Stefan
msg:424618 | 3:44 am on Dec 31, 2005 (gmt 0) |
It will show up as a little "cluster" either way, so I don't think it makes any difference.
|
Event_King
msg:424619 | 1:59 pm on Dec 31, 2005 (gmt 0) |
One way linking is less effort. Less typing to do.
|
graywolf
msg:424620 | 4:31 am on Jan 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Play with touchgraph and you'll get a feel for site clusters. I'd really like to see a touchgraph merged with Yahoo site explorer data expanded out three or four linking nodes, now that would be illuminating.
|
glengara
msg:424621 | 12:51 pm on Jan 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I remember wondering at the time if there was more to Gs' tribute to Gaston Julia than met the eye... ;-)
|
neuron
msg:424622 | 10:56 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Is one way linking more valuable or less valuable then link exchanging |
|
no. it is not more or less valuable. they are the same, as far as the value of the effect of the link on the website in the SERPs. However, one-way links are a lot more expensive to obtain and to retain. Thus, dollar for dollar, direct reciprocal link exchange has the best value for your dollar in that you can get a lot more recips that you can get one-ways for the same amount of money. I will probably be attacked for stating the above by SEOs (some really big names out there perpetuate the myth that one-ways are more valuable than recips) who find it too difficult to manage and make money from reciprocal links, when they can simply buy one-way links for their clients and get a cut of that spend every month. One-ways are a lot less work for the SEO and a lot more money.
|
|
