Reciprocal Links with outbound "no followed"

[BaseballGuy]

I am wondering if I were to engage in reciprocal linking wherein I would "no follow" my link out, but the person linking to me would "follow" the inbound link....

Would this hold any significant value? (assuming all things being equal)

or does Google still see this as reciprocal linking (even though my outbound link to the other guy is no followed)?

[IanTurner]

Its an underhand trick. If I was in Google's shoes sites that did that sort of thing would be penalised.

Nofollow has a lot to answer for - it wasn't the best of ideas in the first place.

[BaseballGuy]

I don't see it as an underhanded trick....

For the simple fact that I am directing my users towards another website that has relevant information pertaining to the particular subject matter that my website is about.

Same goes for the other webmaster (who probably doesn't even know about "no follow").

So the other webmaster doesn't really get hurt because they are still getting the benefit of all the traffic from my site.

And yes, "no follow" still has a lot to answer for.

[classa]

I think nofollowing your outbound links sucks. If you are taking advantage of webmasters that dont know the difference, you should have your tally whacked. If there are webmasters that dont know the difference, they should read some forums and have their tally whacked as well.

Reciprocal is reciprocal. If they link to you without the nofollow attribute, you should reciprocate and do the same.

[BaseballGuy]

My tally gets whacked all the time....

Anyways, just wanted to get an overall consensus going here. Looks like I won't be doing that.

Actually one more question....Is it considered "reciprocal linking" if I link to one website on the first of the month (in a relevant article) then a few weeks later I contact the webmaster and say to him:

Hey look at all the traffic I'm sending you....could you be a pal and link back to me?

To me that is reciprocal, but from what I have read on these forums, a few weeks apart is not considered that.

[IanTurner]

I would say that last scenario is perfectly acceptable as a reciprocal link, and would be considered well within the rules of fair play.

IMHO just contacting a webmaster saying I've put a link to your site in this article would you care to link back is acceptable.

I just don't like to see someone taking advatage of those less knowlegeable than themselves, just because Google (et al.) have given you a weapon that allows you to do that.

The creation of nofollow was like an observer interfering with the results to such an extent that they ruined the experiment.

[nealrodriguez]

i'll link to a site if i find their content substantiates mine - mainstream news stories, content-rich blog sources, studies, definitions. i may send them a note and tell them i cited them, and they may link back to me; if they don't, they don't; i'll leave the link and move on.

no need for 'no follows.' focus on the traffic they're getting you;

moreover, if you eliminate the 'no follow' you will help their page rank or trust rank or tarantula rank, and they will potentially get more traffic from the se's which will probably get you more traffic ;)

just my 2 lincolns

[BaseballGuy]

Could the above scenario you just posted be a way of obtaining .edu links?

What do you think my chances are (assuming my articles are well written) that if I were to link to a recent collegiate study or something of the like in one of my articles then contacting that .edu department and asking them to link back?

What am I offering the .edu webmaster (who does not profit off his site) by sending him traffic?

I can't see the quid pro quo there....am I looking at this all wrong?