Non reciprocals links are better

Is that a fact or a myth?

[silverbytes]

It's easy to suppouse that SE will consider a non reciprocal incoming link as more valuable than a reprocal link exchange.

If they link to you but you don't link to them, I guess it seems like you are so popular that doesn't matter if you want link back to the other site.
Thus that should be considered better to the SE.

But is there something serious about it? Any ideas about? Should we concentrate on getting links or exchange links...
(please avoid the "get related quality sites links , etc)

What your experience is?

[ogletree]

Get any link you can. Don't link back if the site looks like a link farm. One way links are best and they are best if they are on topic and in the middle of a paragraph.

It also depends on what you consider best. Any anchor text is good. You get 100 anchor text links with the same words in it you will rank well for those words. They can all be PR3's and it is still good. You need a lot more for if you are trying to get something like "web hosting" or "debt consolidation"

A lot of the argument about one way links has to do with the florida filter. The more incomeing links that are on topic the better a chance you have of getting past that.

[mfishy]

For Yahoo and msn, one way links are far better. Actually, they frown upoon sites with directories o links and if you cross a certain threshhold they will boot you.

[ogletree]

Good point. You have to be careful with recip links. I only do it with sites that don't do it too much.

[BroadProspect]

in one way or another a recipocal link may be a circular link between a group of sites so a -> b -> C -> A , this may still be considered recipocal, but that is the nature of the web (just like HIV infection :-<) you can not control what links the site you are linking to is doing , so I would go with any incoming link and be looking for external link to "not banned" sites and I do not care if it is recipocal or not
/BP

[grandpa]

and if you cross a certain threshhold they will boot you

What constitutes a certain threshold? I'm busy filling up a few directory pages because they need something on them, and then I work on reciprocal links once or twice month.

[elklabone]

We'd all like one-way links, however the reality is that you normally HAVE to give a link in order to receive a link.

Therefore, it's important to be ON-THEM and only swap links if it really makes sense.

-Mark

[neuron]

I have read so much about this and it seems it all begs the question: How does an SE know the link is a reciprocal link?

1)The SE's rely on efficient algorithms. They don't have all day to to digest this stuff and contemplate it before giving the results.

2)A reciprocal link to a specific page that has a reciprocal link back to that originating page may easily be followable, and detected as a recip link. Granted.

3)www.widgets.com is different from [widgets.com,...] and from [widgets.com,...] and from what else? If I have 10,000 pages on my site and I link to site X on page 9871 and site X links to page 2342, then HOW is any SE going to be able to figure out that I am tilting the balance with recip links?

The WHOLE entire issue with reciprocal links is DON'T LINK TO THE SAME PAGE ON ANOTHER DOMAIN THAT IS LINKING TO YOU! It's that simple.

[1milehgh80210]

Don't think SE's care about recip. links per-se.
Problem is, you have to keep checking to make sure the other end keeps up their end of the bargain, Also,
you may be linking to todays 'good neighborhood'- tomorrows 'bad neighborhood'...bad for you

[glengara]

*How does an SE know the link is a reciprocal link?*

Google is aware of a site's overall linkage, so if it decided to act on reciprocals, having them on different pages wouldn't be enough.

Some recent "similar pages" testing showed G mixing up the returns between two pages, a page on SEOs showed directories as similar pages, while a page on directories showed only SEOs.

The mix-up suggests G has noted all of a site's linkage, rather than simply a page by page one....

[bakedjake]

The mix-up suggests G has noted all of a site's linkage, rather than simply a page by page one....

Big news, if it's true.

Interesting...