking and say it is still a part of the web. Think about a big spider web. Whats makes the internet a web is the linking and that is how search engines find you. They follow links from one site to another.
Don
Seopro

[BuckfastMonk]

How patronising was that :rolleyes:

[dayweb]

Try building a new site and don't do any linking and see what happens. Better yet remove the links from your sites and see what happens. I will admit the search engines are giving less weight to the links but it is still part of the algos. What they seem to be giving more weitht to is web standards and social networking.
Don
DAy Web

[ExposureTim]

Nobody is saying that linking itself (like a spider web to different places around the sphere) is dead, but reciprocal (direct two-way street) is what we are talking about... and that, again, is long dead.

[ExposureTim]

Clarification: Reciprocal linking is dead in terms of helping you rank better in SEs. But if it provides you good traffic then by all means do it...

Just don't expect a ranking boost from the link addition itself.

[dayweb]

Direct quote from Google webmaster help:
Question: How can I improve my sites ranking?

Answer: In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages.

Personal experience: Normally one of the areas that increases ranking is the amount of links. Also in 7 years as a webmaster I have not seen any traffic from my linking unless it is another webmaster checking his or her link to see if I have added it. I am not saying it does not happen just that I have not seen it.
If one of my customers wants a hosting company in Utah I will go to the search engine and tyype in "web hosting company Utah" and not go to my links and search through a couple of hundred look for one.
Don
Seopro

[BuckfastMonk]

Bottom line : build links with users in mind!
reciprocate if there is value in doing so.

either :

if its useful for your users
if it brings you traffic

In this sense, like we have already said, reciprocal linking is not dead.

To say in your 7 years as a webmaster you have seen no traffic as a direct result from a link is obsurd! I find this comment rather amusing

btw, if your going to google instead of your links page, then the question you have to ask yourself is . . . "If I don't find my links page useful, will my visitors"

[dayweb]

How many people go to your link pages to search? Bet none. And I usually dont use google and get more traffic from the other search engines as far as buyers.
Don

[ExposureTim]

And I usually dont use google and get more traffic from the other search engines as far as buyers.

If you get more traffic from the smaller search engines than from Google, it's probably time to re-think that strategy in general. It seemed you understand that there is no value in your current linking strategy either via regular users or Google, so are you continuing with it in the expectation that it is helping your Yahoo/MSN rankings?

[dayweb]

For some reason I do not believe it is me that has to rethink. A study has shown that MSN has 11% of the traffic but produced 48% more buyers than google. That alone is something for you to think about. My SEO has no problems considering one of my site has over 400 #1 and a company I optimized where the owners split up had over 100 #1 and #2 on google and still does. Check under golf fitness and you will find that it also has over 22,000 top 10 listings. I have not worked on it since november and it is still producing income.
Don
Seopro

[ExposureTim]

I'm not discounting your efforts at all. I do respect MSN for often providing higher converting traffic for my company as well.

I do suggest a wider approach to SEO, considering the guidelines for all of the engines especially those that are strict about links and link quality, is the best way to reach an extra 50+ percent more of your potential audience.

[BuckfastMonk]

Try keeping your posts relevant to the context of the original thread dayweb.

[dayweb]

That post was exactly in line with the origional post. "Is recipocal linking dead?" The point being if I did not do reciprocal linking would I have received the positions I achieved? If I built a site and did not link would it climb to the first page? Why do all of the search engines give you guidelines on your linking program? Why does all of the top SEO and SEM companies in the world have some sort of a linking program either in house or outsourced?
Don

[ExposureTim]

Again, to clarify, "linking" and "reciprocal linking" are two different things.

So before this disagreement continues please note that linking is highly recommended by every search engine and SEO or SEM, including myself.

But reciprocal (mutual) linking is not recommended by either engines' guidelines or any knowledgeable SEOs or SEMs, including myself.

Please understand this definition before getting worked up about the opinions that others provide you.

[BuckfastMonk]

Exactly ExposureTim

[dayweb]

I don't get worked up over a forum. In fact I love the ideas you advocate, it just makes my job easier. Every SEO expert I have ever heard has talked about a well rounded linking program and that includes reciprocal linking. Even the Google wiz Matt Cutts has indicated that reciprocal linking is natural.
Don

[ExposureTim]

Please provide a link from Matt Cutts or Google Webmaster guidelines that says, or even suggests, that reciprocal linking is a good idea. (Preferably something from 2005 or later, but any documentation will do.)

[beu]

Because it's difficult to get reciprocal links from sites with a high PageRank, recirpocal linking eventually dies.

reciprocal linking:
Send 1000 requests for links to 1000 sites with PageRank 8 or above and see what happens. If they all link to your site, chances are they are not all related to your content and your site becomes what is known as a link farm.

linkbaiting
I suggest spending an afternoon with some mentos, a diet coke and your video camera and then posting the result.

[Marcia]

I wouldn't say that recips are dead, but if you do use them make sure that they are only part of your link building strategy. Also only link to relevant, quality sites.That's exactly how I see it. Recips have been around since the beginning of the "linkable" web and they're not going anyplace soon. And they've still got value, as part of an overall, balanced plan.

Google will not tell anything about what they give scoring for, but as far as expressing opinions is concerned, Adam posted something akin to the above in the Googlegroups for webmaster help several months ago.

[cnvi]

For those of you who think reciprocal linking is dead, look at a comment Google Engineer Matt Cutts made last
year on his blog: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline

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..."

What Matt is referring to is high volume irrelevant linking. He did not say "don't link to quality sites related to your own". There is a huge difference between the two.

No search engine has ever stated specifically "don't exchange links". Search engine engineers realize that:

- Link exchange has existed since the beginning of the web
- Many webmasters won't link to a site without a return link
- Link exchange is the equalizer for small businesses who don't have fortune 500 budgets

What the search engines don't want you doing is linking in HIGH VOLUME to IRRELEVANT SITES or utilizing FULL DUPLEX link exchange services. It's that simple and should not be confused with natural low volume relevant link exchange. If you aren't familiar with the term "full duplex",

http://linksmanager.com/fantasy-world-full-duplex-linking.html.

Relevant link exchange not only produces qualified traffic entirely apart from search returns but it also positively affects link popularity and page rank.

For those of you who ignore link exchange because of paranoia, your competitors are doing it and will excel long term as they build relevant traffic.

Another fact that many site operators don't think about.. link exchange opens the door for one way links because many sites will link to you and then ask for a link exchange. If you deny that link exchange, the one way link benefits your site. Just by publishing a links or resources page, you open the door for one way links. Links beget links!

Reciprocal linking is alive and well and will always exist. To state that link exchange is "dead" makes you effectively guilty of spreading misinformation and paranoia. Until a search engine engineer states "don't link exchange" (which will never happen), continue to link up with quality sites that benefits your end user.

Keep your link exchanges: relevant, low natural volume, and always maintain editorial discretion (you control who you link to).

The world is full of two way exchanges of information. Link exchange is a classic marketing method that will always exist as long as there is a world wide web.

[mony30]

I agree with you totally, one way links are so driven by search engine algoritms.

This could be either through article submissions, blogs or directories but in its important pages mostly through paid submissions.

[debraM]

Please provide a link from Matt Cutts or Google Webmaster guidelines that says, or even suggests, that reciprocal linking is a good idea. (Preferably something from 2005 or later, but any documentation will do.)



Granted I've never heard him say they're a good idea but I've also never heard him or any google representative say they were bad either. What they have said, as cnvi points out - is that it's not a good idea when done excessively because there is/could be a perception that it's being done to manipulate SE rankings.

There's nothing wrong with swapping links with another website, just don't make it your only link building practice.

[ExposureTim]

There's nothing wrong with swapping links with another website, just don't make it your only link building practice.

I agree, could you imagine what those "A list" bloggers would do if they couldn't link too each other like silly! :D

But I don't think it helps if that's all you've got. A site won't outrank a competitor who is using other less-dead linking strategies.

[debraM]

could you imagine what those "A list" bloggers would do if they couldn't link too each other

This is a good point, if Google penalized for recip linking solely on the tactic itself, a good portion of the blogging community would be invisible.

[SEOWizard]

I TOTALLY disagree that recip.linking is dead.

I've disapproved this theory with some new websites where it is mostly recip.linking. It's not excessive, about 100 or less outbound links on my 'Links' page.

Before recip linking - no google listing.

After (several months) - first page of google.

Recip linking adds to your 'score' with Google. Logically it has to work.

If Billys Homepage links to his friend 'Sams Homepage' and they exchange links, it's 2 way but no spam. So it will help the 'score' from Google.

Blogs link to other blogs all the time, this too is legit.

EXCESS link exchange might trigger some alarm, but a good mix of links such as from directories, websites, blogs, and recips would not be likely to have you sand boxed.

[beu]

It works but, only for so long. i.e. When your site has a PR 8 will you exchange links with PR 0 sites?

[cnvi]

When your site has a PR 8 will you exchange links with PR 0 sites?
Stop linking for PR! Link exchange should be conducted as a branding and traffic building function. Never as an SEO function.

The reason why link exchange gets some bad press is because of folks who make linking decisions based on how they think it will affect search rankings.

Link with a PR=0 if the site benefits your end user's experience. Brand new sites always start with low PR so why ignore a quality link just because the site is new?

When you link to all sorts of sites with various PR, it shows the search engines that you are linking for the end user and not for the search engines. By linking only to high PR sites, you give the search engines a reason to downgrade your rankings.

Make linking decisions for the end user and you will be amazed at how well you do both in terms of traffic from those links and the residual link popularity benefits that affect search rankings.

[debraM]

It works but, only for so long. i.e. When your site has a PR 8 will you exchange links with PR 0 sites?

Chances are if you're sitting with an 8 you probably don't need to be doing any type of reciprocal linking...;)

Stop linking for PR! Link exchange should be conducted as a branding and traffic building function. Never as an SEO function.

There's no reason reciprocal linking can't be done to support an ongoing SEO campaign. One of the best elements of swapping links is the control you have over what anchors and URL's are going to be used. That alone is good for SEO and even better for your site's marketing.

Make linking decisions for the end user and you will be amazed at how well you do both in terms of traffic from those links and the residual link popularity benefits that affect search rankings.

It's also good for your SEO program. The true power of ANY link building technique lies in the anchor text used and where it points. If your anchors use descriptive keyword text that's point to a relevant page that's good for the engines, your SEO program and people.

[mcanerin]

This is one of those times when a lot of people are confusing the concept with the execution.

- Is signing up to an FFA for automated reciprocal links dead? Yup.
- Is the "Ye Olde Friends List" dead? No, but it's on life support - and there are LOTS of ways to pull that plug (not connecting it to the rest of the site, too many links, linking to crappy sites, etc).
- Is reciprocal linking via "Blogrolls" dead? Nope. Going strong, thanks.
- Is reciprocal linking between reputable sites dead? Nope, I SEO government sites and get links from other government sites that are on topic all the time.

If all of your links are reciprocal, then that's obviously a problem. But to say that two sites linking to each other is an issue rather invalidates the whole concept of how search engines rate sites and authority.

What? Authority sites are sites that don't know about each other? Hubs are dead? Directories don't work anymore? A link from Matt Cutt's site is a kiss of death if you link back? Puuleeeaase.

If I get a link from the Yahoo or DMOZ directory, I don't suddenly invalidate the effectiveness of that link if at some point I happen to link to the directory for some reason somewhere on my site. That's just silly.

I'll also point out that from a link analysis standpoint, your entire site is probably internally made up of reciprocal links, most commonly in the form of a menu system.

It's normal to start out with almost all recips and directories, then start to get one-way links as your site matures and begins ranking well on it's own. Suddenly getting a ton of one-way links is more likely to be an issue than growing a site naturally.

It's not about reciprocal, one-way, or third-party indirect links - it's HOW those links are used and who they are linking to. Start linking to a bunch of really spammy sites (one-way) and watch what happens to your rankings. Trade links with authorities in your field and watch what happens. I'll let you test (or guess) what the results would be.

I've seen both scenarios and I know that the issue is not the type of link, it's the relationship it shows. What some people call reciprocal linking, with the hidden "resource" pages and the less than credible links, is not reciprocal linking, it's stupid linking that just happens to be reciprocal. There is a difference. Stupid linking can also be one-way, third party, etc.

It's not what you call the link, it's what you do with it that matters. And links are not dead.

Ian

[beu]

Stop linking for PR! Link exchange should be conducted as a branding and traffic building function. Never as an SEO function.
Welcome to Search Engine Watch, nobody here is buying it!

"By linking only to high PR sites, you give the search engines a reason to downgrade your rankings."

I thought this was about branding and building traffic not search engines or link spam. Obviously engines would not "downgrade" a site's PR for linking to authoritative sources? How would anything but the best help users for branding and or traffic building?

[cnvi]

I said "you give the search engines a reason to downgrade your rankings."

Meaning that you raise the option for higher scrutiny by SE ranking programs when you attempt to manipulate rankings by only linking to high PR sites.

Link for the end user for the best long term success. That means link to low PR sites when it benefits your end user's experience.

[SEOWizard]

I don't have a problem linking to/from a PR0 web site, as long as it's new. PR0 today, PR3 tommorrow, PR5 by next month....

Links are links. If you could downgrade a website with PR0 links....you could then exploit this by finding a competitor and linking him 1-way to PR0 spam websites.

[doggydoggworld]

If there is a better way to get more traffic to your site, please tell me as I have tried everything. :)

[skysoldier]

For all major SE are important even if it is just a small SE but if you do well in SEO on linking to relevant links I think I can drive more traffic and a plus factor major SE?

[beu]

If there is a better way to get more traffic to your site, please tell me as I have tried everything. :)

Make great content!

[poksa]

Make great content!


yeah! create great content for users...

because if you build complete content for your users I'm sure that the traffic visits on your site was raise up.

[cooluks]

Reciprocal Links are still valuable in terms of quality links...

It is considered one factor for link building....Aside from directory submissions and forums sigs postings.... Linkexchange to related is still an excellent for good links... :D

[32paul52]

I think it has a lot to do with the process.....

If you went out exchange links with a lot of poker sites, based on PR, then it wouldn't be all that helpful.

However if you deep link exchange links with similar sites (say similar dog sites) -that makes logical sense.

(I found a site doing this -has top rankings in competive areas)

its those that try and take the "short cut" - eg: add one line of code and get links from 2000 site.....oihhh....asking for trouble.

and....Directorys.....a huge amount of them wanting links back now anyway....

Do I say you should only exchange links?- no way..as pointed out above....also have 1 way links.....Articles, PR, affiliate program etc

I think there has be some look at Page rank -just to see how long the site has been around......

Best Regards
Paul Easton

[Tekime]

No reciprocals at all seems as unnatural as pages full of them.

[debraM]

No reciprocals at all seems as unnatural as pages full of them.

Good point. The natural flow of the Web/Net and the process of citation makes it perfectly reasonable to exchange links with websites.

Meaning that you raise the option for higher scrutiny by SE ranking programs when you attempt to manipulate rankings by only linking to high PR sites.

Agree, and would add that swapping links exclusively will add to your issues.

The problem is less about the tactic and more about the way it's abused. Swap links with sites if they're good ones and not as the only link building you do.

:)

[Marcia]

Welcome to Search Engine Watch, nobody here is buying it!Yes it's Search Engine Watch, and FWIW, I am buying it.

"By linking only to high PR sites, you give the search engines a reason to downgrade your rankings."

I thought this was about branding and building traffic not search engines or link spam. Obviously engines would not "downgrade" a site's PR for linking to authoritative sources? How would anything but the best help users for branding and or traffic building?IMHO, that is a mis-interpretation of what the OP is saying and it simply isn't fair and neither is it productive.

Reciprocal linking has been around since "the beginning of time" on the web, is a natural process, and existed before the concept of PR was even introduced. It's all about natural linking patterns, isn't it? That seems to be what was implied by a public statement made by a Google rep, or at least that's what it seemed to imply.