Who still believes in reciprical linking for Google purposes?

Well, maybe just because we are developing link management software, I'm the one who made some analysis of this question. Belive me, my answer to your question can hardly be a marketing trick, becase this software can easily manage both relevant and non-relevant links

So, I can say that we had some tests, and the result is that websites with non-themed reciprocal links (in spite of the fact that usually there are more links on their links pages) are ranked worse than those with relevant links.

 

But is that because they have only a few (or no) relevant links?

Do you have evidence that a few relevant links is better than a bunch of irrelevant links?

 

I consider reciprocal linking to be worth some value if the links are to relevant and similar websites as your own. i am still very picky as to who i link with and do not rely on recip links!

i am yet to see otherwise unless the new update is going to CHANGE everything!!

 

Not likely. Google really has no reason to discount reciprocal links. They have plenty of reasons for discounting non-relevant links whether they are reciprocal, one-way, three-way, seven-way, or any other way you can think of.

 

But does anyone hve real evidence that it is bad to exchange unrelated links?

When I analyze a number 1 competitor I see they have lots of links showing on G that are not related.

And I am watching one that is an internal page with 150 links, all internal.

So who can say there is anything set about Google except they must have a bundle of random variables determining who is at the top of any given search!

That's sour grapes, in case you couldn't tell...