Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I have some questions about Reciprocal Linking.
1. If I exchange link with some sites not related to my site's theme, is it ok?
2. If I have too many (200+) reciprocal Links, which means I have both 200+ outgoing links and incoming links, will search engine like google think my site as a link farm?
Thanks,
Jimmy
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:32 am (utc) on Aug. 13, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] See TOS & Charter. Thanks. [/edit] [/edit][/1]
2. are the links on topic?...or a useless collection of "I had to recip, to get the link" type of links? Does the page that the links are on look like a link farm type page? Be subjective...does it add to the site?
If looks like useless dribble, it's probably not going to help you...
if it looks, reads, and smells like a random link collection with no relevance on your site...
Then you can pretty much guess how G might treat it.....
Tera
Search engines (esp, Google) are 'mapping' the word associations between topics and 'flagging' links that do not register as relevant. These links are either devalued or not counted at all (in Google esp).
Over time and as the search engines 'map' more word associations and 'theme' out certain niches, reciprocal links that are offtopic will be devalued accordingly. This is generally what happens when Google updates, they map more associations and destroy those that don't match.
(Then we get all the great 'why me?' threads and 'Google traffic down 90%' - and my favourite 'what consitiutes a relevant link?' you know those threads where SEO's and webmasters insist their backlinks are ontopic) I noticed quite a few 'experienced' SEO's struggling with the concept over at SEW, some of the threads really made me chuckle.
So regarding using recips for ranking, your mileage will certainly vary topic to topic, niche to niche. You will notice that areas such as porn are no where near as 'themed' as travel and other shall we say 'whiter' niches. In these less compeditive (or maybe important) areas of the web it will be easier to rank using unrelated links.
All that said, MSN and Yahoo will treat you a little better and reciprocal links can be a viable form of SEO (if you really must). However once again I'd expect these engines to gain ground with the 'associations' between words and what constitutes an ontopic and relevant link.
If there is a chance the traffic will convert from the site you're reciprocating with - go for it.
Does that make sense to you Jimmy?
[edited by: Bennie at 6:59 am (utc) on Aug. 15, 2006]
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:53 pm (utc) on Aug. 15, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] TOS. [/edit] [/edit][/1]
If it's not, then consider it a risk:
If it's part of a formal 'linking system', then the risk is huge.
If it's a reciprocal link to a tacky site, it's a big risk.
If it's a non-reciprocal link to a site you wouldn't send your mother-in-law to, it's a pointless risk.
Google's linking policy aims to emulate the visitors needs; they are doing a much better job of second-guessing than a year ago, and are exceptionally good at rooting out link scams, which are disappearing fast.
While Google cannot detect if a link is paid for or not, a text link with identical anchor text from every page of your site to a cr** site could be detected with an abacus at 500 metres, and should be reviewed ;)
Google considers that you are responsible for the links you choose to display; you are 'recommending' those sites. If Google knows those sites are ****, then your recommendation is **** - so google will conclude that your site must be **** too.
If in doubt, remove the links or use nofollow. No link is worth losing a site for.
