17 replies to this topic

[excel30]

Hi,

I have been building up my sites links via reciprocal linking and some one way linking.

Is it worth considering deleting any links set up purely for reciprocal links, the advantage would be all links pointing to my site would be one way ,

Obviously not nice on other webmasters, so I would link back to them from another site, but i wouldnt have the all there contact details to inform them.

I have about 1000 links to my site according to yahoo and hot bot and the top sites on google have only slightly more links but they seem to have fewer links in there links sections.

Is reciprocal linking dead?

Thanks

[Jill]

That's just nasty.

[Grumpus]

Quantity of links is really not a good measure of link popularity. It's the quality of those links. For Google, we have PR as a scale (albeit a tempramental scale). If the pages that are ahead of you have more links but the same PR as you, then even though you have fewer links, the quality of them is somewhat better. If, on the other hand, they have a higher PR than you, then you're going to have to get a lot more links of the same quality as your current links to surpass them.

Deleting your outgoing links will maybe help nominally (i.e. not very much, but maybe a little), but it'll definitely cause a handful of the webmasters who are paying attention to remove their links back to you (assuming that it was agreed that you would be exchanging links). Losing 10% of your inbound links in this way would be a far bigger loss than any gain you might get by removing your links page in the first place. (And, I don't think that saying that you'll link to them from another site would appease many of them - they agreed to link to your site in return for a link from your site, not another site - and I would wager that the PR of your other page was lower than the PR on the current page or we wouldn't be having this conversation... That makes it even more chessy a move).

Reciprocal linking still works - but linking in general works differently than it used to. In the olden days, a link (modified by the PR value of the linking page) was a link was a link. A link from ANY PR4 page was just as good as a link from ANY other PR4 page. Nowadays, though, there's bonus benefit if that page that links to you also shows up in some of the same types of searches (i.e. It's of the same theme as your page).

The reason that there is the illusion that reciprocal links don't work as well any more is that most people who engage in reciprocal linking strategies (as their primary means of getting links, anyway) don't care about theming, but rather, they are just out to get the link. And so, you end up with a links page that is nothing more than a mishmosh of topics all over the spectrum and that page won't rank for any one term because it's not really about anything. Thus, it's the hodgepodge of outbound links on the page linking in that's causing the link to have any power, not the fact that you're linking back to the site in question.

G.

[Scottie]

Expect to get as good as you give. Cheat people and they'll cheat you too.

[Debra]

The reason that there is the illusion that reciprocal links don't work as well any more is that most people who engage in reciprocal linking strategies (as their primary means of getting links, anyway) don't care about theming, but rather, they are just out to get the link.

Bingo. Some of the automted tools on the market have made it very easy to search, find and slap up links....with very little effort or thought put into it.

Is reciprocal linking dead?

No. But what appears to be gone is the original concept behind it. In the past, swapping links was about building partnerships and spreading your reach within a specific topic or industry. Now, with all the information and MIS-information floating around it's been given a bad name and thought to be less effective.

To bad too. Building professional partnerships is one of the most secure and solid ways to promote your business and build a good reputation.

I agree with what the others have said about deleting your links. That's like offering a discount to drive people into our store and when they get to the register to pay, you say - "sorry, was just lying about the discounts".

If you wouldn't do business in the offline world that way, don't consider it online.

[Raphael]

If you wouldn't do business in the offline world that way, don't consider it online.

I'm thinkin' that's the problem.. Too many people out there *would* do business in the offline world that way, alas.

[BobetteKyle]

IMO, any advantage you gain by unilaterally deleting the links would be more than offset by the "badwill" generated when other Webmasters find out what you've done.

If you feel strongly about getting rid of the reciprocal linking arrangements, then find the contact info on each of the reciprocal sites and email them first, asking that your links be removed on their sites. When you set these links up, eachof you made an agreement. To me, at this point simply deleting the outbound links is wrong.

[excel30]

Hi,

For those quick to criticise, please read my full message, it states I would remove there links from my site but link back to them from a different site, in fact benefiting themselves.

I have about 75% of all webmatsers email addressees with whom Ive exchanged links, so i was referring to the 25% of which I havent and therefore would not be able to inform, but many of those would email me when they notice link has moved.


I still think the issue was a good one and if changing the current links structure and strategy in place on a site will in fact benefit it or not.

Actual SEO of pages and sites is becoming less and less of a factor each month and currently linking seems to be the biggest factor.

[chrishirst]

Yes and what about the ones who linked because the site was relevant (Good Heavens how radical is that ) and you moved the link to a different site. They are going to be pretty pissed off at you and hey presto you have just lost a incoming link.

[Grumpus]

For those quick to criticise, please read my full message, it states I would remove there links from my site but link back to them from a different site, in fact benefiting themselves.

For those quick to react defensively, read my full message.

There's more to a link than just PR. And, as I said, your other page obviously has a lower PR than the page everyone's links are currently on or you wouldn't be asking this question. So, basically, you're asking (whether you contact the folks or not) if it's okay to move someone's (possibly) relevant link from one page to an irrelevant page with lower PR in return for having your inbound links remain the same. True, it looks good to you because you're the one who benefits here, but it's not going to look like a good deal to anyone on the other side of the coin.

And, if I'm wrong in assuming that you "new" location where you are hoping to put your links has a lower PR than your current links page, you should simply link to yourself from that page and call it a day.

G.

[leadegroot]

I think there are two points here where I disagree with your actions:
1. The original webmasters made an agreement involving a link from *your* site. You're changing this agreement. Yes, its difficult when you don't have all the addresses, but offering a link from a different site is not satisfactory - I'd expect to see a lot of your now one-way links taken down, in anger if not more practical reasons.
2. In changing to 3rd-party sites in order to avoid an imagined engine penalty, you're now spamming the engines. I think you should consider that.

To go back to your original question - are the engines penalising for reciprocal links? (I assume that was your question - you didn't really phrase one )
I have to answer - are you out of your freaking mind????
Why on earth would the engines penalise for reciprocal linking?
Maybe, if there were clear indications that a given link-pair were purely spam based, eg. both in divs classed as 'ad', or whatever algorithm the engines use, but more generic links - why on earth would they do that?
It would undermine the entire structure of the web.

[Debra]

Even if you did link back to them from a different site, you'll probably end up the loser in the long run. Once they see their link on a different site, and don't see a link back from your URL, your link comes down.

I still maintain this is NOT a good linking strategy.

[mcanerin]

If you agree to a triangle trade, fine, but when you agree to do something, you should do it, and not "bait and switch".

The fact that some may have no problem with it is not the point. It's not a good business practice to promise to do something and then not follow through, or to unilaterally change your side to benifit yourself without their knowledge or approval.

The key to this strategy is that you make the change, but the other guy doesn't. He agreed to trade links. The webmaster is not trading links with YOU, they are trading links with a SITE. If you move your links to a different site, then he should move his reciprocal links to that site, too, in order to preserve the agreement.

Since that would work against your plan, you have violated the agreement, pure and simple. Violating agreements is not white or black hat. It's wrong, and both sides agree on that, as was made very clear in a recent thread at SEW - both sides pounced on the idea and tore it apart. Bad Karma.

I guess that's as clear as I can make it. I'm not coming down on you, but I think this is a case where you are looking at a website as a formula rather than a business. The fact that not one other person in the thread is supporting this should be noted.

Ian

[excel30]

Ok point taken,

Its not a strategy i will be using, especially as you are right in the fact that the link was agreed to be placed on my site and shouldnt be moved without the prior consent of the other webmaster.

Maybe i just got caught up in the link is a link, as ive been doing so many i temporarily lost the plot and the fact that where each individual link is placed is important,

Thanks for putting me right!

[Scottie]