Optimizing for Google: Are Reciprocal Links Out?

What has the Update Done to Linking Between Sites

[briggidere]

Now with the new update in progress what do people thinnk has happened to linking techniques?

Will reciprocal links be vaulued at all anymore?
Have directory links been given less value?
Has there been a stronger "themed/on topic" filter put in with even more weight given to these links?

I know we are going to have to wait to see what happens next but it would be worth getting others ideas on what going on.

briggidere

[ownerrim]

"The best links are not paid, or exchanged after out-of-the-blue emails–the best links are earned and given by choice."

I read this on his blog. But, as I see it, there's a huge problem with this. Does this mean that if you choose to advertise on a site the link to you should be devalued or potentially count against you. What about directories? These are, by and large, paid links. Should all the directories be driven out of business. Free directories? Yes they exist, but I've seen very few that exercise any real editorial review as to who is admitted.

And what about...dmoz. As far as I see it, nobody wants to get into dmoz for all the wonderful traffic they'll get as a result. No. They want into dmoz because they'll pick up gazillions of links from all the dmoz clones. Who exercised editorial discretion on these dmoz clones. Only dmoz. So, why then, should that one editorial decision be allowed to count hundreds and hundreds of times in ODP clones.

And, then, if google never decides to, in some way, count a crapload of dmoz clone backlinks against you, how can they count backlinks from paid directories against you---because there's not much of a difference in some cases between a low quality directory and a dmoz clone. And, often, paid directories are of higher quality than dmoz clones...But, then, those are "paid" links which Matt seems to think should be frowned upon.

Good grief. It's just ridiculous.

[trimmer80]

Does this mean that if you choose to advertise on a site the link to you should be devalued or potentially count against you

I really doubt that a link will ever count against you. It opens the ability for competitors to hurt you.

I do think google would have a different ranks for different link types.

The criteria for links is likely.
Topic
position (is the link in a menu, on page, footer etc)
surrounding html (is the link in a group of links or within a content rich article)
cross linked or one way.

[caveman]

Ummm, Matt defined the 'best' kind of link. He did not define what was minimally acceptable. You could drive a truck through the gap.

[ownerrim]

"I really doubt that a link will ever count against you. It opens the ability for competitors to hurt you."

I hope so, because with all the adsense cookie-cutter spam pages out there, you have absolutely no control over how many low quality links you get, or how fast either.

[Johan007]

exchanged or bought links provide no sign of quality, just the webmasters desire to do well in serps.

Exchanged links do! I like most webmasters (unlike you) would not swap links with sites with poor-quality non-relevant links.

[ShunT]

exchanged or bought links provide no sign of quality, just the webmasters desire to do well in serps

I agree with Johan, there is NOTHING true with the above quote.

[annej]

8/19/05 Matt Cutts wrote "When I recap SES from my viewpoint, I’ll give some examples of great ways to earn links." I haven't found where he did this. Can anyone give me the date? It sounds really helpful.