Forum Moderators: open
But them I bet you dont base you whole online strategy around recip links ciml :).
There are a great number of sites that only employ this types of recip link popularity and as such they might be putting their eggs in one basket and lining themselves up for a good shoe'ing at somepoint in the future.
<edit>
oooohhh my spelling
</edit>
[edited by: ukgimp at 3:47 pm (utc) on Mar. 3, 2004]
I think natural reciprocal links happen initially as part of a community setting. After that they occur more by chance, or infrequently, than as result of a direct linking policy.
Indiscriminate reciprocal linking over and above a certain level and/or percentage looks unnatural to me.
That does not mean that at the moment it should or could harm you penalty/ranking wise.
Or putting it differently, if I were working at Google, and links and anchortext still mean a lot in the algo, I would definitely neutralise any overdone reciprocal ranking benefits.
IMO algo-wise, "You scratch my back and I scratch yours" as predominant policy of one's linking strategy was not the intent of the original "backrub papers" ;)
I think a maximum number of reciprocals is based upon a personal preference. For me - No exact figure. One of the good strategies is to exchange links with good sites as many as possible until you become a "BRAND"! Also try to give good link pages to your link partners. When you become a brand, your link becomes more promiment and prevalent on other websites of your related field and a lot of people will start to link to you first and ask for link back. At that time you can become selective at your own wish. After 1 year cycle, you may be amazed on the number of free links you obtained without linking back. Tons of low and free PR links can play a major role in your ranking.