Would appreciate your feedback on a few things about reciprocal links. I have not done much with link exchange in a few years. Just recently, I noticed that other tree service or landscapers have really gone gungho to get displayed higher on Google. So I'm planning a bit of tweaking this month. My home page has remained a solid PR 4 for a couple of years. And my links page has been a PR 3 for a couple of years. So either page seems like something worthwhile to provide to another site for reciprocal links. Where I'm scratching my head, is when it comes to reciprocal links, where would Google recognize the value: from the home page of a site, or the links page? Like if a site has a PR 5 but the links page is PR 1, would the gain for my site be based on the home page 5, or the links page 1? Or would Google split the difference? Do you have an opinion about what is a minimum PR to exchange with? Also, on a links page designed for reciprocal links, or reciprocal resources, could it be detrimental to have too many that want "add a site" or the like, within their description or link? Personally, I'd prefer to mostly reciprocate with sites that fit the theme of my site. But its still a question I'm curious about. Was just wondering if Google reads the code on a links page, and too many are "Add a Site" or "Promote your URL", if that could knock down one's own link page PR.
Google stopped giving any value or giving only minimal value to link exchanges a few years ago. They are a waste of time.
I noticed recently, no reciprocal link is appreciated, I am new navigation, but I still shot a lot of it problems, reciprocal link is really how I think the two mutually beneficial , But I do not see good applications from it, hope that sharing, the question has not been clarified.
It seems that if that were true, then many sites that were top websites with many inbound links, would have really dropped off the radar, or at least dipped a page or two. Don't you think that would be true if they stripped away the value of links? With a few exceptions, I've noticed that many of the prominent websites tend to have a fairly generous amount of inbound links. Without naming site names, I just noticed one green industry site lately, that shot up in the SERPs for Oregon, primarily focusing on inbound links. So I find Google stopping giving value a bit hard to buy. Because reciprocal links still increase inbound links. And what I've been watching the past several months seems evident that its still working. And there's actually a few that I've been keeping an eye on. And the rise in the SERPS seems to be going hand in hand with links. Now maybe what you are getting at, is that Google distinguishes between just inbound links, and reciprocal, where it recognizes two sites cross-linked. But it would be detrimental to Google to give less value for a reciprocal link, than a one-way link. For example, if the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board and the Association of Northwest Landscape Designers each linked to each other, those would be very good referral links from a practical point of view.
Generally speaking, the more "natural" you can make your link building, the better. That is, mix it up from a range of PR pages, home pages, link pages, plus other types of sites like social media, articles, forums etc. By making your backlinks as random as possible, this tends to mirror what it would look like if links were being made to your site naturally. This reduces any chance of being penalised or anything.
Actually the relevancy and place on the page that worth exchanging links. Partnering with other sites is still effective,but the best option is to link out on informative part of their site an article or tutorials and you get link inside a body or content of their page..