Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Nothing has changed.
It's not that reciprocal linking is counted less.
It's that one-way is counted more.
Suppose Bob's pet shop links to Mary's restaurant, and vice-versa. Is Google going to know it, short of an idiotically comprehensive search which cannot be worth the bandwidth? ( Link farms are another matter, they should be obvious.) I would expect Bob and Mary to have the same benefit as any other organic links coming in, assuming page rank etc. are equal. - Larry
Suppose Bob's pet shop links to Mary's restaurant, and vice-versa. Is Google going to know it
Yes - of course they do.
The processing involved is negligable compared to the PR calculation.
Basically Google is smart enough to know that recip linking is being abused. They are also smart enough to know that there are reasons that people legitametly recip. If you have a large percentage of irrelevant, off-topic links or are part of a cluster of sites that all interlink with one another, then you have a problem. It's an obvious link exchange scheme. They won't necessarily punish you, but you won't get much benefit from them.
--Illah
wellzy
[edited by: martinibuster at 4:03 pm (utc) on Aug. 10, 2004]
[edit reason] Per the Charter: No Solicitation [/edit]
Would have to agree.
But I have to disagree...
If you can rank well with reciprocal link, you can also do well with one-way links and vice versa
heh - I agree...
I have a small site only up for around 1 month...
I have a few 1 way on topic links in places where people would really see... and yes! click!
I am on page 3 for a two word term... just 1 space higher than this website that has 15 - 20 recip links and his pages looks fine...
rj87uk,
IMO, it might be too early to run into conclusion that one-way link works for your 1 month old site. I guess what you are seeing is probably a temporary boost and there is a high possibility that your site will soon disappear to nowhere. Wait for the next 4-6 months, then you may draw a more concrete conclusion.
Yes i understand about your point to laugh, but i have a few sites... 9 sites, but each time this has happened and yes these ones have been around for years ;)
Back to the issue
>>> 9 sites, but each time this has happened and yes these ones have been around for years
Currently many new sites don't show up in G serp perhaps of the so-called "sandbox". The past success of your 9 sites "around for years" should not be compared with your new site of around 1-month old this year. You see I also have many sites ranking greatly of today because of reciprocal links in the past years...so who is right and who is wrong. Perhaps neither sides are losers and that is the point I try to convey.
I speak about temporary boost regarding your new site, because it happens that I have similar experiences in rare occasions very recently. The longest boost for new site that I used to see is around 3-4 weeks that I recall before the site gets drop in ranking (not out of index).
I know what you mean about the sandbox and new sites etc etc and i have heard about this boost ideas.
But yet not all of my sites are old... id say two of my sites are new (this yar) and yes they get around pg. 3 on google and stay there... then once 1 way links are in place then they go up
On the whole i would say that any link is better than no link ;)
>>> "It's that one-way is counted more." Would have to agree.But I have to disagree...
If you can rank well with reciprocal link, you can also do well with one-way links and vice versa
Reciprocal links will help targeting for topics/keywords. One-way links will eventually make you an "authority" which will ultimately lead to better positioning. Kinda like that whole "miserable failure" thing.
I agree. - Does google link to you? heh
One-ways have ALWAYS counted more. In terms of PR, you are trading PR with recips. Also, most recip link pages have tons of links on them (diluting PR). This is not opinion but the way PR works. One way links can come from pages that are A) top level and B) one of only a few links
The reason recips work with google is anchor text is still THE big factor in scoring. In terms of all factors being include, one ways are better.
I have to disagree. I am sure there are many better places where you could get links.
And do you mean that they Directories are valued more? I again disagree. Im sure martinibuster has also said that there are better places and dmoz etc arent valued more...
But again :) It helps as a one way link is still good.
The way in which one links is key. A links page with 30 recip links may count for something but not so much if these are "Shebba Widget Restaurant" linking to "Betty Fuzzy florist".
But for the sake of benefiting the user, one could mention somewhere inside "Sebba's" site that the floral arrangements are organised by Betties florist but using 'floral arrangements' as the anchor text where floral arrangements is a keyword "Betty's" is optimised for.
When linking ask yourself the question, will this benefit my user in any way? Will this link benefit my link partner? Am i benefitted by the link they put on their site?
I hope my point is clear. This does seem IMHO as the best way to link for the future. It has been a long day and i am now going to sleep:-)
Link building is rarely financially viable for corperate SEO agencies - but that's another matter.
People might tell you that link building is dead. They might be the same people who spook you about the dread "over optimisation", the "evil h1" tags and friendly "noindex,nofollow" robots meta that'll keep you safe.
[edit: tone the "scary sarcasm" down]
would you say that inbound links carry more weight than outbound links now?
Yes, of course!
It's always been the case that it's better to be the site with 100 inbound links and 0 outbound links than the site with 0 inbound links and 100 outbound links.
Yep. I'd rather get 20 one ways than 100 recipricols. Not only for the authority issue, but for the non SE traffic as well. I have a 3 year old site with 50 backlinks and top ranks that hasn't moved in the SERPs in almost three years, even though there is a lot of competition with 100, 200, 300 and more links (and many of these aren't even affiliate sites - their actual companies). Difference is that the site I own has one ways that they either can't get, or haven't be ingenuitive enough to figure *out* how to get them.
Recipricol linking isn't dead but for a site you expect to have longevity, it isn't the smart way to build backlinks. My two cents.
Im sure Google appreciates the fact that my 3-6 year old links exist for a different reason than reciprocals. There are no strings attached. Their vote actually means something. At the same time, I still link to pages of value for my visitors where there is no way I would get a reciprocal link, such as .gov pages that pertain to my content. Im sure Google puts a value on this as well.
IMO the value of outbound links is be tied to the relevance associated with the link and the authority value that target page has in Google's eyes.
So is linking dead? No way. Is there a sliding value scale for links? Definitely. Google says build it for the visitor. I think this is underrated.
The funny thing is I have seen links pages attain PR 4 with just 1 or 2 links on it, but at the same time, links pages with tons of links and 0 PR. This goes to show, it's quality of links that matters.
