Reciprocal Links Are Evil!

[DBernstein]

Ok if reciprocal links are bad and we should be trying to only get links to us how do we do that without buying them. Unless we create the most relevant site with the most bounty of beautiful content it aint going to happen. So do we all buy? Or do we develop the trading "one way" links network? Still sounds evil. We will never win when everyone buys links on these expensive networks. Once again the little guy can't win.

Any Ideas?

[AussieWebmaster]

Have the links page in your site be from another domain and give links from it in return for links to your domain.
Create a little content relevant to the topic/theme of the site on the links page and have a few outbound links to major sites in the niche that do not recip...

[rustybrick]

Reciprocal links are fine as long as they are natural links. I link to many resources from my blog. The same resources link back to me as a resource. But they are on topic. I didn't give those resources links because they gave me a link, the contrary. I gave them links because they are useful to my reader.

Get the idea.

Be natural.

[seobook]

the problems with reciprocal links is not that they all suck. some are probably a great deal.

the real problems with reciprocal links are:
-othes may have intent of creating burnable websites and they may be paying someone $1 an hour to link exchange with anyone...if you do not have a burnable domain and you trade with them then you can eat their penalty too.
-if sites require very little in terms of quality to trade links with you then someone else can pay someone $1 an hour to go through your link trades and trade with all your partners.

blind reciprocal links do not build value and are exceptionally risky

[Dave Hawley]

Ok if reciprocal links are bad..Why do you say that?

I have been swapping links with similar sites for years. In addition to helping PR they also bring targetted traffic.

[Nick W]

Most of the savvy seo's i know stopped chasing recips well over a year ago...

>>Once again the little guy can't win

Why not? - be inventive - be extaordinary - be contraversial - be outstanding and link out generously and all good things will follow. Really they will...

Nick

[seobook]

Why do you say that?

I have been swapping links with similar sites for years. In addition to helping PR they also bring targetted traffic.
I think it is no big secret that most websites that are actively seeking massive link swaps are also crap websites.

not all swaps are bad, but most link trades are set up to benifit one party much more than the other.

[Nacho]

Build them a cool little tool they can use on their website, then make sure it says Powered by Anchor Text (http//www.this-would-be-your-site.com). An example that is overflooded in the www are mortgage calculators. Think of something smart and I'll bet you can easily get a good 100 new links to your site. ;)

Buena suerte amigo!

[Nacho]

MODERATOR NOTE: I move this thread to the Link Building forum. It makes no sense to have it under "Other Google Issues". Thanks for understanding.

[Dave Hawley]

Swap links only with sites that will benefit your site visitors and are not link farms. Never link for PR only. Don't be too proud to drop an email to a site saying you have linked to their site and request they link back to you. The smart ones will link back as both sites are relevant. If they don't link back...no skin of your nose.

[DBernstein]

Ok I know there is ways to build natural links and I think we should all do that, but what about the major companies who buy massive amounts of links when the small guy cant? I know the juniper commerce section cost $6000 a month! Only major players can afford that. So the little guy is at a disadvantage. I personally wouldn’t want to buy any links even if I had the money to do so. It is just wrong. It is wrong because those links serve no purpose other then link popularity. No one clicks on a random link on the side of a nav that has nothing to do with the site they are on.

I have built high PR sites with tons of relevant content and always find myself losing to someone with 3000 links. When I research the links they are crap bought links. So getting as many natural links as you can, will help but you will still lose.

[seobook]

Ok I know there is ways to build natural links and I think we should all do that, but what about the major companies who buy massive amounts of links when the small guy cant? I know the juniper commerce section cost $6000 a month! Only major players can afford that. So the little guy is at a disadvantage.
Google has been flipping my ranking around a bit, but I keep oscillating between #8 & #12 for "seo" and I only spend a few hundred dollars a month on link renting. I am a little guy without much money. you do not need lots of money if you make friends and business partnerships.

I personally wouldn’t want to buy any links even if I had the money to do so. It is just wrong. It is wrong because those links serve no purpose other then link popularity. No one clicks on a random link on the side of a nav that has nothing to do with the site they are on.
why not buy relevant ads from related sites then?

I have built high PR sites with tons of relevant content and always find myself losing to someone with 3000 links. When I research the links they are crap bought links. So getting as many natural links as you can, will help but you will still lose.
sounds to me that you either need to come off some cash or need to work hard building more good friendships and business relationships that will be reflected in your linkage data.

why is it that many people feel it is wrong to place ads on the web?

[DBernstein]

I do agree with buying relevant links on similar sites. What I don’t like is the anchor text auto selected links like the ones on the jupiter network (don't mean to pick on our friends, just using the obvious example). When you hit refresh and it randomly chooses links to make money.

I can afford to buy some nice relevant links (although I would rather spend my time and money building better content and have more info instead) but I wont beat out the people on these networks.

Seobook, do you feel these commerce links are just? Do you think they have value to visitors of this site?

[seobook]

I do agree with buying relevant links on similar sites. What I don’t like is the anchor text auto selected links like the ones on the jupiter network (don't mean to pick on our friends, just using the obvious example). When you hit refresh and it randomly chooses links to make money.
part of that randomly chosing links it to try to mix it up to make it look more natural. when you buy links its best if you can spread them out over many sites and use various different link text.
I can afford to buy some nice relevant links (although I would rather spend my time and money building better content and have more info instead) but I wont beat out the people on these networks.
it is a balancing act. if you have great content and could use more links then get more links. work on doing both in tandom.
Seobook, do you feel these commerce links are just?
my opinion of those links does not much matter. its more important what search algorithms think of those links. I personally recommend spending at a large variety of networks and getting many onetime fee links before spending a bunch all at one spot.
Do you think they have value to visitors of this site?
not usually, but many link ads that are bought & sold have no intent of being relevant for human site visitors. some search algorithms are not amazingly sophisticated and are somewhat easy to cheaply manipulate.

whether or not others are paying for the links does not determine whether or not they are worth buying though. links, like any other market, will have some areas that are underpriced and some that are overpriced...and there is no universal yes or no answer as to whether a particular link rental position provides adequate value to all sites across all fields.

[DBernstein]

Thanks for the input Seobook.

Back to the original point of this post. What is your opinion of getting another domain to use as your reciprocal links location?

Does anyone feel Google will better value real links more then bought link?

The new msn seems to not put so much weight on links. Most of my sites are ranking extremely well in their results. I love Google but having the best content and best represented site is just not enough to them.

[seobook]

What is your opinion of getting another domain to use as your reciprocal links location?
that is probably not all that hard for search engines to detect.
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=15982

Does anyone feel Google will better value real links more then bought link?
depends on how well they can distinguish the difference between real and bought links.

The new msn seems to not put so much weight on links. Most of my sites are ranking extremely well in their results. I love Google but having the best content and best represented site is just not enough to them.
MSN Search Beta is really easy to manipulate w links right now.

[DBernstein]

How is MSN Search Beta is really easy to manipulate w links right now?

One of my sites is ranked #1 in MSN for a term and lost in the 100s for the term in google.

There is no duplicate content but there are no real links for the site. either. MSN seems to love the site theme and focus. I do notice MSN seems to put more wieght on inurl keyword use, but even that is not really present on my site.

[seobook]

How is MSN Search Beta is really easy to manipulate w links right now?
one of my friends has a site that outranks a site for the other sites own name based on a few keyword rich links. in yahoo the site ranks below the official manufacturer and in google it is a bit lower than that.

I also have spoke with some link brokers and a good # of SEOs about the new MSN Search, although likely it will change over time.

[Dave Hawley]

Has anyone any proof that paid links (like juniper) help in anyway at all with the Google SERP's.

Please, no pages ranking number 1 for a search term, that has paid links to it, as sole proof.

[seobook]

Please, no pages ranking number 1 for a search term, that has paid links to it, as sole proof.
that sounds confusing to me? not sure what the question is...

[Marcia]

What Dave Hawley is intimating is that to use sites with paid links as an example, and give that as the reason some sites may be ranking #1, is anecdotal evidence at best, and doesn't constitute absolute proof of any kind.

IMHO that's to the definite advantage of the link brokerage industry and other selling links, but it's far from an algorithmic absolutism and could easily mislead some people into wasting hard-earned money thinking that's what will do it for them. There are *plenty* of #1 sites out there that never have bought even one single link.

[DaveN]

Dave :

the problem is :

I have sites that rank #1 - #3 which have

1) solely bought in links
2) cross linked network only
3) blagger links ( like blogger but different ;) )
4) natural linkage
5) mixture of the above

I also have sites that don't rank for anything which have

1) solely bought in links
2) cross linked network only
3) blagger links ( like blogger but different ;) )
4) natural linkage
5) mixture of the above

So depending on what stats i feed you would influence your opinion, i have a test bed of several 1000 sites across the globe, imho a link is a link unless it a flagged link !

I also have a high PR site which does not pass PR which I used for 3 way links , But i sleep easy at night knowing one day all that PR will follow to the people that swapped links with me :)

DaveN

[I, Brian]

Has anyone any proof that paid links (like juniper) help in anyway at all with the Google SERP's.

Please, no pages ranking number 1 for a search term, that has paid links to it, as sole proof. As per your comments on the other thread - why not test it yourself? :)

[Dave Hawley]

Touché :)

I guess it's because I never intend to buy a link for PR. However, I decided that perhaps I should test for myself as it's unlikely there is a page out the with no other link to it other than a bought one.

As Marcia had said, it would appear that these 'PR sellers' are really preying on ignorance. I would also bet they are about the only ones profiting and Google has many of them identified and so don't pass PR, or not as much as you think.

[Marcia]

I guess it's because I never intend to buy a link for PR.Dave, I can truthfully say that I don't intend to, but I can't say that I never will - because I don't know what will come up in the future. But I can honestly say that I hate the whole link-chasing game with a passion, I personally believe it's spread more corruption in the industry than all other things combined.

When someone is considered a great SEO because they know how to amass tens of thousands of links in a weeks time, I have to seriously question what this industry has come to. And not only that, but I believe it's time to take a serious look at who it is that says such things, and what their possible motives might be - not to mention their character, which seems to be an insignificant element in the mix nowadays, when anything goes and whatever makes $$$$$ is just fine and dandy, no matter what.

All that glitters is not gold.
We need to keep that in mind, for our own protection and well-being.

As Marcia had said, it would appear that these 'PR sellers' are really preying on ignorance. There will always be charlatans. scammers and unscrupulous people in this world, regardless of the industry, who prey on ignorance or misplaced trust or loyalties. I think the victims are called fools - though that doesn't sit too well with too many, even though it's one of the facts of life we have to learn to live with.

I would also bet they are about the only ones profiting and Google has many of them identified and so don't pass PR, or not as much as you think.Is there any empilrical evidence for that?

[Dave Hawley]

Is there any empilrical evidence for that?
No. However, I say it all the time. Google have the $$, resources and Geeks to protect their SERP relevancy. I believe they would use all of this to ensure paid links do not upset this.

Of course they will never say they do/don't or can/cannot as their whole algo is one of best kept secrets of any business.

[sugarrae]

IMHO recip links certainly aren't "bad". I just think one way links are better.

So the little guy is at a disadvantage.

Keep in mind that the mega players usually have employees, either freelance or in house, doing the SEO. Not all of them are good, creative or "care" about the site. Personally, I think the "little guys" and "one man bands" usually have a passion about either the site in question or SEO as a whole that a lot of bigger corporations, especially those with in house employees, lack.

So getting as many natural links as you can, will help but you will still lose.

Not always true. Sure, there are certain industries where the competition is brutal, but as a whole, anyone can become a "contender". Having an attitude that you can't possibly win a fight before getting in the ring - now, that I can see as being a huge disadvantage.

Do you think they have value to visitors of this site?

Lets be real here. We are all linking for SE value for the most part when we SEO a commercial site. Pointing out how valuable or non valuable links might be on/to a huge corporate websites is a bit like the pot calling the rich kettle black.

What is your opinion of getting another domain to use as your reciprocal links location?

I think it can work if done very carefully. Use things like the touchgrap tool to get an idea of what linking looks like to a search engine. Check out the linking patterns of good, non commercial resources. It's all about looking natural. Triangular linking needs to be done with care.

Does anyone feel Google will better value real links more then bought link?

Depends. I think they're already moved into something like this. But, for the most part at the moment, no. That doesn't mean they won't in the future. I think a lot about linking is going to change - thats why I think its important to not only do what works now, but try to think ahead about what may work in the future.

Has anyone any proof that paid links (like juniper) help in anyway at all with the Google SERP's.

There are way too many types/sites offering paid links that aren't "on the radar" to make a blanket statement either way. Personally, I think some paid links don't do a thing and others are goldmines.

'PR sellers'

Well, not all paid links come from PR sellers. As with everything, some link brokers offer valuable links and some don't. But, they're far from being representative of all paid links as a whole.

to protect their SERP relevancy

Lots of people must be sleeping then ;).

[AussieWebmaster]

Has anyone any proof that paid links (like juniper) help in anyway at all with the Google SERP's.

Please, no pages ranking number 1 for a search term, that has paid links to it, as sole proof.
Isolating this could be next to impossible. You would have to qualify what is to be consdiered paid links.

Is Yahoo directory and all the other directories that charge for a listing?
Are paid inclusion costs considered paid links?
Would a recip link be paid since it also costs you loss of traffic which has a value....

Give a very tight set of parameters and maybe it can get tested.

[seomike]

Reciprocal links aren't that bad. How else does Google find the majority of their new webpages to grow their index?? Where's GG?? If this spreads any more their spider isn't going to be bringing home as much bacon in the future.

[Dave Hawley]

Lots of people must be sleeping then . Nah, all those caught sleeping on the job get sent to Yahoo ;)

Isolating this could be next to impossible. I wouldn't think so. Upload an orphaned page with some blurb on it. Then buy a link from a PR seller and have some anchor text (uncompetitive) that is nowewhere on the page. Wait.

Is Yahoo directory and all the other directories that charge for a listing? Are paid inclusion costs considered paid links? Yes, they are of couse bought links. But these are not the type of links I mean.

However, I would not be suprised if Google looks as these differently than natural type links. For example, (extreme example), if similiar sites submit, one get's a categry with only one other link and the page has a PR8, the other get's the next level down that has 100 other links and only PR4. I would doubt Google would pass such a bias amount of PR. To me at least, it would make much more sense to give all Yahoo directory (all directories) links the same PR.

[newreality]

I know someone who ended up with thousands of backlinks as result of a tool placed on other sites, and a PR8 due mainly to this (cgi search tool).

D Bernstein: perhaps if you inform me of the type of site this is or the market you serve, I could provide a more direct idea. Other than this, sometimes rankings come from doing nothing other than already having a start.

Among the sites I operate is a shopping mall site. Tough to get rankings, is an understatment when you're talking twenty five to thirty+ seperate main categories/ classes within these categories. Yet there can be a "hidden opportunity" -- maybe an unseen commonality across your site. Why not develop a symbiotic tool. Or your own form of "captured" traffic. Try to develop a combining effect usually not found at the single site level.

The best opportunities are created. Never leave it strictly to SEO. This is no pitch. I've made postings and have received quality informative responses here on Search Engine Watch forums. Post back (url?)and maybe I can take my turn to help, including a basic customer/site-user profile.

[DBernstein]

newreality: I cant divulge my Bruce Clay Clients. Thanks for the offer.

This forum has been helpful. I just wish Google would recognize that links aren’t the most important thing. It is true a site can rank for a word that is not even on their site just by buying enough good anchor text links.

Has anyone seen a shift from Google to stop the importance of paid links? Or at least paid links on irrelevant sites? IF you have money it is too easy to trick google to rank you with link buying. They need to go back to on page factors meaning more.