Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I am redesigning the site so I went through all my links pages. I had to delete about 85% of the links because I could not find my link coming back.
I simply went through Yahoo and Google, typed many versions, but mainly my site and their site or key words for their site. Sure enough my link page with a link to that site was at the top of the search but many of the links back to my site were not their.
I figure if my link to them can be found no problem but the link back to me is not, then they get deleted.
Has anyone else experienced this same issue?
I think I am just going to submit articles and link only to a few select sites.
The other thing that disappointed me was that most of the sites that I could not find my link on had much better page ranks then me.
What a great system huhh?
Of course, if you verify that you are exchanging links with someone and they do not post your link, you should seriously consider removing theirs. Outbound-links will become helpful, so that decision will depend on the PR of those outbound-links.
A good rule to follow: Continue to build your site with great content. If you promote it well, sites will link to you without you asking.
If you wish to link to higher PR sites and they decline, move on. Just don't settle and start linking to dozens of low-ranked sites.
of course, i don't actually provide the link, but typically the webmaster does.
I think it is rude to promise a link and then purposfully not set it as Mister Charlie descibed his practice.
i think sending me unisolicited email asking me to link to some completely unrelated or equally craptastic site, is far ruder.
i never solicit people, promising them reciprocal links, and then don't deliver. i simply show the spammer the same courtesy he has shown me.
if this person focused his efforts on actually producing some worthwhile content instead of filling my inbox with even more spam, perhaps attracting links wouldn't be such a painful process.
Besides that, it is highly recommended by many top web professionals to link to high PR sites. This will become extremely important, if it isn't already. Just as a link from Microsoft is better than a link from Jill's low-level Crab Shack, outbound links from your site to high PR sites is better than links to low PR sites.
It is understandable if you choose not to link to any site, but if you acknowledge their request; tell them that you will add their link; watch as they add your link; but still refrain from adding their link, then your practices may be viewed as dishonorable.
Someone requesting a link exchange is simply trying to build a better IBL structure for their site.
That's not really categorized as, "spam".
Let's have a look at the typical reasons martinibuster doesn't like a link exchange request:
Link Relationships are Not a Game
Part of the link exchange game
If someone tells you that you should kiss them on the first date because, "It's part of the dating game," would you have concerns about this person because your relationship has been classified as part of a... game?
That approach to link building is why I never consider 100% of the link exchange emails I receive.
High PR, give me your PR! I want your high PR, give it to me!
Part of the link exchange game is to approach webmasters in your niche, hoping to build a strong link structure between two or more high PR sites.
Preoccupation with my PR makes me feel groped after reading some of these link exchange requests. Quit grabbing my PR! Put your hands away, dammit! ;)
There are some people who think the world is unfair because nobody wants to link to their PR Nowhere site, yet they too shun PR Nowhere sites in favor of high PR sites.
Put your money where your mouth is:
Forge relationships with sites that have quality content, regardless of PR. In fact, disable the PR-O-Meter when link hunting, your focus will realign itself to true signals of quality, and it will help your site better than relying on green pixels.
That link exchange will help both sites.
I can't delete an email fast enough anytime someone writes something like that in a link request. The only person you are helping is yourself, and it's to a piece of my so-called high PR.
...approach webmasters in your niche, hoping to build a strong link structure between two or more high PR sites.
Let's be honest, ok? The line about "helping myself by linking to you" is untrue. You are out to help yourself to my PR. You are not building relationships between websites. You are hunting PR, and it's not going to help me to link to every single person who asks me to link to their website.
When I mentioned the word, "game", it was used loosely, or simply as a name-tag. Of course it's not a game, in the sense: "Let's play InternetLinky and see who we can trick into exchanging links today!" The term "game" was used to describe the ongoing process that many webmasters go through to establish quality IBL's.
Give me your PR!
If PR could be stolen or taken away, many rogue site owners would've done it by now. We all know that great content and page hits are just some of the keys to a successful website. Either way, no one is going to, "steal" your PR. Of course, if you don't keep your site up-to-par and no one visits it, PR can drop without any outbound links to low-quality sites.
Put your money where your mouth is: Forge relationships with sites that have quality content, regardless of PR.
Yeah, but if everyone thinks like Martinibuster and Mister Charlie, this is a useless tactic. You could locate 10 great sites with loads of great content, but if they all delete your requests for exchanges, then where does that leave you?
The line about "helping myself by linking to you" is untrue. You are out to help yourself to my PR
I don't think most webmasters are in the business of strictly giving to others and not helping themselves. What would be the purpose in doing that? You might as well offer to design websites for others for free, in that case.
Unless Brett Tabke's notes are untrue, and the other dozens of web professional notes I've read are untrue, linking to other quality sites in your niche does help your PR.
Of course, these are just points being made. No one really cares if you or I accept, or delete link exchanges.
PR can drop without any outbound links to low-quality sites.
I don't link to low-quality sites. I always link to high quality sites. Regardless, the PR for my sites has not gone down even though I am actually pruning my outbound links. The traffic remains solid and stable.
Presto! Instant One-way inbound!
You might as well offer to design websites for others for free, in that case.
That's a great way to get inbound links. A better strategy is to find well linked charity sites, genuine charitable organizations, who need a webmaster for updates or to redesign their website for free, but negotiate a link back to whatever site it is you are promoting.
Unless Brett Tabke's notes are untrue, and the other dozens of web professional notes I've read are untrue, linking to other quality sites in your niche does help your PR...
That line has been badly misinterpreted. The context of Brett's point is outside the context of reciprocal linking. Brett is looking to the future when a hub score may count for something, and he's talking about linking out with a one-way link. His point has nothing to do with reciprocal linking. Zero.
One-way outbound linking to other quality sites probably helps in a small way, although it probably helps your site's credibility even more. But I think it's a misunderstanding of the concept that leads to it's application within the context of reciprocal linking.
Someone define quality please.
My perception of what Brett and others have said, was that outbound-links are good for PR, regardless of whether you have a matching IBL from the businesses you link to. If that business is one of "quality", the better you look.
Apparently, the reputation of a website is a bit higher if it conducts itself in such a way...(linking to high quality sites) and being a quality site in its own right.
But the idea of a "quality site", is relative. How search engines categorize what defines "quality", is beyond my scope of search engine knowledge. From a human perspective...(if humans reviewers actually sat for 30 minutes to review websites)...I would define quality as pertinent, meaningful content; well-written content; aesthetically pleasing website design; high traffic; constant traffic; and ease of use.
Of course this is just my opinion. I have no idea what the Search Engine Gods think "quality" is.
Something unique I do not see everyday in my niche, and provided in a non spammy (buy my product) way.
Authority sites provding great information on the topic im in.
Quality to me has nothing to do with rank. Subsequently, Google views a a site as quality before it ranks it.
i never solicit people, promising them reciprocal links, and then don't deliver. i simply show the spammer the same courtesy he has shown me.
If you run recip linking on your site and report that you will trade links with REVELEVANT sites then that statement would make no sense. Most webmasters nowadays will simply remove their link (any any future opportunities from quality sites they own)
This would leave you with nothing but lost credentials in your own niche. (at least in terms of this type of partnership)
