Hello I've just been advised by a SEO friend to perform a SEO trick, that is to have reciprocal links pointed to one domain and send outward links from another domain. It seems a pretty good idea for both parties, as there is no direct reciprocal linking that might be penalized by SE. I thought about trying this by registering both the .com and the .net domains, having the inbound links pointed to .com and sending out links from .net. Probably the best way would be to exchange links this way with high PR link directories. Could anyone send comments on this and suggest the best link exchange directories?
much better to do 1 way link trade since some webmasters doesn't accept 3 way link exchanges... http://best-web-directories.com/ http://info.vilesilencer.com/ and just browse in the directory forum for newly created directories..
But getting one way links from related content site is much harder and this is what actually helps. Getting one-way links from only directories won't help much.
Getting one-way links isn't necessary. Getting the links, the more relevant the better, with decent anchor text is what matters. The belief that "Google penalizes reciprocal links" is a myth.
If you want one-way links, the easiest way to do this and stay in your theme is to outsource out a copywriter using elance.com and have a dozen articles written. Then submit them to all of the free article directories. It's a lot less time intensive then constantly trading links.
What's wrong with Link Exchanging? Only one page will contain outbound links while you get a whole lot more links to your site. I don't think that's a bad thing. Especially if you have a directory to keep all your link exchanges...
Here's some interesting tidbits from Charles Martin at Google about links. http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002925.html
That's not actually a quote from Charles Martin. That's rustybrick paraphrasing comments from his notes of the panel and q-and-a session. What does "recip links" mean there? "Arranged links"? "Purchased links"? "Non-relevant links"? I honestly do not believe that reciprocal links per se are penalized or discounted or devalued, or ever will be. But from other sources we know that Google is vigorously trying to identify and zero out "artifical" PR-inflating links - the best way to do that is to rate them for relevance, not to do aweay with reciprocal links in general - as has been pointed out many times, organic linking frequently produces reciprocal links.
Geez Minstrel, I knew you were gonna be all over my ass on that one. (Why don't you work for Google, you seem to know more than they do?) I didn't quote Charles Martin, I was just pointing out an interesting part of the Q&A I linked to. Sorry to cause any confusion. Anyhoo, If we can't believe anything that comes out of Google's mouth, then why the hell do any of us bother? I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, which seems to work....and I do not actively seek out reciprocal link exchanges by the way. I focus on content and rely on links from article submissions for back links. That way the links are relevant and have good anchor text.
I'm not sure why you're reacting like I attacked you personally. Just clarifying your post... It didn't come out of Google's mouth - it came out of rustybrick's "mouth". Years ago when I was doing my thesis, I kept seeing references to a study that I could not replicate. For about a year and a half, I assumed I must be doing something wrong, since this was a study that almost every major paper in that area had cited. One oddity was that it wasn't actually a published study, so what everyone was citing and then re-citing was just the abstract of the dissertation from Dissertation Abstracts. After several attempts to replicate the finding, I ordered the thesis from the microfiche service to check his procedures. What I discovered was that the published abstract was not an accurate summary of that he had found in the study. The reasomn I couldn't replicate the finding was because that finding had never actually existed, or at least not as described. I learned an important lesson from that: Never rely on secondary sources. My point is that the SE Roundtable quote you cited is rustybrick's interpretation of what was said in a busy and noisy room where participants were speaking on the fly. Rustybrick may have misquoted or misunderstood what Martin said, or Martin may have used the words loosely. Not an attack on you at all, MorgansMom. Just a cautionary observation that one should be careful about drawing conclusions from that blog post.
If it sounded like I was reacting to a personal attack, it's because my cranky pregnant ass should be in bed cause it's after 1 am, but my husband is snoring way too loud. Anyway, I realized after I posted that I should have mentioned that it was a summary of the meeting that I actually quoted, so thank you for clarifying that.
getting relevant and quality links are the most helpful and what matters the most. i was suppose post something more but then i see this: lol in some instances of my pregnancy, i couldn't agree more.
hi! if there's anybody can help me to know what is reciprocal lingking? and what is the importance of it?
Reciprocal links, as the name suggests, is a type of link exchange in which you put other's site link on your site and the other person put your site's link on his/her site. Its a part of link building campaign and improves your site's back links. !!! Enjoy !!!
Ummm not to be rude but that's not true. I have heaps of webmasters and Links Managers that I use for triangular link exchanges. They are very, very popular.