Forum Moderators: open
While the G guidelines probably referred to those semi-automated linking programmes (whose names escape me), those with advanced PaRanoia (such as I) became increasingly wary of any linking structure that might be seen as "artificial" at some future date.
Unfortunately, with one-way links getting harder to get these days, my solution is to keep the ratio of recips to one-ways low.
Exchanging links is a good thing and it helps you in google.
Of course getting someone to link you and not linking them back is best, but that's rarely possible.
One of the pitfalls of taking all your SEO advice from a free-form public forum...
;)
Here is what Google says about them:
------
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
--------------
It does not say don't link to anybody.
With our link campaign, I try to stay as close to our area as possible. In fact, we have generated many leads from people finding our site from a link from another site.
I don't link to spammers or bad neighborhoods even if they are relative.
Just stay away from the funny stuff and you should be fine.
After all, Google itself is nothing but a bunch of links, and what would Google be if it didn't link to anybody?
What Google does not want people doing is artificially inflating the actual value of their website in order to increase the value of their PR (thus the reason why Google is devaluing PR these days...way too much abuse going on)..
So you you are looking to use a link exchange service query the principle players, not the sales people, about their fundamental philosophy and make sure you don't find your self sucked into a FFA (Free For All) link structure or a bunch of unrelated high PR sites just to give you a boost...go for the long haul and keep it organic...
The principle conflict here is you have aggressive business models looking to be satisfied vs. the organic nature of how web sites naturally develop...thus the reason for Google's deliberate inclusion pace for new web sites into the index...(2 - 6 months)
When does this stop being a service and start being a link farm?
Alex
Are link exchanges SPAM? Ever try to get a badly designed, or questionable-content website some links? Webmasters are increasingly conscious of who they link to, and good sites have a much easier time. Also, I think most webmasters have a good feel for what many fly-by-night websites look like.
There are other similar link exchange "progams" that I'd like to see "discounted" as well.
Say you run a link site, where you review sites and list them by category (say, DMOZ) or you list them as a "best of the web". In order to be listed, you request that a reciprocal link be put on the site.When does this stop being a service and start being a link farm?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Google can't bust every site that has reciprocal links, because nearly every website has a few; Google busts sites who have too many. (Of course, the part that annoys SEO's is that Google's definition of "too many" is confidential.)
Logically, it's probably about proportions: Google has calculated/assigned/guessed the "normal" ratio of reciprocal to non-reciprocal, and is suspicious of sites that a deviating too far from that ratio.
Which is the problem with many third-rate "best of" sites, as well as link exchanges. They get so out of control, some sites are getting a huge proportion (even majority) of their inbound links from reciprocation. That's when they become link farms.
When does this stop being a service and start being a link farm?
When it is reciprocal? DMOZ is a one-way link resource, as is Yahoo. My guess is that any site that comes up as a potential link farm is reviewed by a human, which explains why those big link resources don't get penalised.
It also confirms that webrings within the same topic don't hurt your ranking.
Links back to a site just can't be the issue in and of itself. Otherwise CNN would be PR0.
Alex
