Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
a) Go to Google and search on [statename Realtor]
b) Go to your local real estate agent's website (check your fridge for a magnet) and look in their reciprocal link directory.
Really, give it a try. Here's what I see:
Google: a bunch of big national real estate websites, some directories of Realtors, affiliate sites, MFA sites, scraper sites, and an occasional local Realtor site. Some decent links but also a ton of crap.
On my local real estate agent's website: there is a directory of states and in each state there are links to bunch of links to Realtor's websites. Each Realtor has a description of their location and specialty. That's exactly what I wanted, and it looks like a human has made sure these websites are for real. Nice.
Repeat this this exercise with dentists, bed and breakfasts, chiropractors, restaurants, auto repair, etc. I see similar results.
So, I ask Matt (and Google): how are reciprocal links not relevant? For many search terms they seem far more relevant than Google's own search results.
Finally I offer a little tip for those at Google and the other search engines: finding and using these **human edited** reciprocal link directories as part of the ranking algorithm for search terms like these will actually help improve the relevance of your search results. May the most relevant search engine win.
[edited by: sugarrae at 3:04 pm (utc) on June 24, 2006]
[edit reason] keep it civil please [/edit]
What’s appropriate and what’s excessive are limits which only you, as the owner or manager of any given site can tell. You know which links are there for good reason and which benefit your readers ... and you know which are there purely as search engine fodder! But, if you honestly claim not to know the difference, shame on you!
I don't believe most webmasters know what is proper in reciprocal linking anymore. Shame on Google for attempting to manage this issue with fear rather than providing guidelines.
How about a couple concrete examples for those who claim to know reciprocal linking right from wrong:
1. Our Realtor: Sets up a directory of all 50 US states and exchanges links with 20 Realtors in each state. He also has a directory for his local city with pages for mortgage, title insurance, home inspectors and handymen, each with 20 reciprocal listings. He has personally reviewed every website he links to and he's comfortable they are a legitimate business. 1080 total reciprocal links.
2. Our Dentist: Has a reciprocal directory of dentists in all 50 states each with 10 Dentist in it. Each dentist listed he went to school with or met at a conference. He also has a list with links to the websites of 300 dentists belonging to the "Left Handed Dentists Assn" he's a member of, and every other "Left Handed Dentist" also has this list of links posted on their website. 800 total reciprocal links.
3 A Bed and Breakfast: Has a reciprocal directory of other B&B's for all 50 states and sub pages for half a dozen cities or so in each state. A total of 2000 B&B reciprocal links in her B&B directory. She also has 300 local reciprocal links with other local business, attractions and restaurants within a 100 mile radius of her B&B. She has personally reviewed every website she links to and she is comfortable the are a legitimate business. 2300 total reciprocal links.
Are these examples excessive? Within Google's current written guidelines? Should the site be rewarded or penalized by the search engines?
My take: each of these reciprocal directories serves a legitimate marketing purpose for the business in an attempt to draw traffic from the other site, is similar to what is done offline in referring business, and adds significant value to the web. If their reciprocal directory also helps them with search engine results, great.
My concern: I'm afraid Matt Cutts has scared webmasters away from building legitimate reciprocal link directories like these purely for the benefit of Google. I think that is wrong, if not outright evil.
Are these examples excessive? Within Google's current written guidelines? Should the site be rewarded or penalized by the search engines?
You've forgotten the third--and more likely--option: The search engine can simply give less weight to recipricol links or ignore recipricol links altogether once a certain threshold has been reached. (Which isn't to say that the presence of a massive link-exchange directory might not be treated as a negative "signal of quality," especially in combination with other questionable SEO techniques.)
I'm afraid Matt Cutts has scared webmasters away from building legitimate reciprocal link directories like these
There’s nothing wrong with building directories like the ones you described and I don’t think Google, or Matt Cutts has ever told anyone not to do that. What is becoming clear is mass reciprocal linking solely to boost PR, and ranking, is an exercise Google would ultimately like to make fruitless. So even if they are successful in this effort what harm is this to you? Directories as the one you described are meant to produce traffic via the links themselves; so link away.
If you feel that your directory is not going to rank as well as it should because Google is devaluing mass reciprocal linking well that’s the way it goes; it’s their engine and they make the rules. If you’re fearful your site will get banned because of reciprocal linking done as you described in a “legitimate” fashion you can put your fears to rest.
As far as Google not providing enough detail relative to how much reciprocal linking you can do, well your right. But given that links are the biggest determining factor in how you rank their position is understandable. It seems like you’re asking how much is ok? If they told us that, all but the most angelic would link to that amount and just a wee bit more.
If you have a good idea for a directory that people would find useful then build it. If its successful I think your going to find it will rank well, reciprocal links or not.
Some clown with a mass of off topic reciprocal links on every page of his site will undoubtedly fall pray to the trust rank filters.
Are these examples excessive? Within Google's current written guidelines? Should the site be rewarded or penalized by the search engines?
You are talking about directories here and not the average web site. There are thousands upon thousands of "so called" directories which are simply link farms.
If any given directory actually has any content (including one way, outgoing links) and contains more than just reciprocal links pages with a few Google ads ... the possibility of those reciprocal links hurting them is negligable.
How about a couple concrete examples for those who claim to know reciprocal linking right from wrong:
The problem with your example is that it isn't concrete at all. You haven't told us what the entire site contains. Are all of the pages of the site simply links pages ... or does it come with meat and potatoes? Are there any one way, outgoing links? Any substance to the sites at all?
My concern: I'm afraid Matt Cutts has scared webmasters away from building legitimate reciprocal link directories like these purely for the benefit of Google. I think that is wrong, if not outright evil.
Again ... any webmaster who doesn't know the difference between legitimate reciprocal links and search engine fodder should not be a webmaster. Why should you be afraid? If these directories actually serve a legitimate purpose and people enjoy using them ... you have nothing to be afraid of. However, if all your realtor, dentist or local bed and breakfast have done is build a link farm (and one would hope webmasters know the difference) ... then yeah, they should be afraid because they are going to have to find a more legitimate way to make a living in the near future!
There’s nothing wrong with building directories like the ones you described and I don’t think Google, or Matt Cutts has ever told anyone not to do that. What is becoming clear is mass reciprocal linking solely to boost PR, and ranking, is an exercise Google would ultimately like to make fruitless. So even if they are successful in this effort what harm is this to you?
Matt Cutts has repetitively discouraged "excessive reciprocal linking." I take his comments as meaning webmasters should not build directories like those I described and I believe others have taken it the same way. It's easy to see how the average Realtor, Dentist or B&B with thousands of reciprocal links suddenly believes they are doing something wrong after reading Matt's comments.
My problem with this is that Matt as Google's Representative is using fear to change linking behavior on the web. Your average Mom & Pop webmaster lives in fear of a Google "penalty." I understand the difference between reciprocal links be devalued and a site being penalized, but I don't believe the average webmaster does. As a result of Matt's comments I believe webmasters are afraid of using this legitimate directory building practice that adds significant value to the web and existed prior to Google.
-jonathan nelson
The problem with your example is that it isn't concrete at all. You haven't told us what the entire site contains. Are all of the pages of the site simply links pages ... or does it come with meat and potatoes? Are there any one way, outgoing links? Any substance to the sites at all?
OK, we've all seen a Realtor, Dentist and B&B site, but I'll spell it out just to be perfectly clear with my example.
Each site has 25 pages of unique, interesting content about their business. In the main navigation there is a link to "Resources." This is where their directory of other websites lives. Throughout the site there are relevant outgoing one way links to other sites that benefit the user.
Again ... any webmaster who doesn't know the difference between legitimate reciprocal links and search engine fodder should not be a webmaster. Why should you be afraid?
These webmasters are Realtors, Dentists and B&B owners first and foremost. They need to run a website to stay alive in today's world. Unfortunately because of Matt's statements they live in fear of a google penalty because of their thousands of reciprocal links and the lack of guidelines from Google.
"2. Google rewards for 'healthy' traffic patterns"WOW... thats very interesting!
Would you be kind to elaborate more on that?
Your average Mom & Pop webmaster lives in fear of a Google "penalty."
Your average mom & pop hasn't a clue what a Google penalty is!
As a result of Matt's comments I believe webmasters are afraid of using this legitimate directory building practice that adds significant value to the web and existed prior to Google.
There are many different types of "directories". For instance, DMOZ is a directory. Yahoo, Google and MSN all have "directories". What you call a "legitimate directory" and what I call legitimate is likely very different.
For instance, I have a 216 page web site. 70 of those pages are product pages. The balance are informational pages. All pages contain 100% unique content. I have probably 2 dozen reciprocal links ... most of which I didn't know were reciprocal when I added them to the site. I have probably 200 to 300 outgoing, one way links throughout the site. I have no "links pages" perse. The links are included on the relevant pages of information which discuss particular regions.
My site is not a directory, but it could be considered one simply by the volume of information and the fact that I give links to anyone and everyone who has a tourism related web site in my area.
Is what you are describing a legitimate directory? I honestly couldn't say without seeing it for myself. But it does sound at least a little suspicious to me.
<Off Topic>
By the way Rekitty, I take great umbrage at the fact that you stated that Matt Cutts' comments were "outright evil"! Matt has helped hundreds of webmasters at WebmasterWorld over the years ... myself included. How you interpret his comments is your business, but to make such a denegrating statement in a public forum is tasteless and way off base! (Just wanted to get that off my chest).
By the way Rekitty, I take great umbrage at the fact that you stated that Matt Cutts' comments were "outright evil"! Matt has helped hundreds of webmasters at WebmasterWorld over the years ... myself included. How you interpret his comments is your business, but to make such a denegrating statement in a public forum is tasteless and way off base! (Just wanted to get that off my chest).
Liane, to be clear I was referring to Matt scaring webmasters, not to his comments. I also said "I think that is wrong, if not outright evil" - You have only partially quoted me and taken it out of context.
That said, I agree evil is a bit strong. I'm sorry I said it and I take it back.
Here's my exact quote:
My concern: I'm afraid Matt Cutts has scared webmasters away from building legitimate reciprocal link directories like these purely for the benefit of Google. I think that is wrong, if not outright evil.
I stand by my opinion that Matt as Google's Representative is using fear to influence webmaster behavior without providing clear guidelines. I believe this behavior is very wrong.
Matt seems like a great guy and I believe he'll recognise this behavior is wrong and he will correct it by providing guidelines to webmasters so they don't have to live in fear.
Your average mom & pop hasn't a clue what a Google penalty is!
Plus, your average mom & pop Webmaster probably isn't designing sites for search engines instead of for users.
From what I read, you are a one trick pony, and you are upset that google has gotten bored with watching that same trick over and over again.
You need to build a robust site that will please the SEs no matter how they change their algo, because they will change their algo.
You have not mentioned how many sites link to yor sites without requiring any sort of reciprocal link. That is very important. You have not mentioned how many non-reciprocal links out to other sites are on your sites. You have not mentioned how many links are spread out on different pages, rather than in link directories.
Oh, and how about telling us how many reciprocal links are with sites that get the majority of their links from some source other than a link exchange program? In other words, with sites where tthey can trust the links a little more.
You see, you read "reciprocal links = bad" where the more successful people read it as "trusted links (both inbound and outbound) = good".
The problem is not that your links are reciprocal, the problem is that you, and the sites that you exchange links with have given google little reason to trust your links, so they do not think they are of much value.
Google understands that there are very valid reasons for reciprocal links. If you look at websites of the members of a large family, you will find that most of them link to each other. It is natural. But what you are describing is pretty obviously not natural, so they just don't trust those links as much.
Now here is what you need to think hard about, because you don't seem to have figured it out yet: You are not necessarily being penalized for all those untrusted links, they just don't count for much.
So, if those links don't count for much, are your websites able to stand on their own without the link exchange?
That is the key.
Liane, to be clear I was referring to Matt scaring webmasters, not to his comments.
You want to know a little secret? You are not talking about the official Google blog. You are talking about what Matt is writing in his personal blog.
Yeah, he is talking about google related stuff, but it is still his personal blog and his personal opinion. His blog is pretty tame compared to most of the ones that I read.
Your average mom & pop hasn't a clue what a Google penalty is!
Actually, they do. Many small businesses get a significant amount of their business from the web and live in constant fear of a Google update or a penalty affecting traffic to their site. The problem is they know that such things happen but they really don't know why. It would really help the mom & pop business if Google would provide more clear guidelines.
I don't seem to have ever been hurt by my reciprocal links pages but I also link out freely from just about every page. I link to further resources on whatever topic I've written about. I also have a directory that isn't reciprocal at all. It's several pages of links to informative sites or pages on each topic within my overall topic.
Just maybe linking out to related sites (some probably considered authority sites) may help.
I can see the same thing happening on a travel site. There would be many links to places and services that wouldn't particularly link back and you probably wouldn't even ask them to.
I would think even a small business site could do this. Not by linking to competitors but by linking to informational pages on other sites related to the business.
If you sell baby furniture link to outstanding sites on child safety or parenting.
Does this make any sense?
Your average Mom & Pop know they need links but don't have many options available to acquire them. Reciprocal linking has been one of their primary tools, but now it is in question for fear of doing it excessively after Matt's comments. Take a look at your local Realtor or B&B website and the majority have the sort of reciprocal link directory I've described.
The other link building trick Mom & Pop have is directories. It's likely they have submitted their site to both general and industry specific directories. To further clarify the examples we should assume they have one-way links from say 20 directories.
Are reciprocal links and directories enough for Mom & Pop to make it? What other options do they have available to them?
These webmasters should take a deep breath then read Google's webmaster guidelines - then read them again and again and again until it sinks in - without trying to read between the lines.
Matt Cutts has given his opinions on what businesses can do to make better websites. If they read his blog at all, they should have spotted these suggestions. I suspect forums like this one scare mom & pop webmasters more than Matt does.
If mom & pop have information worth linking to, then they will get links. If they don't, why should they get ranked well?
They should get ranked for those terms but it's become increasingly difficult for Mom & Pop to rank because the affiliate, MFA and scraper sites are taking more and more of the top spots. Try it in your town to see what I mean. This is a real issue for small businesses.
Mom & Pop have engaged in legitimate link building activity as I've described: painstakingly built a reciprocal link directory and submitted their site to relevant directories. Now Matt Cutts says sites are not getting crawled because of "excessive reciprocal links" and Mom and Pop are freaked out.
I ask again, what are "excessive reciprocal links" and what other legitimate techniques (not tricks) do Mom and Pop have available to build links to help them rank?
As it just so happens, my realtor ranks fairly well, quite possibly because I freely gave her a link because she is just that good.
Is that a simple enough concept for you? If they are good, they will get natural links.
I have also linked to a cabin that I stayed at down on the Oregon coast, and they are not doing all that bad either.
Is that a simple enough concept for you? If they are good, they will get natural links.
Yeah right, and I believe in Santa Clause. The MFA, affiliate and scraper sites got a bunch of natural links because they are such great sites. That's why they are beating Mom & Pop, sure.
Mom & Pops do have options though. I'm guessing a rather large % these days of B&B guests have access to a website or have one of their own. Request links from customers. Offer a discount or upgrade on their next stay. Always avoid the 'formulas' because those will be the next target.
Also consider that mom & pops are not as naive as many think. You woildn't beleive the tricks ordained ministers try in our little neck of the woods.
[edited by: Powdork at 8:46 pm (utc) on June 25, 2006]
A mom and pop can't just sit there and do nothing if they want to get found.
The question is whether Google is really going to stop spidering them just because of a few link exchanges and links from directories to a small business site. Do we have evidence this is happening?
I would hope that Google is looking at link exchanges done on a larger scale. Also are they looking at relatedness? These small businesses aren't sending out mass automated requests. They are just writing to sites that have information related to their topic/product.
1.) *ealtor.com (national site)
2.) local web site (one person web site)
3.) local real estate agent (she lives four blocks from me.)
4.) local real estate agent (one person site)
5.) *omegain.com (national site)
6.) *ealestate.com (national site)
7.) local real estate agent (one person site)
8.) *bout.com (national site)
9.) local real estate agent (one person site)
10.) local real estate agent (one person site)
100% of the results are on target and 60% are one person (mom & pop) sites.
(my town population=2.2 million)
These webmasters are Realtors, Dentists and B&B owners first and foremost. They need to run a website to stay alive in today's world. Unfortunately because of Matt's statements they live in fear of a google penalty because of their thousands of reciprocal links and the lack of guidelines from Google.
What dentist sits down at his computer and puts up a site for himself with a reciprocal link directory, sends out emails to suitable sites he finds, and gets thousands of reciprocal links? Highly unlikely.
Dentists don't usually spend their days or weekends surfing around looking for link farms to promote their sites, they've got better things to do, which is why they pay "professionals" to do sites for them. They only know what they're told.
Google is very plain in what they've said not to do, and it isn't hard to figure out that a link directory with thousands of reciprocal links isn't exactly there for the benefit of his visitors and prospective patients. The owner of a site has good reason to be afraid; they just don't know why they should be, apparently nobody's told them.
Who actually did those Mom 'n Pop sites? IMHO it isn't Google who's responsible for not giving any link juice to manipulations like that when they've clearly said to stay away from schemes, but rather it's the responsibility of whichever web designer either got the client involved with the linking scheme or failed to stay informed and give his/her client some sound advice on promoting the site.
If they are building links only to help them rank, they are missing the boat on ranking. BigDave gave good advice.
At any rate, here are some ideas to get links for *mytown*
Join the local Chamber of Commerce and get a link from that site. Local Chamber of Commerce sites are where I start when looking for businesses, planning a vacation, etc.
Request links from other business sites in *mytown*
Include more content about *mytown*
Write articles about *mytown*
Write press releases about *mytown*
Start a blog about *mytown*
but rather it's the responsibility of whichever web designer either got the client involved with the linking scheme or failed to stay informed and give his/her client some sound advice on promoting the site.
Exactly. Small businesses owners would be unlikely to think of such schemes on thier own. But they would be inclined to look for help and there are ads every where put out by people who would be glad to 'help' for $$$$. Most folks would not know how to evaluate these services.
So the problem is education and I don't know how you would get to potential business people to educate them.
1. Chamber of commerce site
2. Wedding directory (mine)
3. Yellow Pages
4. citysearch
5. newspaper
6. newspaper (indented)
7. worldweb
8. partypop
9. snowsearch
10. superpages
I don't believe most webmasters know what is proper in reciprocal linking anymore. Shame on Google for attempting to manage this issue with fear rather than providing guidelines.
No, it is in no way Google's responsibility and they've done right by trying to manage the abundance of swill caused by linking schemes and page stuffing tactics. And Google can't provide specific guidelines for specific sites without doing an examination of the sites, and they're not into the SEO consulting business yet.
1. Chamber of commerce site
2. Wedding directory (mine)
3. Yellow Pages
4. citysearch
5. newspaper
6. newspaper (indented)
7. worldweb
8. partypop
9. snowsearch
10. superpages
People have to do what they have to do to get rankings or even indexed, everyone does - it's the name of the game. But there's a limit to how far the envelope can be pushed without going over the edge. It's a matter of degree and percentages, due diligence and caution.
