Are "one-way" backlinks on irrelevant websites better than two-way reciprocal links?

Let's say I had 500 reciprocal links with relevant websites. Would that be better than having 500 "one-way" backlinks from irrelevant websites?

 

yes you are right

 

In which way am I right? Would the reciprocals be better or the one-way links?

 

Many people won't agree with me, but i say the irrelevant one way links. But if it's human click-thru's you are after, obviously the related links.

 

relevant links gives more weightage than irrelevant. So reciprocal relevant are good in your case.

 

It depends on several factors. Are the links in context or just listed in a row? Are the links using anchor text? Do they have descriptions around the links? Are the links on pages with a large amount of external links? Are the sites considered link farms?

 

I would say the irrelevant are probably better..

I look at it this way..

relevant one-way links are the best
irrelevant one-way links are 2nd best
relevant reciprocal links are 3rd best
irrelevant reciprocal links are 4th best.

 

Yeah, that's the way I always thought of it. I believe one-way links are more "natural" in Google's eyes. Reciprocal links is almost like you're trying to cheat your way to the top.

 

I would go with 500 unrelated one ways, reciprocal links are clear attempts to cheat the system, especially when in such high bulk.

 

Since google do not linke 2 way links I will bet on 500 unrelated

 

@ Sweet funny,

In Google serps, i see lots of sites ranking higher for many keywords on the basis of reciprocal links only.

Some of the sites still have pages with reciprocal link farms and they are still ranking No.1 for their relevant keywords.

How do you explain that!

 

What's the site and keyword and i will explain why they are ranking.

 

The first one on the serps here and here

Thank you!

 

I don't think backlinks from irrelevant sites will help you in any case. This is just like spamming the system and Google will not like this.

 

They might, as they mimic natural organic link building, rather than link spamming, which is thought of when you do excessive reciprocal link exchanges.

 

The first one has an exact domain match for the term which is a huge ranking factor. It also has the term in the Title, Description and on the page.

An allintitle for that exact term shows only 434 Results and allinurl shows just 711 which is not competitive at all. An exact match allinanchor shows 33 Results, and the site in #1 ranks first for all those operator queries, when that happens it's pretty safe to say they will rank #1 for the regular query and that's without looking at the backlinks.

It has 447 links in Yahoo, similar to the others on the front page so with the factors i mentioned above it's not surprising they rank for a non-competitive term.

Very similar with the second, the term is not competitive at all. For instance what it ranks for only 6 Sites have that exact term as anchor text in backlinks and the #1 site is one of them. Also they are DMOZ/Google/Yahoo directory listed.

The terms are just not competitive that's why it doesn't take much to rank. I could probably make a page on an unrelated site and be on the front page in 24 hours.

 

Many Thanks, Sweet Funny!

Much appreciated and Rep added! I learn something new everyday!

 

I would say that the irrelevent one way links would be better...

 

For "competitive" keywords? If so please show us an example.

 

as Sweetfunny, has mentioned above they are not competitive enough! so ignore my post!