Another Recip Question

[Hodgedup]

I’ve read the whole debate over reciprocal links. My question isn’t whether reciprocal links as a whole are good or bad.

The question is if a large site has deep linked to individual articles on my site would doing a site wide link exchange with that site devalue the natural links any?

[explorer]

If you're trading the sitewides for traffic alone, you could always rel=nofollow them.

If you're trading sitewides for SEO, IMHO your existing one-way links will be devalued. I should be honest though - I have no direct evidence for this as it's not something I've done with any of my sites. I'm making a "not unreasonable deduction" from some of the things we've been reading re Matt Cutts recently.

[mjewel]

I don't think anyone outside of google can give you an absolute answer, but one-way links are always better imo. Reciprocal links look like you have just exchanged links - whether or not that is the case. They still have value, just not as much. Three-way links, if done right, can be virtually undetectable - but are harder to keep track of and manage.

[minstrel]

I think all the effort people put into one-way and three-way links is totally misguided and unnecessary.

[explorer]

I think all the effort people put into one-way and three-way links is totally misguided and unnecessary.

I agree in the case of "normal" linking - but the question here is about trading sitewide recips. Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose there's a difference?

[Hodgedup]

One of the key differences I'm making is not exchanging links for PR or SE results, but for traffic.

[minstrel]

If the goal is traffic, then I'd suggest site-wide isn't a bad option. That's how the Coop works, right?

[mcfox]

Yeah, if you're going for traffic only, then that's the name of the game, right? My thoughts are pretty much as have already been stated above if the idea is purely for PR or whatever; that the natural linkage might be devalued. But if you get traffic out of it, what the hey?