Google is penalizing sites that "link exchange"?

I heard that this is true, but it makes no sense!

[timware]

Well, the subject line says it all. Another webmaster told me that Google is now penalizing sites that do link exchanges, something I've set up for a number of clients, that is, a page of links used for the reciprocal linking.

This just doesn't make any sense. How can Google distinguish between sites that are doing link exchanges and sites that are simply portals, unless they can somehow detect if two sites are linked to each other, but even then...

Anyone heard about this? I'm open to being disabused of this rumor.

Thanks.

Tim

[extreme]

This certainly seems to be the case.

They killed the last way honest webmasters were fighting back. Sad.

[seofreak]

can't be true .. do some research and you'll see directories and link exhange websites are at top

[Krapulator]

>>I heard that this is true, but it makes no sense!

Dont believe everything you hear!

[redzone]

There is a distinct difference between "link farm" and "link exchange"...

Stop believing the masses that are grabbing for some type of definitive answer to the Florida update... There isn't any "one" answer. It's a combination of things, and statements like, "reciprocal links" will get you de-indexed at G, are nothing but speculation and rumors.

[timware]

Thanks for all the replies. My follow-up research tends to not support this rumor. It is true that Google discourages "link farms."

But reciprocal linking between relevant sites appears to be just fine.

Tim

[edited by: Marcia at 6:57 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]
[edit reason] No URLs, please. [/edit]

[NickCoons]

I've noticed one very common thing here, especially recently. People are very easily confusing a decrease in benefit with a penalty.

At some point during Google's algorithm, some unknown unit of points are awarded to each site for link popularity, anchor text, on-page content, etc. Some of these are calculated in the background during updates, and others are calculated realtime during a search.

An incoming link is given a particular value. This value depends on the value given to the page with the link, the number of links on the page, perhaps whether or not Google categorizes the page as a link page, and perhaps if it detects that these links are recipricol. If, in the past, Google has given points to these links, and an update to their algorithm translates into now giving fewer points, this is a decrease in benefits, *not* a penalty. If, on the other hand, Google now takes away points for these types of links, then this is a penalty.

Now that definitions are out of the way, I think that Google only penalizes for a very small number of actions. Recipricol links is not one of those. But there is a strong possibility that they carry a smaller benefit than they used to.

In fact, it's possible, and likely, that with the Florida update, Google has made changes to much of their algorithm to detect common SEO techniques, and decrease the benefits awarded to those techniques, but not likely penalizing for them.

In another thread, people are claiming that Google now penalizes for having too many incoming links with the same link text. I don't believe this to be the case. In the past, each incoming link with a particular link text carried the same weight altered only by the PR of the linking page and the number of links on that page. I believe there is another factor that has been introduced.. that the first incoming link with a particular link text carries its original weight as in the past, but that each subsequent link with that same link text carries less and less weight, so a "diminishing returns" effect is experienced.

For webmasters that have many incoming links with the same link text, the Florida update will make this appear as if their site was "penalized" for doing so, when in reality it is probably true that Google now simply gives a smaller benefit for each of those links.

I haven't experienced anything in the real-world that would back this up, except that others are claiming that their incoming links with a particular link text are not helping them as much as before, and they are claiming penalties. This is unlikely since it would be too easy to sabotage a competitor by giving them many links with their favorite keywords. The most likely case is that there are simply a decrease in benefits.

So the lesson that most likely should be learned from the Florida update is that Google is all-powerful<g>, and as more and more time passes, they will create the technology to better distinguish between site modifications made for SEO purposes, and site modifications made for the user. My site's traffic has increased 20% since the Florida update. I'm a coder, and I enjoy spending my time making my site better and adding more to it. I find promoting it tedious. I think the sites that have been hit the hardest are the ones that are over-SEO'd and are relying too much on the SEO techniques being used, even though these techniques were generally accepted in the past.

Digitalghost was right all along. Spend your time making your site better, and less time worrying about getting a better rank.. and the rank will come.

[deanril]

Might want to read this article.

[sitepronews.com...]

[Hissingsid]

Try this simple experiment.

Search on Google for link:yourURL

now go to Alltheweb and search for link:yourURL

Take a look at some of the sites that Google does not return in SERPs but Alltheweb does. Try doing the same link:URL search on Google for some of the dodgier ones of the excluded list and I'll bet that Google returns no matches.

Eight or ten months ago I remember folks here reporting that the number of sites returned for link:yoururl had dramatically reduced. People started to say that the only way to find the sites that link to your site was to do the search on Alltheweb. I wonder if that was just the precurser of what we are seeing now. Perhaps the effects of Florida are a return to the basic premis of Google "PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value."

Perhaps Google is throwing out all of those spoilt ballot papers. Perhaps if the balance between quality pageranking links and rubbish links tips over toward rubbish you get no benefit from your on-page optimisation. In effect your page is guilty by association.

If, and it's a big if, Google can clean up its unique proposition and demonstrate that it has done this in a sustainable way then this makes it a much better investment long term.

Perhaps the joke backfired
[slate.msn.com...]

Best wishes

Sid

PS Interestingly "talentless hack" is not one of the terms affected ;-)

[Hissingsid]

Could the name Florida be prophetic? Did our prophet Brett know something in advance?

Wasn't it the Florida ballot that caused a worldwide storm of protest over a closely contested ellection in which ballot cards were discarded enmass because of hanging chads?

Sid

[helenp]

Might want to read this article.
<snip>

If itīs going to be that way, then the one searching for my keywords, that are top in google, will fall down, though they have 115 linkpages in a directory, and I have only 1 with 10 links,,,,,,,,,,,,,and before I was number 1..........
Just donīt know what to do, to do what they do, a lot of link exchanges with an automated link form to fill in if somebody wanīt linkexchanges.

To me, it just seems that google, banned content and give more weight on links, that couldnīt be the way to stop link exchangin?

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:33 pm (utc) on Dec. 6, 2003]
[edit reason] please, no blog links. [/edit]

[deanril]

Its most likely going to get worse before it gets better, i would take that information on that article and better plan my strategy!

[guynouk]

NickCoons
nice thoery, will have to look at this one.

deanril
great article. if half of what it says is true then our non-reciprocal variable link campaign might not be enough.