Cool New Link Exchange Site, A new site for finding link partners Options

[NateDog]

I was asked to test out a new link exchange directory and it looks promising...

seopark.com

I can't say I love it or hate it because I only just registered and it doesn't have enough popularity yet. But it looks different and worth a try.

Live link removed as per guidelines

This post has been edited by OldWelshGuy: Jun 18 2004, 04:26 PM

[scolling]

intersting approach, but is still focusing on maintaining links for the wrong reasons. If your visitors will benefit froma link to another site, then you shuld give it to them, whether that other site has a reciprocal link or not.

If other website link to you then great, but the aim should be providing great site that people want to link to.

It would be good if this could manage link changes (i.e. resulting from a site restructure or page name change)

[NateDog]

If other website link to you then great, but the aim should be providing great site that people want to link to.

I don't disagree. But being listed in a directory where people can easily find you is going to help other people find your great site and decide to link to it. If there site is relevant and it turns into a reciprocal - then great.

[scolling]

But being listed in a directory where people can easily find you is going to help other people find your great site and decide to link to it.

Absolutely, but this site isn't a directory, it's a link checker so you can make sure that other site's links are still where they said they'd be. My take on this was that if you were warned that a site has dropped it's link to you, you'd then react to this by dropping your reciprocal link to them, after finding out why first (if you can).

I can't see a pukka directory getting involved in this for you to check they've maintained your link.

[BobetteKyle]

If your visitors will benefit froma link to another site, then you shuld give it to them, whether that other site has a reciprocal link or not.

If other website link to you then great, but the aim should be providing  great site that people want to link to.

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thankyou.gif) scolling!

Required reciprocation usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth for exactly that reason. Ultimately, a site is for the visitors. If a link - in or out - adds to usefulness of your site, then whether the link is reciprocated or not should be irrelevant.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with asking or suggesting a reciprocal link. Sometimes it will make sense for sites to link to each other.

But, requiring one infers that the ultimate goal is amassing quantities of links rather than usefulness to visitors. There are so many situations where a link makes sense for only one of the sites, requiring a reciprocal link closes the door on many opportunities to make the site more useful for visitors.

[Jill]

Required reciprocation usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth for exactly that reason. Ultimately, a site is for the visitors. If a link - in or out - adds to usefulness of your site, then whether the link is reciprocated or not should be irrelevant.

Absolutely, Bobette! But unfortunately, when most of us here say stuff like that people call us naive (or worse)!

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

In the end, they're the ones who are naive...

Jill

[BobetteKyle]

Absolutely, Bobette! But unfortunately, when most of us here say stuff like that people call us naive (or worse)! 

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

In the end, they're the ones who are naive...

Jill

Smart folks around these parts.

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

IMO, naive is not understanding that when an industry leaders' #1 belief is to "focus on the user and all else will follow" and employs an army of Ph.D's to get it done, short-term schemes that ignore user benefit aren't going to cut the mustard for long.

[NateDog]

Required reciprocation usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth for exactly that reason. Ultimately, a site is for the visitors. If a link - in or out - adds to usefulness of your site, then whether the link is reciprocated or not should be irrelevant.

There are times when a webmaster must choose between many potential sites to link to (esp. in an "additional resources" type of section). When you have many more link options then you desire to list and when they are all of roughly the same calibre/value, then why wouldn't you pick the ones that are open to a reciprocating link?

Having a reciprocating link is clearly going to be benefitial and so managing them certainly is a worthwhile endeavor for some of us.

[greggb]

Required reciprocation usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth for exactly that reason. Ultimately, a site is for the visitors. If a link - in or out - adds to usefulness of your site, then whether the link is reciprocated or not should be irrelevant.

I'd say the answer to this problem is a directory. With a directory you don't have to say "Here are the links I'd recommend you visit". Instead you just say, "Here are a bunch of websites, organized by category. Find the category you want, then choose the website(s) that suit you best based on the description of the website."

Give the websites you don't really recommend a boring description, as to not mislead your visitors (likewise give the websites you do actually recommend a good description). It's a great way of exchanging links with websites you don't really want to exchange links with.

Visitors appreciate a well-organized directory, probably more than they do a page full of links. And I'm sure by now that a search engine bot is capable of discerning a directory (which contains many links) from a link page, regardless of what your link page is named. I tend to think there's a stigma associated with a link page, where directories might be looked upon as a plus, and more as useful linking than just exchaning links.

My 3 cents.

[jseamless]

Qaulity links never hurt no-one. As long the directory is nicely done there should be no problems.

[BobetteKyle]

I'd say the answer to this problem is a directory.
<snip>
Give the websites you don't really recommend a boring description, as to not mislead your visitors (likewise give the websites you do actually recommend a good description).  It's a great way of exchanging links with websites you don't really want to exchange links with. 

I agree a directory can be a good thing...easier for visitors to find what they're looking for than a list of links.

I don't see reciprocal links requirements as a "problem" to be solved, though. If I don't really want to exchange links with a site, I don't. It's as simple as that....delete, move on. I don't play any games or tricks just to get them to link to my site.

[NateDog]

Agreed that directories are much more appealing than links pages which tend to provide little to no value.

Personally, what I find even more appealing than directories are a few hand-picked related sites for each uniquie content page I have.

When working with such a small inventory of pages where the page view count is not going to be 100k+, it is very hard to sell the space. But, other webmasters would gain value in these positions and I gain value from similar links on their sites. Bartering in this way IMO makes sense, is ethical, and helps boths sites.

I started this thread just to inform I knew of a new a site that might help find these partners with a directory and for some reason was blasted that this is the wrong approach. Well, it is an apprach that has helped my pageviews and my SERP placement.

[BobetteKyle]

There are times when a webmaster must choose between many potential sites to link to (esp. in an "additional resources" type of section).  When you have many more link options then you desire to list and when they are all of roughly the same calibre/value, then why wouldn't you pick the ones that are open to a reciprocating link?

NateDog, I agree with you there. If I were putting together a list of sites I know nothing about, and they all appeared equal in calibre, then I'd go with the one(s) that will give a reciprocal link.

In that situation, a Webmaster would pass over my site (unless, of course, he/she decided it was the best thing since sliced bread (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ), and I have no problem with that...we each make our own decisions about running our sites and which linking tactics we use.

I tend to link to sites I have had good experiences with or have researched and think the link adds value to my site...regardless of whether there is a link to my site on theirs or not.

Having a reciprocating link is clearly going to be benefitial and so managing them certainly is a worthwhile endeavor for some of us.

I have nothing against the idea of trading links. It's the game of building links only to try to boost PR that turns me off.

A personal note from someone who has obviously looked at my site gets my attention (I don't usually say yes - unless there's a specific page where the link would work - but I'll go to the site and check it out because I often use guest articles and am on the lookout for quality writing).

Those mass-mailed automated notes don't even get a read...I reflexively delete them or relegate to the junk folder.