DomainDrivers - 6:21 pm on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sugarrae,

>>>Most of the people I know of (personally or follow) who write and speak on the topic aren't saying recips are worthless - they're saying they aren't what they used to be and not to focus your entire marketing campaign on them, circa 2002.

I have seen absolutely no changes in the SERP effectiveness of reciprocation, when done properly. In fact, if anything, a lot of our clients have actually gained and solidified their positions since 2002. Many of these are clients that have not pursued any other means of earning links, besides reciprocation.

I understand that the prevailing "common wisdom" in SEO circles claims that "they aren't what they used to be". I just see virtually no evidence here to support that statement. Actually, what we see here contradicts it, in a big way, among not only our clients, but also among the larger realm of sites that we link with who are not our clients.

Sorry, Sugarrae, but that's how it has played out here, throughout every single Google algo update. I feel fortunate about that. Otherwise, I'd likely be in some other line of work.

Our agency/SEO clients see it as well. They continue to bring us fresh sites to work with, having seen what has been accomplished in the past. It's hard to explain that kind of second hand validation with anything but "hey, it still works".

Just because 50 people say something does not make it true. Most "scientists" once believed steadfastly that the world was flat, and they ridiculed anyone who claimed differently.

I have read most of what is said about linking by the "experts". Honestly, in most cases, their limited experience or their lack of broad perspective is glaringly obvious to me, but probably not to most of their readers.

It's hard to argue with someone on a podium at a big conference. But the podium doesn't make them right.

My experience here deals only with linking, all day, every day, and we work with hundreds of client sites, and observe even more. Those sites are very diverse in their SEO approach, both offline and online. It gives me a very different perspective, one that probably not many other people have.

>>>But what "type" of links are they? There is a big difference between quality links from well trafficked and well "regarded" sites and scrapers.

No doubt, there are scraper links in there. Almost every site gets some of those these days. There are also a lot of "quality" links from legitimate sites, as people find the site and link to it, for whatever reason they choose. The landscape varies. It could be a forum posting, a product reference, and article reference, etc. It's genuine, unsolicited linking. The kind that everyone talks about as "good quality one-way links from good quality sites". Toss out the scraper links, and you still have a lot of good meat on the bone.

In a lot of cases, reciprocation was the primary catalyst that made it all happen, and then it takes on a life of it's own.

>>>But, IME, the old method of throw up a site and exchange with 100 other sites as new and untrusted as yours is not going to take Google by "storm" these days.

I agree. 100 links works only in the non-competitive situations these days. Established, stable sites have a HUGE advantage. But, you have to start somewhere, and build toward some kind of parity, or else not play the SERPs game at all. It may take a multi-pronged approach these days, in competitive situations.

The bar gets raised every day. Competing in competitive situations takes longer and costs a whole lot more than it once did.

Instead of speculating about who says what, how about that I send you the list of anti-reciprocation references that I have collected, and you can review it and then conclude what is being said. They may or may not be the people that you follow, but they are all well-known in SEO circles, and they all make a point of steering people away from reciprocation.