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