There has been a lot of talk lately of why Google has 'disappeared' some listings. From my own perspective, the update is far from finalised and we will just have to wait until they fix the problems inherent in it. The latest Google update, Jagger, has search engine optimisers all around the world in a state of disorientation. With Jagger, Google once again attempted to outsmart huge numbers of SEOs who had spent a vast amount of time trying to out-link their competitors by legitimately but falsely making their websites seem more relevant and important than they really are. We all know that links carry significant weight within the algorithms of all the major search engines. As SEOs we have added value by swapping links and placing links on free directories. While there's nothing wrong with this in essence, we have to addmit that a lot of these sites don't really show that they are necessarily relevant or important to the host site. Google much prefers it when the linking site adds value to enhance the value of a site's content or to increase credibility. And that's exactly what Jagger was meant to do - when it found those sites, it simply adjusted their ranking to more accurately reflect their true importance, now deemed as: 1) Increased importance placed on Inbound Links Relevancy 2) Increased importance placed on Outbound Links Relevancy 3) Promotion of relevant Niche Directories related to Nos. 1/2 Google is downgrading or eliminating reciprocal links as a measure of popularity. In short, Jagger undid the hard work of thousands - if not millions - of SEOs. As a result, hard-won high rankings and revenues plummeted. All well and good, but I wonder then if the architects of this fine update could explain why the search term "web site design bangkok" had an error 404 page in French at the #1 spot (now #5), for a month (http://www1.oecd.org/error.htm)? So much for relevancy! A colleague's site disappeared from the listings for 2 months. Now we find that Jagger has almost de-listed us - and there has been little link building involved in this site and we have never employed tricks. When I next talk to my clients and they ask the same question, I wonder if Google will shoulder any responsibility for this latest raft of online business failures?
from what i've seen have a few recips are good, but it shouldn't make up a good majority of your inbound link ratio. I feel that's why the real estate sites were really hammered, as often up to 95% of their links were recips
I believe it is the end of the road for reciprocals that do not have "relevancy". I also think Yahoo and MSN will soon follow suit. It makes sense in that Jagger set out to level out spurious link building practices. The problem is that Jagger itself has not yet settled down. It's unstable and, in some cases, drops a site for no reason or produces the most ridiculous results (e.g. an error 404 in French)!
Not quite sure if I buy it since there is no real proof but some speculation. But on the other hand I am focusing on more links from relevant sites and building good and fresh content.
Our partners in London say: I agree completely on RSS, blogs and articles and we are implementing all on our own site over the coming month. If recips were not being downgraded, why the mammoth expense of implementing jagger in the first place?
Google does this type of flux every year or more. The whole purpose is to make the serps more relevant. We can only guess how the engine works or try to make our best guesses - unless you actually work there and then I suspect they have parcelled out the work so only a limited group really knows the secret sauce. I think utlimately you can go (a) white hat - good content and work with partners with relevant content - not worry about serps or (b) black hat and try your darnest to figure out google to exploit it. Or I guess that can be a (c) in between but I think that is really hard to do - well for me anyway.