3 way linking

[shirsc2]

whats the benefit of 3 way linking. I know you would get one way links coming in but you are also losing some pr when linking out to a site and no getting any back

[minstrel]

1. three-way linking is unnecessary - it's based on the mistaken belief that Google values one-way links more than reciprocal links

2. you are not losing any PR by linking out to a site, whether ot nor you get a link back

[earncef]

The present situation suggests 2 reciprocal linking

[minstrel]

The present situation suggests 2 reciprocal linking
What "present situation"?

[Carlito]

In my mind, it makes sense that Google would devalue reciprocal links to some degree to combat the obvious practice of trading links for no other reason than to affect link popularity. Quality natural links that should truly be counted as 'votes' for another site are inherently one-way.

Do you have some kind of proof that that's a mistaken belief? Even if it were the case, whose to say reciprocal links won't be discounted in the future?

I just don't think it's good advice to say such a general statement as 'three-way linking is unnecessary'.

[minstrel]

In my mind, it makes sense that Google would devalue reciprocal links to some degree to combat the obvious practice of trading links for no other reason than to affect link popularity. Quality natural links that should truly be counted as 'votes' for another site are inherently one-way.
That is simply not true. As one example only, authority sites often naturally link to one another because they ARE authority sites. Those are reciprocal links. They are just not ARRANGED reciprocal links.

Do you have some kind of proof that that's a mistaken belief? Even if it were the case, whose to say reciprocal links won't be discounted in the future?
If you believe it, the burden is on you to provide evidence that they are discounted. As for predicting the future, I can't do that any more than you but I can think of no logical reason for Google to do this and Google has not made a habit of making illogical decisions. Therefore, I think it highly unlikely at best that Google will ever discount two-way links.

I just don't think it's good advice to say such a general statement as 'three-way linking is unnecessary'.
It's good advice because it's true. It is bad advice to suggest that reciprocal linking is bad or dangerous or likely to be penalized because that is NOT true. Given that, the statement that "three-way linking is unnecessary" is good advice.

[almu]

It does appear that Google is dampening 2-way linking across the board, at the moment, and 3-WAY linking if done correcttly may be a way around that. However Google(or anyone else) can still detect "arranged" schemes with 3-way linking as two or more sites in such an arrangement may have "whois" or IP details in common. Additionally, the sites would have a similar linking patterns in all their pages, a tell-tale sign.(a "related:http://sitename.com/index.html" will reveal this)

IMHO the best way to go about 3-way linking is to join a link co-op like Link-Vault where the incoming links and those that you display on your site are matched for relevancy, but with a degree of randomness making for a natural look to them.

2-way linking will not lose you PR, it just won't gain you very much, depending on the source of the link, and the relevancy to both the page hosting the link as well as that pointed to.

[minstrel]

It does appear that Google is dampening 2-way linking across the board
No. That's simply not the case. There are too many exceptions to that.

the best way to go about 3-way linking is to join a link co-op like Link-Vault where the incoming links and those that you display on your site are matched for relevancy, but with a degree of randomness making for a natural look to them.
1. when did the Coop start to "match for relevancy"?

2. how does "randomness" make links look more natural?

[vlasta]

All "good" pages are connected anyway. It's just the length of the cycle...

If you have two sites with related theme, link them directly, without a third site in the middle.

[Elee]

I have seen no proof or read any articles that links with relative sites was losing any significants with Google. You just can't go wrong with good, relative links.

[minstrel]

If you have two sites with related theme, link them directly, without a third site in the middle.
Yes. Exactly.

[Carlito]

It would be hard to prove, but as for articles, here's your first one then ;) :

http://www.webpronews.com/expertarticles/expertarticles/wpn-62-20051031AreReciprocalLinksDead.html

My only argument is that a three way link between quality relevant sites is more resistant to SE algorithm changes, whether its Jagger or something two years down the road.

[lorien1973]

recip links aren't dead. check the bottom of sites like hgtv.com they sitewide cross link all of their sites together and hasn't hurt them. some magazines that are owned by the same company do the same and have like 17-18 sites crosslinked and that doesnt hurt them either.

[minstrel]

Ironic.

You might want to read this thread (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=408486#post408486).

You might also note that later in the article, several paragraphs after the rather sensational "reciprocal links are dead" claim, the author does backtrack a little and suggests that relevant reciprocal links are fine.

My only argument is that a three way link between quality relevant sites is more resistant to SE algorithm changes
If you deleted the words "three way" in that statement, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

[lorien1973]

Minstrel, you've missed this thread (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=34866&highlight=hurricanes). It proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that if a webpage exists about a given topic; then its 100% undeniably true.

[minstrel]

:D Thanks, lorien...

...my brain hurts :eek:

[WorldImpulse]

i think that recips can not die out completely .... but yes their value has decremented as per my personal experiences...

Best is to have all types of links .... one way, triangular and more ...

You can try out http://www.ilovelinks.com for different types of link exchanges ...

[minstrel]

My latest strategy is to avoid triangular links altogether, since I fully expect them to be penalized in Jagger 4.0.5.

From now on, I'll only consider oval and hexagonal links. I think they're the wave of the future.

[lorien1973]

I'm going for the fractal link exchanges, personally. I find those to be the most effective.

[minstrel]

I'm going for the fractal link exchanges, personally. I find those to be the most effective.
Have you had any success with those on forums?

[GuyFromChicago]

I'm going for the fractal link exchanges, personally. I find those to be the most effective.

I've got you beat. I only do theoretical link exchanges now. That way, regardless of the theory of the week, I'm covered....theoretically of course.

[minstrel]

Goog thinking, GFC. I'm going to do some experimenting with parallel universe links - I'll let you know how that turns out.

[elle]

I have seen no proof or read any articles that links with relative sites was losing any significants with Google. You just can't go wrong with good, relative links.

i would have to agree... even though i haven't been doing this long, from what i've seen it seems to me that links to or from relevant, quality sites will only add value to your own site. (both traingle trades and reciprocal trades)

[seoocean]

3- way linking is the best solution and its better than reciprocal linking.
I have been doing link building for more than 4 years and the results 3-way has produced are much better than reciprocal.

Kindly PM me for link building projects.

[lorien1973]

Quickest turn around I've seen to a sales pitch in weeks :D

[minstrel]

3- way linking is the best solution and its better than reciprocal linking.
I have been doing link building for more than 4 years and the results 3-way has produced are much better than reciprocal.
Utter hogwash.

Kindly PM me for link building projects.
That "better than" part explained here... :rolleyes:

[mamtasaini]

Three way links. It all depends on the implementation of the linking strategy. I have read the whole discussion and see that almost everyone is against three way linking. What about something like this.

Say we have 3 pools of websites "Pool A" has 5 sites in it "Pool B" has 10 and finally "Pool C" has 20 sites in it. Now the linking goes like this.

Pool A -> Pool B -> Pool C -> Pool A

Having implemented like this don't you guys think it is better than a reciprocal link and close to one way link.

Next when a PR 6 site links to PR 7 site that results in good strong link same vice versa. Now look at a situation where a PR7 site links to PR0 or PR1 site and vice versa won't you find it a bit funny and why won't search engines think the same way.

[minstrel]

No.

There is nothing wrong with reciprocal links. Google does not penalize reciprocal links. Reciprocal linking can and frequently does occur organically.

What Google does devalue and discourage:

1. non-relevant links, i.e., links that do not match the content of the originating or destination URLs

2. paid links

3. links from artifical link exchange schemes and link farms, including link farm directories