I recently read a blog post from Hobo SEO, and he is giving advice on reciprocal link building, and how it can violate Google's TOS. Though I agree with him that linking to unrelated sites is essentially pointless, in his blog post he shoots down reciprocal link exchanges in general, and says that Google may penalize sites that do it. HOBO SEO Blog About Reciprocal Link Building http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/reciprocating-links-with-unrelated-sites/#comment-20225 First off, reciprocal link building existed long before Google was born, who is Google to decide whether or not reciprocal link building is right or wrong? The reality is that Google is a business, and their business is heavily dependent on how many people search through THEIR index for information. If people use the directories or the link pages of other sites to search for info, this, in a way, competes with Google. I have warned webmasters here at Digital Point for years against relying too heavily on a single search engine to send them traffic. In the past I've had sites where 80 PERCENT of my traffic came through Google, and when I came here to DP and expressed concern about it, some people here said it was "no big deal." Well, the Spring Issue of Revenue Magazine talks about a new phenomenon that is hitting the Internet, called the Google Slap. Basically, webmasters who are relying heavily on Adsense to generate profits, and who in some cases are making six and seven figures a year, are having their businesses destroyed when Google suddenly disables their account for no reason, and leaves them no explanation. The reality is that Google is a for profit company that wants to dominate the Internet, and having one company dominate the net is never a good thing. So of course Google would be against reciprocal link building, because if most of your traffic is coming from other sites then you are less dependent on Google, which is a good thing. I have a successful and growing online business and only 25% of my traffic comes through Google, and we will keep it that way. This company is becoming too big, like the Dinosaurs, it wants to dominate everything and Google doesn't even respect the laws of China. Look, I'm all for free speech, but China's laws are their laws. Who in the hell does Google think it is to challenge China? My advice to Webmasters is simple: GET OUT OF GOOGLE"S LAP Google is a for profit company that will put its interests before yours, and this is why I'm recommending all webmasters to DIVERSIFY their traffic, and never get the majority of their traffic through any one search engine, including Google. Just as you would not want to put all your money in one stock, it makes no sense to rely on a single search engine to send you 80% of your traffic...........and this means, the more reciprocal or one way links you have, the better. I don't just get backlinks for my site so I can rank well in Google, I also get backlinks from related sites because these send me traffic, which diversifies the traffic I get.
Thanks for posting the interesting read. You are totally right, nobody should rely on Google 100%. It's putting all your eggs in one basket. If you keep working hard, a you're very BIG, Google will make sure you're in their index, and in a prominant position. When Google neglect to show big businesses, it makes Google look bad. I have heard that when a company is doing too well, and they are overly reliant on Google search in particular, Google themselves may compete directly against them.
The problem with SEO people like Hobo is that they put way too much emphasis on Google, and I've never seen anything like it. Of course, it goes without saying that Google is important to the Internet, we all know that Google is important, and we all know that Google revolutionized advertising with Adsense. But many webmasters, even prominent ones, are revering Google to the point that it seems like they think this company is God. This is dangerous to the freedom of the Internet. The concept of a reciprocal link should be easy for anyone to understand, a reciprocal link between two sites is the online equivalent of a road between two towns; it makes it easy for traffic to travel from one place to another. Just as you need roads and highways in the physical world to have a smoothly functioning society, you also need to have "digital roads" on the Internet in order for traffic to move smoothly from one site to another. Seogoat, lets say that I own a business that sells Dalmatian puppies. You own a business that sells dog food and dog supplies. It is obvious that the two of us linking our sites together is perfectly logical, and we can only both benefit from such an arrangement. We are both in the same industry, but we don't compete with each other. I sell the puppies, and you sell the dog food and supplies to feed and care for the puppies. In my eyes, getting as many link exchanges like this can only be a good thing, because the more link exchanges you get like this, the more traffic you send me, and the more link exchanges I get like this, the more I will send you in return. Yet Hobo is telling us that if we do this too much, it is bad to Google. The only reason why it is bad is because our sites are basically becoming "mini directories" that compete with Google for our niches, and this is not in their best interests. So my advice is to ignore this issue of Google penalizing you for having too many reciprocal links, because if these are link exchanges with related sites that send you targeted traffic, the more you get, the better for your company. But I'm also disappointed in the way Google is dealing with China. Google expects you and I to follow their TOS, yet they are unwilling to follow the laws of a country in which they want to do business. Sounds hypocritical to me, to say the least. Google has gotten so big that it really thinks it can challenge an entire country, Sergei Brin and Lawrence Page are losing it.
@Seogoat : good to see you here too! (It's a weird space.) @Tesla : I don't necessarily disagree with concerns about Google's monopoly, but boy do they kick butt. Miscrosoft Windows won, not at all because it was the best product of its kind (it wasn't) but because it was the cheapest. Google give out a huge amount of the best stuff for free. Whoever wants to compete with them should do the same, but they don't (not on the same scale). All that said, Google doesn't "penalize" you for reciprocal linking unless it's clearly manipulative and on a grand scale. Anyone show me one example where a website was punished in any way for reasonable link exchanges. Those links have no SEO value, but why would it be reasonable to complain about that?
That isn't the same thing. You're comparing China's communism, censorship and blatant human rights violations to a corporate terms of service. I'm not a fan of Google as a corporation but I gained a lot of respect for them when they essentially stopped doing business in a country as awful as China. Good for them for not cowering to the Chinese government like its people have to.
Reciprocal links are actually quite natural when shared among related niches. For example, part suppliers linking to their vendors and the other way around. It's when people start posting a crapload of unrelated reciprocal links to unrelated sites that they *may* potentially run into a problem.
I am very small compared to Google and I say China's censorship sucks and its political system sucks and Google's stance on the matter is great and I applaud it. Not is China's government "a whole country." Your analogy between Google's TOS and China's laws only makes sense if you assume all rules are made equal. I am always puzzled by people who insist that freedom includes the freedom of totalitarian structures to assert themselves unchallenged.
I'm sure you and I can both agree that it is a bit excessive to chop off someone's arm for stealing in Saudi Arabia........................and yet this is exactly what will happen if you get caught stealing something over there. Are you saying that you wouldn't do business in Saudi Arabia because of this? When you're in someone's house, you have to play by their rules, even if you don't like them. Russia has done human rights violations to, and so has the U.S., what about the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq? Is Google going to avoid doing business in every country that has human rights violations? Many of the countries of the world have human rights violations. Google is mixing ideology and politics with business, and in my opinion, this is dangerous. Business is business and politics is politics. The Chinese are not Americans and they have a different world view. You and I think free speech is a good thing, and that is because we were born in a country that values it. But China is different, they have their own way of doing things. For Google to expect that it can change an entire country is nuts, and given the fact that China has a huge portion of the world's population, Google is losing a significant market. This leaves open a door where someone such as myself, who is pragmatic, would step in, play by China's rules, and take market share from Google. Perhaps Microsoft or Yahoo will do this? If I where Microsoft or Yahoo, this is exactly what I would do, if Google wants to lose billions due to ideology, as their competitor, I would consider this a lucrative opportunity to move in on their market.
There isn't a problem reciprocal linking with related sites when working together like you mentioned; as long as we make it look professional, not simply slapped on a page with hundreds of related links. The main problem lies with webmasters whose single tactic is to obsessive compulsively reciprocal link with anyone and everyone, and with thin bad quality sites. Google have hundereds of manual quality raters surfing the web and nuking these sites by the day. And whether Google place SERP value on those links or not, it doesn't matter too much to us. We can think of other tactics to acquire the links that do. But reciprocation, however, is a big part of human nature, and wiping that value is unfair, especially if done legitimately between partnered companies. The thing is, big sites can get away with it, but it's the little guy who usually gets hurt.
"At Pubcon 2008, Brett Tabke asked Google's matt cutts: Brett: People are all about links but then there's a concern about linking to bad neighborhoods. How do you identify bad neighborhoods? Should you nofollow them or stay away totally? Matt: Use your gut. Trading links is natural and it's natural to have reciprocal links. At some level, natural reciprocal links happen, but if you do it way too often, it looks artificial. My advice is to go with your gut and if you're worried, you can use nofollow."
Thats just the thing, what do you mean when you use the words "clearly manipulative and on a grand scale?" This is open to interpretation. What you consider to be perfectly natural may be considered "manipulative and on a grand scale to Google." I agree with you that link farms and lots of links from unrelated sites should be penalized, because they are not really helping your site or the search engines. Perhaps I'm not interpreting his article correctly, but Hobo is making it sound like reciprocal link building itself is bad, and I've heard the same thing expressed by other webmasters and SEO people and I got these vibes from their books when I read them. But this to me makes no sense. And what is up with this emphasis one "one way" links? From my personal experience, very few prominent websites on the Internet or sites in general are going to link to a brand new site unless........ 1. They pay for an advertising link 2. They do a reciprocal link Most sites will not put the link of another brand new site on their page UNLESS they get something out it, so one way links for new sites are difficult and I'm not sure why people emphasize them over reciprocal links, I suppose it is due to the difficulty involved with getting them. But here is what I find interesting, the Google TOS is also against you paying for links, even though this is one of the only ways that a newer site can get one way links. Once a site is big and popular people link to it automatically, so one way links would come naturally, but I think that Google's TOS serves to make webmaster overly dependent on Google, in the long run.
I don't know anything about Hobo but here is an intelligent post that illustrates what manipulative reciprocal linking means: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-h...-and-an-example-from-the-field-of-real-estate How so? Google's TOS certainly don't prevent webmasters from using Yahoo or Bing and ranking highly in those engines, right? Webmasters depend on Google's TOS only if they hope to succeed in Google. Let's not forget, too, that Google owes them absolutely nothing, it merely provides free search. Even if Google decided to drop websites from the index randomly or willfully, there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with it if it were open about it (thought this would probably cost it some chunk of its market share). Let is get this straight. People depend on Google because it offers a fantastic free service. It's as simple as that.
I really like your post, but did you think about PR thing, which is basically based on links from other PR sites, if you go with exchange, it's too easy. Who is Google inc. - I think the richest company in the world . I only hope they're not again masons .
Ahem, not this is a really interesting statement. How about adding: whose wealth is well deserved? I can't wait wait for you to elaborate on this one, please do. Which masons do you have in mind?
Google shouldn't have tried to get started in China anyway. The Chinese have Baidu. Personally I think it's more important for a company to maintain their identity and values. That's especially true with a company whose mantra is "don't be evil."
Philip, those who dominate the world, who decides what is gonna be next sensation etc. I just don't understand why Google didn't buy Facebook but created Buzz, and why didn't buy Firefox but created Chrome, even if both of their's projects are good. added: I wouldn't be suprised one day, if the news headlines be "Google operating sistem" hehehe
Your 100% right tesla But the sad fact of the matter is even know I got top 10 for most of my sites in yahoo and bing they don't send my hardly any hits due to the fact that vary few people go there. one of my sites is number one on yahoo and number 9 on google and google sends me 3 times more hits each month. On my main sites I can't even get top 100 due to the fact that I don't have the money to buy my way in to a high PR like some others. But you are right in the fact that I work my sites and try not to count on google as I don't trust them some what due to there size and the fact that if something were to happen to my sites on google if I would be gone if I put everything in to them so I don't and will not. Oliver
When I hear webmasters and SEO people like Hobo downplay the importance of recip links in light of what Google thinks, I ignore them. Recip links are here to stay, because a link between two sites is the only way they can connect to each other, there is no other way that traffic can move from one site to another on the Internet unless the two sites link to each other. I don't see this ever changing regardless of how advanced the search engines become. The reality is that just as the Romans used roads thousands of years ago, we still use roads today. Even if technology were created to teleport humans from point A to point B, I'm sure they would follow some type of path. When planes fly from one city to another, they fly in a path. So this nonsense about recip links not being important is a bunch of crap, in my opinion. The more backlinks you have from targeted sites which are related to your industry, the more targeted traffic you will get, which will lead to more sales. I would rather get 1 visitor per day from 5,000 different websites than get 5,000 visitors from only Google. You are right about Bing and Yahoo, my traffic is growing through them but compared to Google they are not sending much. But I try to get as much traffic from other places as possible.