Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I've exhausted all possible directories and other sites that can put a link to my site (and I'm also thinking about other sites I'm making now and in the future).
So when it comes to getting more sites linking to you, it seems that the last option is to submit to directories that will link to you, but only if you link to them, usually by placing their logo on your site with a hyperlink.
I don't like this for two reasons:
1. People may become distracted and leave your site for one of the links, which could be a directory with your competitors.
2. It doesn't look professional to have links to a bunch of directories. Some of them don't even want it on a "links" page, they want it on a "regular" page.
3. I hear Google doesn't like "reciprocal" links, they prefer "one way" links - a link to your site, but no link back to the other site.
But, I've got a few websites that are desparate to do well on Google, and I'm confused. Should I give in and put reciprocal links, or hold out for something better. If yes, what?
I'd be happy enough with this:
When used in moderation and with relevance, a reciprocal link can be as valuable as a one-way.
When used excessively in an obvious bid to increase Pagerank or rankings, they are a potential links scheme.
We have here people stating flat out that one-way links are many times better than reciprocal links, discrediting them for being a scheme, for having some nebulous but inparticular association with bad neighborhoods, and whatever else gives reciprocal links their bad name, aside from their commonly poor implementation in practice, while ignoring the fact that one-way links can also be poorly implemented and when done so they can also be just as useless.
Some examples of one-way links are from blog spamming, referral log spamming, guestbook spamming, and paid sitewides (ROS). Can we just ignore these atrocities of the one-way linkers while condemning recips for being spammy?
Properly implemented, reciprocal links can take a site to the top of the SERPs. If you can't ride a horse and keep falling off does that mean the horse is bad? Shall we put it down for you? What about the next horse you ride and can't stay on? Shall we put it down also? If a person can't ride a horse they should probably refrain from making comments on the quality of the ride, or the usefullness of the horse.
My point is that here in this thread and in others I've seen more and more lately one-way links are made out to be the holy grail, and they aren't. On-target (laser-targeted) content links is what works, and those can be had with recips just like they can be with one-way links. The implication is that all one-way links are good and all reciprocal links are bad and this is simply too far from the truth to even resemble it, yet here it is being spouted as god's own word.
Quality links work. Quality links endure. Quality links help you rank. Quality links can be had either via one-way links or reciprocals.
I could go along with that, but bring quantity into the equation, and all bets are off ;-)
It's not hard at all in my opinion, if run a number of sites which i'm sure we all do, you simply arrange a non direct a>b>c swap of links.
A & C being my sites, B being the site i'm swapping with, simple and effective.
One way links from a recip exchange, no problem.
Any idea about this?
I consider the 3-way (aka., triangular, chevron) links M3Guy is referring to as "reciprocal links" for 2 reasons. The first is that you are trading links, reciprocating one link for another (yes, I am well aware of the argument that it is not the same site that is reciprocating and therefore not the original Reciprocal Links. The difference is that "Reciprocal Links", the proper noun, in Title Case, is the name of the framework for a set of actions or description of endeavor, and "reciprocating", in lower case is the individual action or incident from which that framework is constituted; but I digress). The second is that there are the same quantity limits on 3-way (what you call 1-way) links that there are on direct reciprocal links.
There's a reason for the saying "content is king" (and that reason has nothing to do with any of those that coined the term), it's because great content will get the internet to link to you. If you find it necessary to run a reciprocal link campaign you probably have just another run of the mill site. If you had a really great site people would link to you because of your content and you wouldn't be reading the Link Development Forum.
If you had an insurance site, or a site for, umm, battery repair, or say, for wedding dresses, even if it was the greatest thing since mashed potatoes, it would still be a slow plow up the SERPs. If you have a young site, not yet fully established and making more money than you can spend, then reciprocal links can probably get you into most ballparks so you are at least playing the game. Yet, they are limited. There are just so many sites out there that will link to your mashed pototoes photo set for the prestigious award of a link from your overcrowded link directory.
I've never seen a site with 10,000 backlinks from reciprocal links, not even 5000 from link exchanges. 3-way links are taken from the same set of sites that engage in reciprocal linking, though slightly reduced by the set of those who consider 3-way linking to be a deceptive practice that might be penalized by the search engines and/or that sites which engage in such deceptive practices might be branded as bad neighborhoods, and who, as a result, only engage in true Reciprocal Linking (which when done with discretion will likely never be depricated by the SEs).
If you want to play in the big league areas where the real money flows you are going to have to ramp up the linking with more than reciprocal linking will allow.
ebay, yahoo, google, amazon, expedia, travelocity are sites you are not going to compete with using reciprocal links, you can only compete with them via content.
Numbers, that's when things tend to go pear-shaped ;-)
Most people see recips as a necessary evil, so rather than say build content to incorporate them, they build links pages; and with that they lose all the quality factors that may make them as valuable as one-ways.
1. I think 1-way link is a vote in favor of my site, a sign of
consideration. The voter shows his consideration for content,
design, idea or anything else. By consequence 1-way links
are the most important way to see if a site is good or not.
2. I take reciprocal (2-ways) like greetings. They might be a sign of
courtesy not appreciation. They worth less. When you exchange
link with a non related site, I think they worth almost nothing,
because is just a sign of webmasters agreement.
3. I think that triangle (3-ways) links are dangerous and illegal someway
Why are they illegal? Because triangle links are the result of
an agreement not a 'natural' appreciation. You want to hide
this agreement behind a triangle way. When you want to hide
something that means it's illegal.
Why could they be dangerous? Because Google and other SE
could detect triangle links and penalize the involved sites. May
be they don't do that now, but they could do in the future. In any
case, I wont risk my site using 3-links, especially if this site is a
long time project.
:)
