Linking Techniques

Query about Googles' take on linking strategies

[sweetberry]

Hi,

Firstly I must apologise if the follwing query has been dealt with in the past however I couldn't a thread on this specific point. Here goes:

It seems to me that it would be very easy for Google to spot - and discount - reciprocal links that are created with the specific purpose of building up links to impress Google. Therefore my question is:- Is there any point in contacting other webmasters for the purpose of exchanging links?

[elklabone]

In my opinion, reciprocal links aren't as powerful as they used to be. They still work, but it just takes more of them than before.. again, that's just my opinion. A lot of people on WebmasterWorld will disagree with me.

However, they're still a valuable tool in your arsenal.

Directory links are great one-way links, so find every directory that relates to your topic and submit your site. Try to make sure you're in a category with PR and that the directory is passing PR to other sites (watch out for dynamic URL's). Yahoo and DMOZ are always good, if you can afford to get in (and afford to wait for the DMOZ editors).

Reciprocal liks should be pursued when they truly make sense for both sites.

Try to build good content so that webmasters will actually want to link to you. Forums are an example of a way to do this.

Read Brett's article on how to rank well in Google. Then read it again.

[sweetberry]

Thanks for that. Another question: What about triangular linking? My site "A" links to another webmasters site "B" and his site links to my site "C". It's a form of reciprocal linking but not a direct exchange. Does anyone have any practical experience of this type of linking strategy?

[eZeB]

sweetberry -- G will spot triangular linking a mile away -- it sounds good but G is on to it.

[sweetberry]

Thanks for the reply. Would it really be that easy to detect?

[quotations]

Yes, it is quite easy.

The "similar pages" link in the Google SERPS is one example of how they would determine that.

[sweetberry]

OK that then brings me back to my original question i.e. Is there any point in pursuing straight-forward reciprocal links because if G can detect triangular links then detecting reciprocal links would be very easy for G?

[neuron]

if links were radioactive then reciprocal linking sites would glow in the dark. So would 3-way or "triangular" linking scenarios. Of course they would be detectable.

Just because a site is linking to other sites and receiving links from some of those sites does not mean it will be penalized. If you get 1000 good sites to link to you, then you've done something, no matter how you got them. If after an extensive linking campaign you have 1000 crappy sites pointing at you (a crappy site is one that doesn't have any links pointing at it) then you won't get much effect.

getting 1000 links from 3 different domains is not going to do you a lot more good than getting 3 single links from 3 different domains.

the reason reciprocal links are not so valuable as one-way links is that to get 1000 incoming links in a recriprocal campaign you may have to link to 8000 or more other sites, whereas with 1-ways, well, they're 1-way, no outgoing links. So, of course 1000 incoming 1-way links are more powerful than 1000 incoming reciprocated links, but every 1-way link is about ten times as hard to get as a every reciprocal.

Reciprocals are still the easiest way to get other quality sites to link to you, and while a 1-way might beat a recip pound for pound, when you are looking at ROI, you can't beat a healthy reciprocal link campaign.

[sweetberry]

Thank you Neuron for that comprehensive reply. Based upon what you say I guess that I just have to stick with the reciprocal linking so.

Happy Holidays.