Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
Is this true, have I not been paying attention of late? They are now trying to promote a link ring instead.
Thanks for stearing me in the right direction
Secondly, the reality is that probably no one REALLY knows Googles "rules" on this stuff. Many people have opinions. Unless they can back those up with stats or a direct quote from Google, they are just that, opinions.
That said, I haven't seen a lot of folks here saying that recipricals cancel each other out on a general 1:1 basis.
That doesn't mean they all count equally. A hundred links from the same site may not be equal to a hundred links, one each from a hundred different sites.
I'd ignore that email and move on with your link program.
[added] opps, I see you've been here a while. I got the message number and posts number mixed up. I guess I need to pay more attention.[/added]
Having said that, it is possible that Google gives bonus points when a link is non-reciprocal.
It's funny how SEO's opinions differ. I went to a "web gurus" page the other day and he was explaining how I needed tens of thousands of links to get to the top!
The benefit of the exchange is the desired anchor text/link pop which is the cornerstone of the Yahoo and Google scoring systems.
PR is more of a side effect and I can't think of a more time consuming way to raise PR than link exchange.
Recips are certainly becoming less valuable for a variety of reasons. A biggie is Yahoo seems to have a distaste for link directories.
I wouldn't pay much mind to what the latest rumors are with the link swapping crowd. The funniest myths become facts somehow - my favorite is that links must be from topically similar sites - that usually makes me fall off my chair laughing :)
I'm not an expert on this, but it used to be the case that a page passes on a PR value of only 0.85% of its own PR, divided equally to all the pages it links to. So it follows that two reciprocal linkers not linking to anything else are wasting a total 0.30% PR between them (or something like that, I think).
It's true that PageRank will be damped - and that the damping factor is assumed to be 85% - but this holds true whether you chose to conserve your PageRank (linking internally) or passing it (linking externally).
If you study the formula you'll see that the average PageRank* in the Googleverse is exactly one** - this is a basic property of the formula, and you cannot "break" this rule and start increasing PageRank by any clever linking scheme.
* "Real PageRank" - as opposed to toolbar PR
** In the real Google-word the average PageRank will be lower because of pages without links and because of banned sites
If google links to every website in the world (or near enough)..
Google doesn't link to sites - it just presents them in the SERPs.
... and a fair few of them link back then technically these are reciprocal links. and if reciprocal links are penalised then how come google has such great PR?
Who said Google penalises reciprocal links?
Like i say....just a thought
Keep 'em coming :)
I dont know if it was a coincidence, but it certainly says to me that while G is a big fan of links generally, unreciprocated links may be the key.
Anyway, thats all I do, I look at who has the number one pos on my chosen search term. I check out their source code, see if theres anything special, then do a link search and methodically get the same links + at least 5% more and I can virtually guarantee that the next indexing my site will push theirs off top spot.
oh and by the way. I don't believe for one moment that G penalises sites with recip links. It has always been my number one way of getting high ranks and still is. Just do a link search on whichever site is getting the top spot for your chosen search terms and you will soon realise that links, recip or otherwise don't have any negative impact and probably help out a lot.
Most recip links don't insist that they are on the first page on your site, and usually ask you where the link will be. So my question is, is it a workable solution to actually have another site, one that I don't care about the pr, on another host alltogether, which I could use to put my recip links on?
I just realised this is possibly what my main competitor is doing because they seem to bring up hundreds of links, from sites that I know demand reciprocation, but theres nowhere on their site set aside for the reciprocal link. Up until now I was assuming that the competitor was just not reciprocating, and the reciprocees (?) were being tardy in checking. But now I wonder.
This particular competitor is the bane of my existence, they have completely flooded my second favorite search term and I cant seem to find a way to knock them off. I have links from every site they do, and a lot more. The only other thing they have that I don't is a whole stack of single page sites on foreign language free web hosts that link to their main site.
I've been too afraid to mimic this assuming that G wouldn't like it. Plus, and this is even worse for me, I can't get anywhere near the top 10 on that search term because virtually every site listed in the top ten is really the same site, under a different name. They say things like "Blah blah blah Pty Ltd, also known as Blah Blah Blah Pty Ltd." and the end result on alse these pages is a link to their real page.
Why hasn't G picked up on this, theyve been on the top position now for more than a year.
Oh, and by the way, I agree now that unrecip links are better than recip links. I hope I can still be humble in my backflip.
How likely is that? Isn't it easier to assume that MOST of the time they simply don't look? Think of the huge extra load on their already overworked robots. In special cases (link farms etc.) I can see it. Otherwise, one might argue that they probably don't waste the processor cycles and bandwidth. - LH
For Google to see if a link is reciprocal or not, it has to spider BOTH sites. For each and every link on site A, it has to trudge thru every page of site B, C, D...
I think it istn't too hard for google. Why do you forget that the basics of google SERPS results rests on the link popularity of a site. Every time the bot passes through a sites it devoures all the new content changes and links on the site. It's not hard for it to see how many links are coming from sites outside and if site x is linking to site y is site y linking back or not.
Well anyways the purpose of this post was to identify if the non-reciprocating link matter more than reciprocating links. And we see that answer is YES.
A site with non reciprocating links is identified more popular or say more important by google than a site with reciprocating links.
There is anohter issue which i think should be discussed here.
Quality of links: How much does google consider this.
For example, I followed a link from one of my competitors a few months ago which ended up on, of all places, an astronomy site (not astrology) with links to all the official astonomy sites around the world. Since they had a link there, and it came up as the very first on a "link:" search, I figured I would see what happened if I tried. It turned out to be effectively a free for all, and my link appeared automaticaly and the next day was indexed on G.
That one link alone, it was a new site, pushed my site into 14th position on G. I took my link off, given it was only an experiment, but G still shows that link, even though my actual link isnt there.
Very strange. But for some reason G gave a lot of weight to this one link, and now can't seem to forget about it. At the same time, I've had links on hundreds of other automatic free for all's and you wouldnt know they existed.