Are resciprocal links are of any use now or they are almost dead? Right now i think all focus should be on site wide links rather than resciprocal ones.
I agree, reciprocal links on "links" or "resources" pages are worth very little now. Usuallly such pages turn to be link farms and they are slowly indexed. Myself I switched to seeking links on home pages or site wide. It's the only way to achieve something now.
Yeh i agree, but my question is that should there is any use of searching for resciprocal links now? I think it might be a complete wastage but the problem is that you cannt go for site wide links for each site.
Having your link show up on any "other resources" or whatever type page just seems like bad territory in my view. I have heard rumors of sitewides being penalized for Yahoo and AskJeeves. Maybe Google would be next? Perhaps I'm just over reacting to an alarmist notion and giving up something that might be valuable like "sitewides". "One way" links, on a limited number of pages on a site I would think is a safer bet. Or those "three-way" link things could work in theory. Just so long as your link doesn't get shoved into a rats nest "resources" or other link-farm type page.
Absolute nonsense. Reciprocal links are worth as much now as they ever were and, because they are to be expected in a purely organic linking structure in a perfect universe, will never be devalued. Think about it: If one-way links were the only ones that counted, how would most people get them? They'd buy them. Do you really think Google wants to emcourage that? If you choose to waste your time and money on one way links, feel free but know that it is wasting time. The same goes for three-way links, which with the computing power available to Google from it's vast network of computers would not be that difficult to detect. You would be far better off in the long run to link out to pages that are relevant to your site and helpful to your human visitors and request links from the same types of pages. Relevance is something Google already knows how to detect/determine and the technology is already in place for AdSense at the very least and I suspect is already being used for search results.
Reciprocal links are here to stay... More so with Google's New Trust Rank technology..where the Seed pages (which forms the basis for selecting other Seed pages and comparing against for site rankings) selected are the once which have maximum out-bound links to quality sites. This is just inverse of Page Rank. ) So try to link to as many Quality theme based website as possible, but keepin' other traps in mind.
Recips can not die .... thats for sure ... Just that their value can go down a bit, use a variety of links to your site. Try 3 way link exchanges. Try to exchange links from the content pages and home page. Submit your site to Directories. Get links from Submission of your articles to different article sites. Let the links look natural by varying the anchor text.
from minstrel >>The same goes for three-way links, which with the computing power available to Google from it's vast network of computers would not be that difficult to detect. Tell me, what algorithm could Google use check to detect three-way links. Or one-way links? There isn't going to be one, because that's the point of three-way links. Even with this infinite computing power you attribute to Google. The other site will be unrelated out in the world somewhere. And reciprocal links are known be have their worth devalued, escpcially when put in a "links" or "resources" page, next to a bunch of other sites, and little related content. Content still rules, and that's why one-way links bought to be mixed in with content, are where big-name companies are spending money. The results come out real. Its one thing you can be sure isn't a waste of money so long as you choose your sites and keywords wisely. >>Think about it: If one-way links were the only ones that counted, how would most people get them? They'd buy them. Do you really think Google wants to emcourage that? actually, you get one-way links by being cited in REAL content. So nope, you dont need to buy them at all. Just have some important content that gets linked to.
Guys I have ton of sites that rank very well with 100% reciprical links They are mostly older sites I have been questioning the reciprical links a bit because the lack of progress of my new sites in google, but I really think its because of they new domains and perhaps got links too fast.
Here is what Google engineer Matt Cutts thinks about links on his blog: "Google (and pretty much every other major search engine) uses hyperlinks to help determine reputation. Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search." "Google does consider buying text links for PageRank purposes to be outside our quality guidelines" and that he "wouldn't be surprised if search engines began to take stronger action against link buying in the near future". "Reputable sites that sell links won't have their search engine rankings or PageRank penalized–a search for [daily cal] would still return dailycal.org. However, link-selling sites can lose their ability to give reputation". AHA, this is to be noted by us all here! My thoughts: I agree that reciprocal links are here to stay, but it should be done wisely and only between sites with related themes so as to maintain the "quality" of the site in google's eyes. Site-wide linking should also be done wisely. I have one datafeed site that has more than 5 million pages in google and i assure you you're gonna get penalized bigtime if i do a site-wide linking to you. Anyway, use your common sense when working on links on you should be fine. Spot only a few high PR sites and recip-link to them. Ignore the low-content low quality sites with low PR but accept those with good original content, even if their PR is low.
So Google can neither detect three way links or one way links? I don't know what you're trying to say here. A points to B which points to C which points back to A. Google will have no trouble detecting the links from A to B or B to C - why do you think it would be so difficult for them to detect that C points back to A in this little circle? Especially with all the chatter on forums about three-way linking, do you really believe that Google doesn't know about it or won't take steps to devalue such practices if they decide it's a problem? None of that leads to the conclusion that reciprocal links per se are devalued though, does it? I assume you are talking about relevant links here? If not, I'm not sure what "one-way links mixed with content" means, but either way the issue has nothing to do with whether the links are one-way or reciprocated. See above: what is "REAL content"? And I agree that you do not necessarily NEED to buy one-way links if that's what you're after but what I said was if the only links that counted were one-way links most webmasters would be in the position of having to buy most of those one-way links.
Discounting Link and Resource pages completely destroys the whole reason why Google, for example, counts them as votes for other sites. There have always been link and resource pages. Discounting this VERY IMPORTANT votes in favor of less important ones (ie ones in a middle of an article might not be a vote for anything at all). They would most certainly have to change their criteria for how and why they use links if they got rid of thinks like link pages and resource pages. Not sure why Google would want to discourage recip linking anyways. As Minstrel said, how on earth would anyone get any links if people didn't exchange links. I am some segments where people think SEO is some kind of new Hyundai, yet they consistently share and swap links. Why? Because it is polite, and it is mutually beneficial. If you find another site similar to yours and you both of approve of each other, why would you not share links. It is basic behavior and has been long before Google was on the internet. So if Google and other search engines want to eliminate link farms and the like they are really going to have to do it a different way. People got to remember that the search engines really want the most natural results possible. That means that things that naturally happen need to be weighted properly. It also means the miniscule fraction of people who practice SEO and try to exploit those facts need to be dealt with in ways that minimize the impact on the natural usage. That is the only way for them to maintain a usuable index.
from minstrel >>So Google can neither detect three way links or one way links? I don't know what you're trying to say here. A points to B which points to C which points back to A. Google will have no trouble detecting the links from A to B or B to C - why do you think it would be so difficult for them to detect that C points back to A in this little circle? Especially with all the chatter on forums about three-way linking, do you really believe that Google doesn't know about it or won't take steps to devalue such practices if they decide it's a problem? My point: Google will have a hard time detecting purchased one-way links, done right. To explain, Three-way links.. dont make that circle. What you described is some strange 4-way arangement. to quote from webmistress google engineer's quote: >>Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search In a three-way recrip link swap.. Site A links to site B. Meanwhile a site C links to site A. Providing there is no links to site B from site C Google would see site C's link to site A as an "editorial vote". When really, the site C to A link is arranged by the site B proprietor. There's no way to detect that. Sorry. from minstrel: >>See above: what is "REAL content"? When done transparently, a three-way link is seen by google as two one-way links. One-way as in.. seen as this "editorial vote" . When I say mixed in with real-content, i mean a link done in a way that it is seen by Google as an "editorial vote". now on to my point about this opaque recriprical linking business in the form of "resource" and "link" pages... How does that mesh with Google's asserted philosophy "Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search". Making a "resources" page that is just a reciprocal link farm seems to me.. like you are making a rude gesture in Google's face regarding that "editorial vote" policy. A reciprocal link is not some "vote". You're not putting that link there in your resources page because you feel its a good site. You're putting it there because someone else put your link on their page. I would wonder what some Google engineer has to say about link-swapping pages. I imagine it would be similar to what they have to say about purchased "editorial vote" links.
Possibly but not necessarily. Because of the nature of my primary site, I have a lot of outgoing links. Some of those link back to me, some don't. None require a link back. That's organic linking. And by definition, the ones that do link back are reciprocal links. Why would Google want to discount or devalue those? Given the nature of certain sites, it is natural to have a Resources page with outgoing links that are of interest to visitors to that site. Again, such a page may contain either non-reciprocated links or reciprocated links or both. There is nothing inherently wrong with such a page and nothing that would cause any sort of automatic devaluation or penalty. There was a myth in forums a while back that calling a page "links.html" would trigger a Google penalty of some sort... the one about reciprocal linking seems just as misguided to me.
I wonder what methods Google will use to try and detect sites that "sell" their text-links. And if those methods could bring about a false-positive on "resources" type pages. Thereby ... making it so you dont give outbound "reputation". Maybe thats alarmist mythical concern of mine. But it seems it could happen.
did you ever think google just says a bunch of stuff, and maybe makes examples out of few of the most public well known offenders , and thats it