26 replies to this topic

[jerry]

Nine time out of ten times when two sites exchange links (even if both sites are about the same subject) it's NOT because each of them thinks the other site is an authority on the subject, it's because they both want another incoming link.

Google didn't fall off of the turnip truck. Obviously they see this.

On the other hand, if site "A" links to site "B" without a reciprocal link, then site "A" must think that site "B" is an important site or an authority on the subject.

You would think that Google would see this also and count the link as more important than reciprocal links. I don't think Google counts the non-reciprocal link as worth any more right now do they? Is this coming?

Jerry

[Leann_Pass]

Jerry, the truth is that Google counts ALL links. Reciprocal or Not.
At least at this point.

Will the algo's change? I am certain they will. As you say they didn't fall off the turnip truck. However, the changes will most likely not consider the reciprocation aspect as much as the QUALITY aspect.

Think for a moment....if all sites were expected to gain links that did NOT reciprocate in order to prove importance, eventually the internet would lose itself.....their would be a straight line of a few thousand sites that had billions of links and billions of sites with no links back AND the circle of the internet's inner workings would be lost. It doesn't make sense that Google or any SE would 'count off' for the importance of a site just because it provides outbound links.

One big problem I see right now, is that the world of the internet is getting to Google Link Wise, or Google Link Smarty-fied.

The internet is made up of links. Linking is good. Before Google their were links, after Google (Ha! that time will never come!) there will still be links. The important thing, IMO, is the quality of the link you are considering. (I consider this more every day!)

Do links on a directory site carry less weight than anyother link? NO
Do links in a linking page carry less weight than any other link? NO (it may one day)
Do unreciprocated links carry more weight than any other link? NO

No website can be an island and no SE algo will ever expect it to be. The very nature of the 'Inter' Net is that sites are NOT islands and shouldn't be...the Internet is a Network of websites!

Folks seem to be running scared of linking at this point because they are afraid of 'draining PageRank' from their site. That is truly preposterous. If you like a site and find it to be of value to you and/or your viewers, by all means LINK it.

If reciprocation can come from it, then better!

The internet IS nothing more than a network of sites that link, in one way or another, to each other. Link up with sites that have GOOD content, that you like and find of interest and you will not go wrong.

As usual, JMO , Leann <Who hates the link monster HA! But understands its importance!>

[ldcdc]

I don't know if anyone has a proof that reciprocal links are considered by Google as less important than non-reciprocal ones.

Sure, it would make a lot of sense to do this (now that most reciprocal links are "arranged"). Unfortunately it's quite difficult to create an algo to detect reciprocal links.

Actually, it's not difficult to make the algo, but it's difficult to make it fast. It would take a lot of processing power to run automated backlink checks for each page on the web, to identify those links which are reciprocal and then to exclude them from the Pagerank formula (or give them less significance).

I believe that this is the major reason why many things that would make sense in the SEs' algos are not implemented.

[ldcdc]

I just realized that things get more complicated in the algo. The links pages are rarely directly linked from one to another. This would make the algo more complicated that i first thought. It just makes things harder for the SEs. I doubt that we will see reciprocal links detected automatically by the SEs anytime soon.

[mcanerin]

Not to mention the fact that you would get a bunch of SEO's telling their clients not to link to anyone who is linking to them. Might not be the most positive effect overall...

Ian

[ldcdc]

Indeed, Ian. Nicely thought! This search engine war is like a cat and mouse game. It never ends. If the SEs do something to improve the results, the humans' behaviour changes and then things have to be changed again. Only when the SEs will use real and very accurate artificial intelligence we'll be able to see their results very close to perfection.

[Leann_Pass]

EEK!

real and very accurate artificial intelligence

Scary thought!!!!!!

[ldcdc]

That's the wave of the future.. IMO

And I'm not talking just about SEs. I'm talking about the evolution of computers and software in general.

Scary or not, I feel we'll have to live with it. (I just hope that the Matrix will remain a fantasy.)

[amabaie]

Call me a suspicious fool or a forward-thinker, but I think Google is already beginning to discount link exchange pages to some degree.

I'm not techie enough to know about speed and processing power, so all my theories might go down there, but it should not be hard to tell if a single page links to nothing but home pages on sites that have outbound links almost exclusively on a single page, also going only to home pages.

Some of those might be totally legit, but for the most part that is a sign of a website whose links are essentially "you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours" links.

....if all sites were expected to gain links that did NOT reciprocate in order to prove importance, eventually the internet would lose itself.....their would be a straight line of a few thousand sites that had billions of links and billions of sites with no links back AND the circle of the internet's inner workings would be lost.

Leann's unspoken assumption is that only inbound links count. One of the first things I learned about SEO is that outbound links count, too, although not as much. Since then, many veterans have tried to put my head straight on that one, but I am a hopeless case.

I have now come to believe that any unreciprocated link, inbound or outbound, will sooner or later become worth much more than a reciprocal link -- especially a reeciprocal link on a "reciprocal link page".

I am about to embark on an experiment to see what the current value of outbound links is, just to help my critics shut me up once and for all. :halo:

[Debra]

Folks seem to be running scared of linking at this point because they are afraid of 'draining PageRank' from their site. That is truly preposterous. If you like a site and find it to be of value to you and/or your viewers, by all means LINK it.

IMO, you should be concerned where and how you link out. Since most people are on the Web to promote their business and make money, being concerned where and how you generate those revenues is the ONLY thing to focus on.

I don't link out just because I like a site. That site has to do something for my business in order for me to link to it and give that site a vote. That means I'm passing page rank and I do that with some discretion.

Paying attention to all the tactics involved in achieving high rankings is part of a well thought out marketing plan. While I am not a fanatical toolbar watcher, I do watch. It's a gauge and when the green moves I react. If it moves up I look to see who's ( new) linking to me. Is there potential there to make a sale or broaden a partnership? What kind of site are they? Do they have a mailing list they'd be willing to sell/rent/share? What other opportunities are there?

Conversely, when the green goes down I look to see who dropped off. I realize it's not always so black and white, but for the most part, when PR drops, you've lost links somewhere/how.

It' a tool..... use it along with your other tools ( your stats, your traffic, customer feedback etc) when you need to make decisions that concern the earning potential/promotion of your website.

[mcanerin]

I have no facts to back it up, but I've always worked under the assumption that if you have a link with text in it, it would have the same effect as making that text bold or an H2 tag or whatever on THAT page (not the linked to one - that's a different story)

In short, it won't affect page rank of the page it's on, but WILL affect relevancy.

My opinion,

Ian

Edited by mcanerin, 11 November 2003 - 12:22 AM.

[ldcdc]

Call me a suspicious fool or a forward-thinker, but I think Google is already beginning to discount link exchange pages to some degree.

I feel it's true, but not for "link exchange pages", but for "link pages" in general. As some of us noted, PR0 for "link pages" (99% of them happen to be "link exchange pages") becomes a trend. I've seen it happening (luckily not on my websites).

As for actually checking a site for link enchanging, I don't see it happening soon...

The way I "feel" it, Google still sees the web as composed not by websites, but by individual web pages linking to one other.

In short, it won't affect page rank of the page it's on, but WILL affect relevancy.

It's the second time I hear this. It's half true (IMHO). The relevancy is influenced. I'm pretty sure about that. I do not agree with the PageRank part however. It doesn't affect PageRank directly, but it does indirectly.

Let's take an example. If a web page on my website links to 20 other pages, I'd prefer that all the other pages are my own pages. If the published PageRank theory is still used, then the page has a voting power of X, which distributes to the 20 outbound links. If 10 links (out of those 20) point out of my website, it means that half of the voting Power "leaks" out of my website. Considering how much work link building involves, I doubt many webmasters will link heavily outsite of their website without a strong reason to do so.

[Irony]

When Google assigned Page Ranks to the inner pages of our site I noticed that Related-Links.htm page received just 2/10, while 'About' and 'Services' got 5/10, and the home page was boosted from 5 to 6. That was the first time I came to a thought that Google might look for a way to reduce reciprocal link value without killing the process of worldwide link exchange completely. This 'No reciprocal links anymore' would really kill the Internet... or, rather, the searchengine that dared to try this. But a reduced Page Rank is not so drastic a measure, and it will do no harm.

Reciprocal links must stay. There will be no way to find relevant sites is they stop linking each other. But there must be a way to stop (or, at least, reduce) a worldwide business. Numerous dealers sell links from well ranked pages. Google algo is not their property, neither is Page Rank concept or Google toolbar. There is no legal way to stop this, so Google authorities have only one method to protect their property from abuse. That's to reduce PR on 'Related links' pages. I don't know what about other webmasters. But I don't mind that. And I won't look for any new ways to deceive Google on the matter. But our Related-Links page will remain where it is. Am I right?

[qwerty]

Welcome, Irony

I don't think the PR of a links page is based, for the most part, on the fact that it's a links page. IMO, it's more likely a matter of how many clicks it takes to get there from your home page.

I agree that Google can't completely ditch reciprocal links, but it looks to me like they're making an effort to decrease their weighting of "obviously SEO'd" links -- links coming from unrelated pages that all have the same anchor text. Then again, I've been away for the past few days, so I should probably do more studying before I make any pronouncements about the current situation.

[OldWelshGuy]

I posted this in another thread but it sits here as well.

IMO its part of what we have always said, and that is that an incoming link should be worthless, or treated sceptically if it comes from a page that is not relevant to the site it is linking to.

Why would a slaughter house link to a vegetarian cookbook page? I like the way it works as it will treat the web as it should be, links for the sake of relevancy rather than for the sake of a link.

If the slaughter house is the best in the world with a PR of 10 then unless the link comes from a page that discusses alternatives to meat eating it should have a 'non relevant' flag applied and the PR adjusted by whatever it is the dial is set up for at that time. that way a page with a pr of say 8 and a relevancy by text comarison of 1:250 (made up figure) would have a pr transfer of 80%PR, a less relevant text comparison would be sat 1:500 resulting in a PR transfer of say 40%, 1:1000 20% and so on, until when there is a set text comparison minumum threshold the PR would not tansfer.

Therefore a page of x linking to Y would have a comparison ratio of say 1:2000 = zero PR transfer.

This is just my pet theory and something i have thought should happen as par for the course.