| 5:07 pm on Aug 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Jessica - It seems I've been reading official and semi-official statements to this effect for a while now. Is this new wording in the Webmaster Help Center, or is it something you've just recently noticed?
|However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. |
| 5:12 pm on Aug 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This was discussed at length here:
| 10:46 pm on Aug 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
all it is saying is beware who you are linking too, some people link to everything and anyone, thus unrelated link exchanges for the sake of exchanging links will hurt you in the end. To me it doesnt sound like google is going to punish recip linking, just the people who link gadgets to widgets, two unrelated sites.
| 10:56 pm on Aug 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It could read link exchange schemes and reciprocal links schemes, which would be clearer. They must have had it checked out first by the Department of Redundancy Department and been advised to only put schemes in once.
| 1:31 am on Aug 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The word "schemes" was a poor choice of words -- it could mean a "plot" (which implies devious), or it could mean a "plan" (which is more positive). I would hope that whomever writes the Webmaster guidelines would take the time to clear it up, as dual meanings only cause confusion, and confusion is hardly a "guideline".
| 1:56 am on Aug 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Conceptually, it's pretty simple:
Link for users, not for search engines.
| 2:23 am on Aug 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|all it is saying is beware who you are linking too, some people link to everything and anyone, thus unrelated link exchanges for the sake of exchanging links will hurt you in the end. To me it doesnt sound like google is going to punish recip linking, just the people who link gadgets to widgets, two unrelated sites. |
I guess in the end here will be 80 years from now, because I see many Smile sites link to Cry sites, but they are still living well. So Google is just a robot, he may not detect who is Smile and who is Cry.
| 12:01 pm on Aug 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Both the OP and the Google warning ( which has been the same for half a year ) are off.
About the only thing they seem to be able to identify is when sites with a link profile of either nothing else or at least 50-66% of same IP, same owned, all SPAM sites interlink each other intensively so that maybe they can use their pages as a PR-mass-driver.
I'm constantly crossing websites of market leaders in all kinds of sectors where same ownership sites form a complete network. Except that they are wisely using additional, both non-reciprocated and reciprocated in and outbound links to keep a natural look.
You know, some are very close to the fire.
Yet they use domain names, listed in rows, with variants for the same theme, trying to make it look legit.
Above example is of course nonsense, but the real domains aren't much better. The last network I uncovered just out of curiosity was in fact linked to famous institutions -- or their skilled and underpaid webmaster -- saving a little link power to a network of affiliate sites from the official homepage.
They can't identify REAL link shcemes, only blatant schemes... ie. link farms. And editorial reciprocal links aren't penalized, off topic, irrelevant, spammy links are.
... isn't that the same as it ever was?
| 2:53 pm on Aug 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That's why I don't read the Webmaster Help Center.
My brain would get contorted with "analysis paralysis"