I'm open to link exchange requests where there's some synergy. I've turned down some where the webmaster was obviously incompetent or a spammer but in general I'm happy to oblige. My latest request from Bert the linksman of Tijuana has been met with silence though. Either he didn't understand my questions or he's looking for easier game. Basically he said I'd been added to the links page already but I couldn't see the link. Problem #1. There were about 20 links on the page. I chose 2 at random and visited those sites. Then using my handy dandy Google toolbar I looked at the links to those sites. Bert's client site didn't feature for either. Problem #2. I emailed Bert asking him to show me point me to a link from his client to another site where the client would show up in the links. I thought that was a fair way of demonstrating that a genuine recipricol link was being sought. What checks do others make when approached?
I just turn them down I can't get my head around the cost [in time therefore money] in developing a link structure when other efforts reward better - afterall linking was only 35% of the original structure of the algo and 65% attributed to other means. So if you could tweak the 65% better you would get a better result. However recent changes have affected things and the jury is out so I will wait and see.
Where did you get this information? Remember that Googles claim to fame was the use of backlinks as votes for a page's relevance and importance. I think anyone ignores links at their own peril.
Google only reports links from higher PR pages, typically PR4. 1. Relevance of the link exchange to both our sites. 2. Quality of the other site. I won't link to sites that will be a bad experience for the visitors I refer, or if there is no decent content for them to see. 3. How fairly the other site passes page rank to its link partners. I don't mind getting a link from a PR2 page if the home page is only PR3, but if the home page is PR6 and there is only one link to the links page on their whole site, I probably won't bother. 4. The quality and quantity of links on the links page. 5. Whether or not they have bothered to read my link instructions, and actually followed them!
It is actually quite well known - but I cannot remember the source at this moment in time. Even Serge thingamebob has been known to use it - the relevance of links only comes with the highly competitive pages where more links will give you an edge over the other site - all things being equal otherwise. I have spotted many a search where the page no1 was a PR1 and the 10th position a PR 5 But I have no question of doubt that it is the winning edge if required - it is just that the cost of achieving high linkage is very high in time and money and if you had 65% of something in your hand would you drop that and search for the other 35%?
I didn't say for one minute that pages were ranked according to the PR value. And you are correct for non competitive keywords and niche pages links are not as important. But what everybody seems to forget is that Google places a great deal of importance on link for relevancy measurement. Why do you think we use anchor text. Anchor text has absolutely nothing to do with PR. But all of the examples of Google Bombing over the years have been done with anchor text. Google ranks sites in the SERPs based on the relevancy of the link, which today is predominantly determined from the anchor text. In my books PR value has almost nothing to do with SERP placement. But links have a great deal to do with placement for any competitive terms.
I agree that themed links are important and preferable but if I see instructions like the quoted ones I don't even concider such sites. A site needs to breathe and deveop, sometimes into unforseen directions and link requests can be agreat help / source to such a process. So why would I prefilter requests and restrict them geographically? A nice request for an area one hasen't thought about can kick off some interesting development and not to forget and very important enhance the visitors experience of a site. M.
On the topic of relevant or theme related links I think Google will eventually take this into consideration. It is my guess that that is what they tried with Florida. I think it was largely a failure and they have now gone back to the drawing board. I think today that anchor text is really the only thing Google is using for relevance. The proof of this is that the official White House Biography of George W Bush still comes up #2 for a search on 'miserable failure'. This is only possible if Google is reading and heeding anchor text. But has anybody thought about this? Google does have the ability to determine the content or theme of a page. They do this very well with their AdSense program. Shawn -- Digital Point -- has a free tool on his site called the AdSense Toolbox. If you really want to know what Google will think a site is relevant to run any site requesting a link through Shawn's toolbox. It will tell you instantly what AdSense ads Google would place on the site.
Interesting adsense tool. But I tested the tool for "carpet cleaner" and games were displayed in the ad results. Is it not working?