homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.12.4
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

    
Has anyone gotten dropped from trading too many reciprocal links?
What are the limits of a traditional link exchange?
Trey03




msg:423765
 11:54 pm on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hello everyone,

First time poster... long time reader...

I would like to know if anyone has heard of or gotten dropped/banned from the serps for trading too many reciprocal links.

I have over 700 (good neighborhood) reciprocal links and have finally gotten some decent traffic. I have expanded my directory to include semi/related sites but feel somewhat guilty doing so. My competition uses other blackhat seo techniques so I dont feel too bad. To reach my search engine goals I estimate I need around 1500 to 1800 recip links.

Is this too many links? Will I pop up on the serps radar?

I appreciate your feedback

 

Crush




msg:423766
 6:33 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

no, it never stops. He with the most links wins. That is the rules. I am glad we put so many resources into linking. It really pays off.

robotsdobetter




msg:423767
 7:15 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just don't build the backlinks to fast and you will be fine, otherwise you MAY get kicked out.

aris1970




msg:423768
 8:29 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

To reach my search engine goals I estimate I need around 1500 to 1800 recip links.

If I were in your position, I would keep the 700 backlinks you already have and try to get few ONE-WAY quality backlinks (i.e. 50). I bet you would get much better positions than having only recip links.

IMO, it's difficult for reciprocal links alone to ensure the top SE positioning for a site. Mixing recip with - even few - quality one-way links is the best way to success.

Just my 2 cents...

Trey03




msg:423769
 3:35 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thank you guys for your valued feeback.

Robotsdobetter,
Would attempting to get 300 recip links in a month too fast (popping up on the serps radar). Im just a little concerned because one of my white hat competitors said I was taken it to the extreme. For my black hat competitors... well i dont really care what they think...

My black hat competitors use hidden text, duplicate content, hidden links etc and have held top ranking positions for years. I can take them on with recip links and have for about 60% of the top search keywords. They definetly have felt my presence and have grown concerned. I guess I feel a little guilty because I see my competitors face to face on a monthly base.

Also, Im the only one trading links.

Aris1970,
Attempting to get one-way links is quite difficult without paying $. Would you suggest triangular links?

Thanks again guys

robotsdobetter




msg:423770
 8:50 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Would attempting to get 300 recip links in a month too fast (popping up on the serps radar). Im just a little concerned because one of my white hat competitors said I was taken it to the extreme. For my black hat competitors... well i dont really care what they think...
This would really depend on how old your web site is, if it's new I would cut down on the link building.

Attempting to get one-way links is quite difficult without paying $. Would you suggest triangular links?
Have you tried writing articles and then allowing others to use it with a link back to your web site?

Eltiti




msg:423771
 9:38 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

without paying $

You may consider paying a few $$ to get listed in some of the more respectable (and older) directories! (Personally, I'd go for one-off payments or annual at most, but some people report that they are getting good results from "link renting" on a monthly basis. It may depend on the competitiveness of the industry...)

aris1970




msg:423772
 11:48 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Aris1970,
Attempting to get one-way links is quite difficult without paying $. Would you suggest triangular links?

If you are able to play with triangular links, I would certainly suggest doing so. Mixing reciprocal links with triangular ones as well as few one-way quality ones (even paid) is - IMO - the best linking strategy for success.

Best wishes
Aris

Trey03




msg:423773
 2:00 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've just had an idea and was wondering what others would think about it.

I've spent the last 8 hours creating a database of sites whose links pages are PR 5. Ive collected and screened about 200. Now I have a PR 5 homepage with PR 4 link pages. Im going to put 5 links per page.

Do you think if I sent out the link requests with a list of 50 PR 5 sites that trade links would more people link to me?

Also... Now if they reply and appreciate the list... do you think they would give me a one way PR 5 link for the entire list of 200.

Thanks in advance

joeduck




msg:423774
 3:06 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's an important question. I just had a site loose a lot of traffic about 2 months after I traded links with a friend who also has a large, high ranked site. Not sure if this was the problem but based on SE engineer comments at the WebmasterWorld conference I've concluded this was unwise (we are taking them down) because:

* Our sites did not share enough relevance
* very high number of reciprocals
* not enough "user value" to link in this case

The nice thing is that the SE's are trying to seek quality user experiences, so if you worry about how users will view the linking you should have a good answer to the SE process.

Crush




msg:423775
 8:50 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

"very high number of reciprocals "

This one. Do not cross link sites, page for page. You can do site A to B the site B links to a site C. Never cross link A and B as you are asking for trouble.

aris1970




msg:423776
 9:52 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

* Our sites did not share enough relevance
* very high number of reciprocals
* not enough "user value" to link in this case

Crush is very right; Do not interlink heavily your sites. IMO relevance means no problem IF you provide 1 or 2 one-way links from siteA to siteB; and DOES help as well.

Im going to put 5 links per page.

Do you think if I sent out the link requests with a list of 50 PR 5 sites that trade links would more people link to me?

Also... Now if they reply and appreciate the list... do you think they would give me a one way PR 5 link for the entire list of 200.

I have never done this but I don't think you will have much success in getting one-way links this way; you can try though and have a real experience :)

Do you mean that you have setup many link pages and intend to put 5 links per page? Generally I would suggest you publish also some content on the link pages and not just 5 links with 5-6 word description for each link; this will help your ranking as well.

doninatorweb




msg:423777
 10:41 pm on Jun 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi

i would suggest you that you just divided your links into diffrent categoried and make category page.
it will help to get 1500 to 2000 reciprocal links.

[edited by: martinibuster at 8:00 pm (utc) on June 28, 2005]
[edit reason] Please, no personal info like emails or URLs. Thanks. [/edit]

Langers




msg:423778
 11:49 am on Jul 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've spent the last 8 hours creating a database of sites whose links pages are PR 5. Ive collected and screened about 200. Now I have a PR 5 homepage with PR 4 link pages. Im going to put 5 links per page.

I rekon you would be better of compiling a list of sites that rank well in your chosen SE(s) for your chosen keywords.

martinibuster




msg:423779
 2:13 pm on Jul 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why compile a list of the well ranking sites? Aren't they the ones least likely to trade links?

I think the sites on page ten of the serps would be more likely and just as effective, if not more.

aris1970




msg:423780
 11:33 pm on Jul 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the sites on page ten of the serps would be more likely and just as effective, if not more.

Hi martinibuster, do mean that links from page ten would be more effective as well? Maybe I am missing something here...

martinibuster




msg:423781
 12:35 am on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>do mean that links from page ten would be more effective as well?

Why not?

I don't understand the obsession with obtaining links from sites that already rank well. They don't need you and generally don't want to trade links with you.

It's the same with finding link partners through Dmoz. Sites in Dmoz are sick to death of link requests and site owners generally don't want to trade links with you.

aris1970




msg:423782
 11:43 am on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why not?

I don't understand the obsession with obtaining links from sites that already rank well. They don't need you and generally don't want to trade links with you.

It's the same with finding link partners through Dmoz. Sites in Dmoz are sick to death of link requests and site owners generally don't want to trade links with you.

Well, effectiveness has nothing to do with how easy or achievable is something!

The fact that getting links from sites that rank on top is much harder is true. But this does not mean that if you get them, their effectiveness is LESS than that of other worse ranked sites! I think the problem is the word "effective" that you used, anyway.

BTW it's not obsession for me, but still the best way to rank high :)

martinibuster




msg:423783
 5:06 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

still the best way to rank high...

Not true.
My point is NOT the ease of attaining them, that's a side note. When I say effectiveness, I'm talking about ranking well. Let me make this more explicit for you.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter where those sites rank. What matter is how many links you have, and the anchor text used. The sites on page ten of the serps are as effective for helping you to rank well as those on page one.

As a side note, I am saying that if you want to maximize your effectiveness in ranking, go for quantity. In order to find quantity, start digging up backlinks where you are more sure to receive a positive response.

Murdoch




msg:423784
 5:16 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

As a side note, I am saying that if you want to maximize your effectiveness in ranking, go for quantity. In order to find quantity, start digging up backlinks where you are more sure to receive a positive response.

I'm not sure if I agree with you completely here. While I do believe that the page rank is meaningless for the quality of a link, isn't it better to link to a site with good content and a fewer amount of outbound links than, say, a link farm with next to no content at all? Or is it that a link is a link is a link?

martinibuster




msg:423785
 5:24 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

isn't it better to link to a site with good content and a fewer amount of outbound links than, say, a link farm with next to no content at all?

Which site is more likely to have a link farm? The one with lots of backlinks and is ranking well or the site that hasn't done any link development and is ranking poorly?

Which site will have more outgoing links, the site that has done a lot of reciprocal exchanges and is consequently ranking well, or the site that has exchanged two or three links and is ranking poorly?

Murdoch




msg:423786
 6:34 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Which site will have more outgoing links, the site that has done a lot of reciprocal exchanges and is consequently ranking well, or the site that has exchanged two or three links and is ranking poorly?

Exactly my point.

So when choosing sites to link to, we should choose the one that only has a few links but content relevant to yours, correct? What the initial question was getting at was we should still be weighing in on the sites we choose, not just choose any old site because it will give us a link. Although pagerank is not a good indicator of whether or not it will improve the weight of your link, you should still put some thought into the sites you are linking to, and not just linking to a site because it's a link. I was agreeing to your first point but I still think some links should be avoided (link farms) while others should be pursued (individual, content-based sites).

martinibuster




msg:423787
 6:49 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

What the initial question was getting at was we should still be weighing in on the sites we choose, not just choose any old site because it will give us a link.

I wasn't even addressing that point, so we're talking about two different things.

On a related note to your point, a Google engineer at the New Orleans Search Conference, in response to a question about recips, responded negatively about the usefulness of link directories for internet users. At one point he asked if anyone actually uses them, and if not, then what are they good for?

The Google engineers were pretty much framing all their answers around, "Is it good for users" and if the answer couldn't be squeezed into that box then you pretty much knew where they stood on the issue.

If you are interested in picking up good information about search engines, do consider attending the WebmasterWorld Search Conference. Don't rely on others to spill the beans on the forums. There's lots more good information when you attend in person.

Murdoch




msg:423788
 7:45 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wasn't even addressing that point, so we're talking about two different things.

Well that's good. I thought I was going crazy (I realize I didn't phrase the question too well)

If you are interested in picking up good information about search engines, do consider attending the WebmasterWorld Search Conference. Don't rely on others to spill the beans on the forums. There's lots more good information when you attend in person.

Luckily the job is sending me to the SEO conference in San Jose in August, so I should only be about 20 or so miles from the Googleplex. I feel like I'm visiting the Keebler elves factory to learn their delicious cookie secrets!

ken_b




msg:423789
 8:03 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sites found beyond Page 1, 2 or 3...

Those sites may be easier to get a link from. But sites ranking beyond page 2 or 3 can often have very good content. They can make good link targets.

That makes them good for your visitors.

And I'm going to guess that they might also be more likely to link back to you without being asked to do so, once they find a referal from your site in their logs or stats.

That gives you a natural reciprocal link with no obligation on either side. If "natural reciprocal linking" has any value beyond the link itself, it's probably in the time span between when the links get found by Google.

Managing that time span might be harder to do with an arranged reciprocal, because both parties may want the link as fast as possible.

A natural, unrequested, reciprocal link might take a while to appear.

Can Google tell the difference, I don't know. But I'd guess that if they can, natural reciprocals are not likely to have a negative effect no matter how many you have.

AndAgain




msg:423790
 8:15 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"He with the most links wins."

Not True!

martinibuster




msg:423791
 8:24 pm on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"He with the most links wins."

It's true, that's why blog spam is so effective. How long they win is another matter, though. ;)

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved