145 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

Qwerty, once again, forget about search engines.

Gladly, but that's my point. If everyone who ran linking campaigns forgot about the search engines, there would, in my opinion, be less reciprocal linking, and the reciprocal linking that remained would just be between complementary sites. Since that's not the world in which we currently live, I have come to the conclusion that most of the reciprocal linking campaigns I've seen are in fact more about the search engines than the users.

That's not to say that there aren't honest, valuable campaigns based on reciprocal linking. I'm simply saying they're in the minority.

[Debra]

How long do we have to continue to ask this question?

Strictly speaking on behalf of this forum -- for as long as people come here and ask the question. It's what we do here.

It isn't a bad question or a wrong question or a stupid question, it's just a question asked by a person who wanted an answer. It deserves to be answered thoughtfully and respectfully - and definitely NOT with a counter question/response like that.

I have personally worked the reciprocal link campaigns for over 300 sites, with some going back for several years. If you people could see the search results of our clients, this argument about reciprocal links would vanish completely.

Perhaps focusing on sharing success stories (without the names/details) would go a long way to helping people understand the type of recip linking you do since it's successful. Having 300 sites show positive growth as a result of link swapping may go a long way to changing perceptions.

It certainly would sound better than just telling us the

SEO community is awash in misguided advice about linking

without providing the "guided advice" as an alternative.

[linkstrategy]

That's not to say that there aren't honest, valuable campaigns based on reciprocal linking. I'm simply saying they're in the minority.

I can justify what I do with respect to relevancy with every link campaign that I run.

And yes, there would be less of it if engines ignored it. Yet I fail to see what difference that makes. People are going to work the advantages. I don't know a single SEO who doesn't.

If engines ignored them, there'd be a lot less "press releases" being spewn into ths world, of which few of them get read.

There'd be a lot fewer "articles" written, (of which few of them get read).

There'd be a lot fewer blogs (of which few of them get read).

And there'd be a whole lot less outright purchase of links.

So why do people single out reciprocal linking as "inappropriate", yet they do all manner of other, more gamey practices and call it "white hat" SEO.

All SEO is some shade of gray...

[qwerty]

There'd be a lot fewer "articles" written, (of which few of them get read).

There'd be a lot fewer blogs (of which few of them get read).

And there'd be a whole lot less outright purchase of links.

So why do people single out reciprocal linking as "inappropriate", yet they do all manner of other, more gamey practices and call it "white hat" SEO.

Again, I agree. All of that stuff is garbage, and all of it has been called garbage by plenty of people in this forum -- not in this thread, but that's because this thread is not just in the SEO category of the forum. It's in the Link Building subcategory's Reciprocal Linking subcategory, and its title asks the question "Is reciprocal linking dead."

No one is making any accusations about the way you run linking campaigns. If your work is consistently honest and high-quality, I'd say you have a unique selling proposition that's worth promoting.

There's no need to defend reciprocal linking itself, because I think the consensus here is that most of the people who do it do it badly and I doubt you're going to change that view.

There's no need to defend yourself, since no one is accusing you of anything.

There is an opportunity, as Debra suggested, to explain specifically how it can be done properly.

[linkstrategy]

It isn't a bad question or a wrong question or a stupid question, it's just a question asked by a person who wanted an answer. It deserves to be answered thoughtfully and respectfully - and definitely NOT with a counter question/response like that.

Debra,

I was not taking aim at ChildeRoland. My apologies if that was misconstrued.

ChildeRoland said: Is there truth to the rumors that Reciprocal linking is dead.

There is no truth to it, but because the SEO community is so screwed up about it, the question has to be asked, continuously, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I am taking aim at the "experts" in SEO who continuously make derogatory comments about reciprocal linking, call it dead and ineffective, and nullified, and all the rest. It dates back several years. It's old. It's worn out. It's bad advice for many sites. And there is no basis for any of it.

They consistently fail completely to provide any evidence to their positions. They don't do this work, yet they comment endlessly about it.

I will not provide "research" that exposes my clients. Sorry. That never will happen.

As I have said time and again, anyone simply look at a LOT of search results, and you'll see that sites that actively reciprocate do quite well. It's pervasive. I don't know how much more "proof" is needed. And it certainly contradicts the "experts" who oppose the practice.

Anyone who wants to review search results, privately, and with good faith toward determining if reciprocation ir right for their site, is welcome to call me to discuss. I am not in the business of providing research reports to the SEO industry, and I have no real need to do that.

Like everyone else in here, I provide anecdotal analysis. For what it's worth.

People are welcome to their opinions, and I am welcome to call it BS, when I see it. I can back up what I say, quite easily, but I'll do that only with people who have a genuine reason and need to know. That is, prospective clients.

As to providing advice to people pursuing a reciprocal link campaign, I am WELL WRITTEN on the subject, over several years.

Anyone who wants can start at:

www.linksmanager.com/successful-linking_tools.html

I have several articles on that site that specfically discuss reciprocation done right.

I also post regularly in www.led-digest.com on this subject, time and again, and many of those posts have specific advice on how to do this work effectively. Please search the archives.

I do know my subject, and I write about it, when I can. My experience at this work is formidable, and it continues to provide substantial benefits to my clients.

Debra, I am sorry if my tone is not the best. It's an uphill fight, countering all the misconcetions about reciprocal linkng that come from the so-called "top tiers" of the SEO world. Admittedly, I have zero patience for it anymore.

I don't have the time to come into these forums and post daily on this subject. I have a business to run. So I try to make my posts quite pointed, and direct. It's the only way to get through the noise.

I make few apologies for it.

Live links removed. Please see [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules]Forum Rules[/url].

[projectphp]

Its funny, but whenever I read a post that says "the "experts" in SEO", I want to know who these people are. If you aren't familiar with it, to attack an un-named, amorphous blob as a source is referred to as a straw man. It is to present a case, attrributable to no one, and then attack that stand, one that we aren't sure exists and can't verify.

So, where exactly do experts say this, and who are they?

...comments about reciprocal linking, call it dead and ineffective, and nullified, and all the rest. It dates back several years. It's old. It's worn out. It's bad advice for many sites. And there is no basis for any of it.

And your defence of this view, ironically, cites not one piece of evidence to support your view

I have seen many sites have their ability to pass PageRank killed, and I would say this is pretty fair evidence that it often doesn't work (although that won't always be the case).

Further, most of the reciprocal link requests are from sites one really shouldn't link to. Linking to bad neighbourhoods can hurt a site's rankings, and I would think this makes recirpocal linking, if not dead and agree there, certainly a potentially dangerous tactic.

So, what makes you think it does work, what characterises these "many sites" for which it is good advice and, more importantly, when won't it work?

As I have said time and again, anyone simply look at a LOT of search results

Why don't you point us to some saerches? Which SEs? What terms? What industries?

I mean really, why does everyone except the person making a claim need to do the research? This is your case, so you, not me need to provide evidence. I am sure you can point to at least a few searches that prove your position. Surely that is better than forcing me to search through the billions of search terms used to find exactly what you are getting at

So I try to make my posts quite pointed, and direct. It's the only way to get through the noise.

I have to respectfully disagree that this was direct at all.

You have done little to provide any evidence, and have spent (several) long posts doing so. All you have done is link to an article on your site. If you are going to take time out of your business to post on forums, why not try to provide a compelling case? I am sure you could pre-write a few case studies / examples and cut and paste, and then we can move forward from that.

To write such a long post, with so little evidence, when you are busy, seems, to me, a missed opportunity.

If I can give you one small piece of advice, if the goal is to promote your business, and I am not stating it is or wanting to cast aspersions on you, but if that is your goal, quite honestly you will make far more money if you focus your time and resources on digitalpoint and seochat forums. They are forums far more likely to take up your product offerring than this one, they honestly are. I would wager a pretty penny you will get a far better return if you visit those two forums than pretty much any other. marketing is about getting your stuff in front of the rigth people, and trust me, those be the right people!

[Jill]

Debra, I am sorry if my tone is not the best. It's an uphill fight, countering all the misconcetions about reciprocal linkng that come from the so-called "top tiers" of the SEO world. Admittedly, I have zero patience for it anymore.

I don't have the time to come into these forums and post daily on this subject. I have a business to run. So I try to make my posts quite pointed, and direct. It's the only way to get through the noise.

Which is fine. Except those so-called SEO experts don't post here.

If you actually read the posts from our SEO experts, you would see that none of them are saying what you are accusing them of saying.

It helps to do your research before you post at forums.

[glengara]

*There is no truth to it, but because the SEO community is so screwed up about it, the question has to be asked, continuously, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.*

You seem to be in the directory-to-directory sector, probably the least favoured methodology to the "short-sellers", so how are you explaining the Timeline blog entry to potential clients?

[linkstrategy]

Folks, some of you really misunderstand me. I am not in here to make buddies, and I am not an "SEO forum junkie", in here to make a big name for myself and mix it up.

I post in a couple of places on a regular basis, (primarily LED Digest), and I post in other forums when I encounter egregious comments. I occasionally post in WebmasterWorld, WebProWorld, SearchEngineWatch, and a few others. It's very intermittent.

When a post has the title "Is Reciprocal Linking Dead", I am going to check it out. It was mentioned in Dany's SEReport newsletter this week.

Quite frankly, I come here to make my points. I do not have a "research white paper" that unequivocally makes my points. Liek most everyone else, I have not have the time or need to do that.

It's pointless anyhow. Anyone can see that reciprocation is valid, just by looking at search results for an hour or two. To deny that is to deny reality. Yet many people in SEO do just that.

Are those people active here in this forum? I have no idea. I am not in here enough to know. The first reply to the initial post in this thread was from donp, who said "I'm betting it is....." (referring to reciprocation). So some are.

Fortunately, some other people have countered that statement, and for the most part, this thread has been supportive of reciprocation. I diasagree with many of the finer points, but I'll leave that alone.

Neverthless, there are a lot of big name SEO commentators who have no idea how reciprocation affects search engines, and they make a lot of ridiculous statements about it.

Who are they? Well, if you put "reciprocal linking dead" into a search engine, they'll pop right up. If you read the articles, books, and forum posts (in other forums) of many of the so-called "top tier" SEO advisors, you will find all kinds of statements about linking and reciprocation that fail miserably to hold up to close scrutiny.

ChildeRoland must have been reading these people when the initial post was made. A statement like "Is there truth to the rumors that Reciprocal linking is dead" indicates that they have read this elsewhere. That's no surprise. That kind of talk is all over the place these days, in various SEO articles, books and forums.

None of the SEO experts who make these statements provide any proof of their positions, yet examples that contradict them is pervasive, and very easy to get. Just look at search results. Pick you own keywords. Don't rely on someone else's skewed data. Use your own. See for yourself. I am very confident that anyone who does this will find out the truth, in short order.

Overall - to reiterate, here are my points:

- SEO commentators who do not reciprocate really don't know what they are talking about when they make comments about it. Some of it is outright ridiculous. Laughable.


- Reciprocal linking is still valid, and it still works very well, when done properly. In fact, from what we have seen, it has been extraordinarily stable, throughout all the Google updates.

- People try to over-analyze it, with respect to search engines. The most effective approach is to simply link to and from sites that are relevant to your own, and do that with some real determination. It IS that simple.

Some of you are welcome to beat me up in here, if you like. I am an "unknown", with some very experienced opinions on this subject. I have done this enough to realize that my detractors will never read what I say, and simply react to it, because it challenges their own theories. That's fine.

I am not here to make converts. I am trying to remove the hysteria that surrounds this subject, and help people understand that reciprocation is not at all as complicated as some people want to make it.

I am here to speak to people who simply read what I say, take the time to look into things for themselves, and use that information to make decisions about whether reciprocation is right for their own website. It might be. It might not be.

At least, they've had the opportunity to hear it from someone who does this work, all day, every day, and has done it for years, instead of from someone who doesn't do this at all, or does it very little, yet make all kinds of claims about it that don't hold any water at all.

Are those people in this forum? Maybe not. But they are out there, and very visible elsewhere. It's a valid discussion to counter it here, in a thread titled "Is Reciprocal Linking Dead".

If this is a discussion forum, then that is what I am doing...discussing this issue. I'm just not doing it in a way that you all are used to, since I have more experience at this work that almost anyone on the planet, and I have little time and patience for the endless nonsense that is presented to the world about this subject by many people who claim to know, but really don't what they are talking about at all.

So I don't soft pedal my position. I make my points and let the chips fall.

[Debra]

Dirk, I understand your hesitation in giving specifics, but you should be able to talk principles and tactics without providing details. Let go of the rest of it and focus on helping the rest of us understand what it is you find so appealing and have had such success with.

[linkstrategy]

Glengara said: You seem to be in the directory-to-directory sector, probably the least favoured methodology to the "short-sellers", so how are you explaining the Timeline blog entry to potential clients?

Glengara, you've likely seen my article/post on searchenginewatch called "Beware the Reciprocal Link Short Sellers"

forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=9185&page=1&pp=20]

Thanks...

As to "directory-to-directory" being the "least favoured methodology", I suppose you are right. The trouble is, it still works. That's what so hilarious about the detractors. They are beating up on something that works well, and if one is prepared to do it, from a data management perspective, it's relatively inexpensive, and extraordinarily stable, in terms of link duration.

The detractors don't like it because they really don't understand how it plays out, when done right. They draw all kinds of conclusions about it, from the outside, looking in. Most of their conclusions are wrong. No surprise there.

As to how I explain this with respect to the Cutts Timeline blog, (and I have already done it), is to first, show specific examples of sites that rely on reciprocation as their primary (but not only) method of earning new links.

Since links beget links, reciprocation becomes less of a percentage of their overall link popularity, over time. Once again, people who do not have experience at reciprocation can't possibly understand this aspect of it.

I can show these examples for hours and hours. After a while, it becomes moot to continue.

Second, after seeing that firsthand, and closely reading what Cutts actually said with his own words, and not what other people have interpreted, you will see that Matt/Google were attacking egregious examples of what I call "junk linking". That is reciprocating with everything and anything.

That's wrong. It has always been wrong, and that's never the approach that we have used. Ever.

So, since we have always tired to steer the straight and narrow with this work, our clients have apparently been insulated from the algorithm changes that attacked the junk linking crowd.

That's how I explain it.

Edited by Jill, 07 July 2006 - 05:33 PM.

[projectphp]

It's a valid discussion to counter it here, in a thread titled "Is Reciprocal Linking Dead".

So counter it Really, is it that hard to focus on what exactly does and doesn't work and when? You sound more like a man on a crusade than a man trying to use logic to persuade others.

You continue to go on about these experts, and I still don't know who they are, or even where they are. http://www.google.co...ng dead&num=100 shows a lot of artricles, but most ask a question, not provide an answer. So far, Michael Pedone said it, Mike Banks Valentine said it, who else..That's about it!

And even then, most of them have said "I won't do it" not "it doesn't work".

Seriously, rather than trying to refute imaginary straw men, why not refute some real people's real statements? Seems a lot better than a crusade against no one to me!

[linkstrategy]

Debra said: Dirk, I understand your hesitation in giving specifics, but you should be able to talk principles and tactics without providing details. Let go of the rest of it and focus on helping the rest of us understand what it is you find so appealing and have had such success with.

I have no probelm with that at all. I am quite willing to describe my approach and tactics. My reply to Glengara is a start in that direction, right?

What do people want to know? I'm here. You all can ask me anything about how I do this work. I'll provide my particular answer. I'd enjoy it, and will make time to do it.

That'd be a far cry from having to combat people who don't know what they are talking about.

I am really quite reasonable and maybe even fun, when the argument turns from "Is reciprocal linking dead?" to "How do you do this?". It'd be a breath of fresh air for me.

[linkstrategy]

projectphp said: Michael Pedone said it, Mike Banks Valentine said it, who else..That's about it!

You are right about those. They both wrote articles using the words "reciprocal linking dead" in the text or title.

Actually, the list of "big name" SEO commentators who oppose or have made wholly unfounded comments about reciprocal linking is pretty long.

I am not really into calling these people out by name. Sorry. That's not my style. And since the references to what they have said may no longer be available, or buried, it becomes a "he said, she said" situation.

However, if I did print the list, this thread would light up like a firecracker!

Just let me say that, a few months ago, someone complied a "tier one/tier two/tier three" list of SEO gurus. Danny Sullivan even referenced it in an article (unfortunately, giving it some very undeserved credibility).

Of that list, especially those in the tier two/tier three listings, I am aware that a large number of them have made derogatory or badly misguided comments about reciprocal linking in the past. The again, some of them on that list are quite grounded.

I would say that the three-tier list merely represented people who are "most vocal", but it made no effort to determine who knew what they are talking about. Being vocal in this business has nothing to do with knowing what you are talking about.

All I can say is this: Read what they've said, and compare it to what really takes place with real search results. When that is done, the BS gets washed down the drain.

When people make derogatory statements about reciprocal linking, I prefer to confront them directly, often privately, and respectfully. Sometimes it helps. But mostly, these people have a need to cling to their theories, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary. Most simply ignore me, or call me a heretic. Trust me, they know who I am. They just prefer to ignore me.

However, I need to point this out. Our client base includes a large number of SEO houses who need to get results for their clients, at affordable rates. For the most part, these are not the people on that three-tier list (however some of our clients ARE on that list, btw). But our SEO clients are working SEOs who spend more time working, and less time writing about this. You'd be surprised at how disgusted many of them are with some of those so called "experts" in this industry.

Am I purposely evasive about this? Yes. For good reason. I am willing to confront these people publicly, in forums, when that is the venue, and I confront them privately, when that is appropriate. But I am not about throwing bombs by making a list. That's wrong.

But the information is out there, if one digs for it. These people make statements. I make counter statements, where and when I can.

My apologies if that is not good enough, but that is where I'm at with this.

[Michael Martinez]

You're no more qualified to pass judgement on who is best or most knowledgeable than anyone else. You have your opinions of who is knowledgeable, other people have their own opinions.

You also have a tendency to put words into other people's mouths. I know that because you have wrongly attributed some of those points of view you challenge to me.

Would this thread light up like a fire cracker if you mentioned my name? I doubt it. I would just point out that, once again, you're accusing me of saying things I've never said.

You read things the wrong way, Dirk. That, more than anything else, is why I don't take your rants seriously.

That's all the fire I'm going to crack in your direction today.