|Reciprocal links with authority sites|
Will it be penalised?
| 8:33 pm on Apr 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It was said before, that reciprocal links give less value than one-directional ones. I've found it easy to avoid it in link exchanges - I get links to one of my sites, and link back from another - the partner is happy, and there is no short linking loop (both my sites in this example may be not linked at all or linked only in one direction).
There is a bigger problem with authority sites.
I believe it's good to link to on-topic authority sites - both for users and for Google. I often link to related DMOZ categories and high ranked sites that are authoritative sources of information in subjects my page covers. This way, Google can be sure about the subject of the site, and users can find additional information.
Sometimes, I manage to get listed in DMOZ or other directory, or get a backlink from a niche authority site.
Should I worry about reciprocal linking in this case?
| 1:05 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In my experience probably not. Resiprical linking isn't necessarily automatically penalized anyway. It is more likely that in the most cases you simply won't gain or lose anything. The fact you are linking to and from an authority site on topic probably means you should see some benefit, but at worst I image it will just be ignored.
| 7:35 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is zero wrong with reciprical linking; they don't have "less value". The idea that getting a link from a great site becomes less great because you decide to link to that great site is irrational voodoo thinking.
| 7:59 am on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>There is zero wrong with reciprical linking; they don't have "less value".
Recipricol linking is often a stitch up with no regard for quality. I'm sure this fact has not gone unnoticed by Google.
I can see that it can be a natural and logical thing for two sites to recipricate, but if this occurs, its logical that Google will be wary and credit 'less value' to the links. The sites will have to rank well on other factors, which if they are any good, will be present. One way links are more likely to be honest.
| 5:00 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The idea that getting a link from a great site becomes less great because you decide to link to that great site is irrational voodoo thinking. |
|I can see that it can be a natural and logical thing for two sites to recipricate, but if this occurs, its logical that Google will be wary and credit 'less value' to the links. |
I see I was right to start this thread, as there are so opposite opinions.
I agree with steveb, that this idea is absurdous. I will keep this linking, because they are logical and good for users, and their values in algo - both getting PR and on-topic link from authority and putting link to on-topic authority - would ovecome the penalty if there were any.
I agree with MHes, that there can be penalty for reciprocal linking in general. In original PR formula, reciprocal linking extremely boosts PR and protects it from flowing out of the network, so it's reasonable for Google to be careful with this kind of manipulation and penalize it.
But wouldn't it be good for results, if such a penalty, if exists, were not applied if one of the sites is real authority and links are strictly on-topic? I'd really like to hear GoogleGuy opinion, as I remember him saying that linking to on-topic authority sites is a good practice. I wouldn't expect good practice to be penalized in any case.
That's about what should be done in this matter, but going back to facts, has anyone notices how such a situation affects rankings?
| 8:40 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"One way links are more likely to be honest."
One way links are far more likely to be garbage, to a degree of probably 100 to one. The rare exceptions are normally huge and obvious, like linking to a news story on a cure for cancer or something. But for the most part, on the Internet of today, hundreds of millions, billions, of one way links are blog comment garbage.
Getting lots of one way links, without a huge amount of otherwise positive algo elements, should be (to an algorithm) the #1 sign of a rotten domain.
The point as always is that it isn't the mode of links, it's the genuine-ness of those links (or on the other hand the shorterm ability of links to fool the engine into thinking a page is more valuable than it is).
| 10:15 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good points steveb
With your point about blogs it makes it hard for google to now recognise any good links.
| 10:57 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|With your point about blogs it makes it hard for google to now recognise any good links. |
With due respect to you and to Steve B, I think you are getting above yourself if you think that one small post in Webmasterworld makes it hard for Google to do what they darn well like.
I admire your self-confidence, MHes, but it's hardly a reasoned argument.
I'd much prefer you to comment on Google's attitude to links based on something far more reaching.
| 11:19 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to think that everyone gets a little too paranoid about linking and whether its reciprocated or not - authority sites have been doing recip trading since the web came into being - we used to call it traffic trading and linking to our friends - I guess the terms just change a little, but I have yet to have any authority sites get downgraded in their ranking or even a hint of penalties because of natural web linking - heck the whole premise of the Google SE page rank is based on the realization that sites do it and always have.
I think there are a lot more important issues in the linking world that have been mentioned here that might be something that Google would be inclined to look at for penalization like Blogs and bought links - but recips are the very nature of the word we use to describe the internet - the WEB
| 9:25 am on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
DerekH - I agree that I am confused! Having thought about this for a while, the only conclusion I can come up with is that Google has to apply Hilltop in order to recognise quality links. If a page qualifies for a search term, then the links off that page are counted. Links pages are easy to identify and can be removed, but niche Blog pages may qualify even with hilltop being applied, so how does Google recognise blog pages and remove them? A blog page can be on theme, good or poor quality, but nevertheless indistiguishable from any other quality page. It can be abused and used to generate many on theme links to a site. How does Google deal with that? Hence my statement... "it makes it hard for google to now recognise any good links".