Importance of Relevance

How important is it to exchange links with similar sites?

[Wigwam]

Hi out there,
I'm curious what people's views are on the importance of relevant links, inbound and out.

I have spent the past while focused primarily on my reciprocal link campaign. Though it is still in its infancy I have noticed obvious results.

I manage travel related sites, so I have naturally only been exchanging with other travel sites. What I have noticed however, is that a large number of webmasters refuse to exchange links with sites that are not directly related to their city, state or similar. How important do you think it is to exchange links only with sites with similar content and keywords? For my particular region there are not so many high PR sites, even including direct competition.

My apologese if this has been asked before. Newbie n' all that. Cheers.

[glengara]

*the importance of relevant links*

Both Hilltop/LocalRank indicate that links from sites deemed as "expert" to your topic will become the "sine qua non", and I believe a combination of the two is/will come into play.

[reddevil]

wigwam,
I too have the same problem with only linking to low PR sites. I suppose this is a challenge coz it means that I could be one of the first to get a PR4 or higher rating - so that is something to aim for. But how to do it eh - that's another topic!

[Tupur]

We recently managed a client with 15 travel sites. And IMO with travel-related sites the scope of linking is really endless. You just have to think outside the box and get creative. I am sharing some of the methods we implemented.

We added interesting content, useful information for tourists and attractive pix with content (travelogue style). The webmasters were glad to link back to the sites as those pages helped their visitors too.

You can use your link page creatively. Instead of dumping the links together you can add enjoyable content and insert your partners’ links appropriately. I am sure you will get some high PR sites linking to you if you have authentic content. And while choosing your link partners concentrate on the site content instead of their PR. A PR3 today can be a PR5 tomorrow. And the grape-vine goes: The toolbar has bugs.

[zgb999]

Interesting question.

IMHO a link from a page about city X is relevant even if it is not travel related but your site is about travel issues in city x. What Google might do is giving the city related part of the keyphrase a boost for this link only.

A link from a page about hotels in city Z is relevant even though your page is about a hotel in city X (but it is still about a hotel...). What Google might do is giving the keyword hotel of the keyphrase a boost for this link only.

So you could have
- links from other travel related sites
- links from other city/state related sites
- links from sites about your city and travel

all of them should be relevant. Of course the closer the site is to your site the more you get out of it (both from search engines and from visitors using that link).

Just ask yourself whether a link makes sense for a visitor of the site you want to exchange links with. If it does make sense then tell them why it makes sense.

[percentages]

Inktomi doesn't give a hoot.

But, this is an interesting topic for Google.

I have a competitor that purchases links from numerous high profile, but non-related, sites. Prior to Florida they were reaping the rewards. But now those links seem to be totally discounted. Their PR still shows, but their SERPs are totally down the tubes.

How exactly Google is detecting a difference between related sites, authoritarian sites and sponsored links is a very interesting question? But, it appears on the surface that somehow Google knows the difference.

[glengara]

I'd say it's the non-related aspect that discounts those links, IMO links will mostly be filtered through topicality, in that pages will be going through three, increasingly narrow, topical/relevance tests.

[Wigwam]

Good points all round..
I have to agree with zgb999, that anything within the same city, or the same field is relevant. It's a question of putting things in a context that both users and Google will find equally relevant.

Nonetheless, I have received plenty of responses to link requests that go something like:
"I don't think that car hire in CITY-X is relevant to Hotels in CITY-Y. We only exchange links with CITY-Y sites".
Perhaps this is at 2 removes. Wrong city, wrong business. But to me it's all travel.

I suppose everyone has their own exchange policy, and there is a lot to be said for quality over quantity. If you only link to sites that have the same keywords and theme as your site, and if you only receive links from similarly inclined sites, I would imagine there would be benefits.

[glengara]

IMO partially relevant or even off-topic linking will be fine as long as we don't expect it to count for promotional purposes.

[zgb999]

glengara said: "pages will be going through three, increasingly narrow, topical/relevance tests"

Anybody knows more about those tests?

[graywolf]

So If you ran a business restoring old muscle cars, which link do you think would be more valuable?

A - PR7 fan website about 50's cars

B - PR3 website that helps divorced rich men going thru midlife crisis's spend their disposable income

Do you think any software is capable of making an accurate decision on how relevant a link is?

[Wigwam]

I do think that Google is partially capable of making the distinction. But no, it won't make human distinction of relevance (as per your example).

In your example (car restoration business), Google will look at my site's content and find constant reference to "Car restoration" or "vintage" (or whatever, I'm not a car person). When looking at my link partners, I believe it will compare their content with mine, and if we have very similar keywords and anchor text then it will assume we're in the same field and I will gain more from the exchange.

[glengara]

*Do you think any software is capable of making an accurate decision on how relevant a link is?*

We should maybe start thinking "topical" rather than "relevant".