Will Google Totally Discount Recip Links By Next Year?

[mtbot]

I am guessing that Google will eventually not give much, if any, weight for reciprocal links. Others have said the same. However, the big question seems to be when this will magically happen, especially since Google has known about this problem for years. My best guess is next year. Also, I am guessing they don't want to rock the boat until the IPO goes public.

Search engines may very well start rejecting reciprocal linking in the future because this is an artificial way to increase link popularity. The only sure way for the search engine to ascertain link popularity will have to be one way direct incoming links. Source: http://webpronewscanada.com/2004/0311.html

However, I have my doubts because reciprocal linking is not a problem for the big players like Pizza Hut:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=pizza

Also, I just read a forum message from WebMasterWorld posted in 2002 that asked the same thing.

[minstrel]

Q: Will Google Totally Discount Recip Links By Next Year?
A: No.

Q: Will Google Totally Discount Recip Links Any Time in the Future?
A: No.

[mtbot]

Maybe Minstrel is correct. After all, Google does not directly address the issue of reciprocal linking. Google only discusses "link schemes," which is a rather vague term.

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links. http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

Also, reciprocal linking is a descent, honest way to increase web traffic from other web sites. Therefore, reciprocal linking will continue to be helpful regardless of Google crediting the link.

[GSO]

I understand Google's guidelines to mean, they do not like link exchange programs, banner link programs, Free-For-All sites, where anyone can list their URL. There is no direct reference to reciprocal linking with quality sites that are relevent to your content. One-way linking is like "the chicken or the egg syndrome" who gets to send traffic and not receive it?

[jestep]

I think that google is going to devalue, if they dont already, link exchanging with completely unrelated sites. This makes perfect sense to me and I think it makes sense to a search engine as well.

[ADAM Web Design]

I'm inclined to believe that the devaluation of a reciprocal link on a links page will be proportionate to the percentage of reciprocal links on a links page.

For example: If Page A had 50 reciprocal and 50 non-reciprocal links on the page, the reciprocals would be devaluted 50% since those are the cross-links and clearly there for that reason.

Example 2: 100 reciprocal links on a links page and no non-recips. Devaluation of the recips: 100%.

At least, this is what would make sense to me. This would avoid non-reciprocal link "punishment" while treating artificial reciprocation as what it is.

[cbp]

A reciprocal link is really "if you vote for me, I will vote for you" type of thing (which defeats the purity of what PR was supposed to be about)- ie linking for the purposes of page rank. Google say do not do that. So we could make the assumption that the ranking algorithm is doing or is going to do something about this....but how?

CBP

[mtbot]

Of course, if/when Google does this, another question will arise: Will Google be sophisticated enough to outsmart indirect reciprocal linking, i.e. John's diet site links to me, so I link to John's exercise site. Maybe this is another reason Google seems to have done little, if anything, about reciprocal linking.

Since many high-quality sites worth linking to do not actively reciprocate links, maybe it's best to focus on other link popularity methods like article submission, submitting to web directories, including links in forum signatures, etc.

[Dave Hawley]

I would say it's already taken into consideration by Google. If site "A" links to site "B" and Site "B" links to site "A", the PR passed is likley less that would be if the link was one way.

I would think this is relativity easy to detect and account for.

[mtbot]

Based on my competitors' rankings, it seems that anchor text is completely or almost completely credited for reciprocal links.

[Dave Hawley]

How do you know they are credited the same as non-reciprocal links?

Seems quite logical to me that Google would treat non-reciprocal links differently than reciprocal links. To me it's more a case of can they? I would think they could.

[mtbot]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

How do you know they are credited the same as non-reciprocal links?

Here is a specific example. A medical transcription service called Spectramedi.com has almost all of their incoming links from link exchanges. They have thousands of reciprocal links. As a result, they have been ranking #1 or #2 for their keyword "medical transcription" since last year. In the last month, they have gone down a little from #1 to #4. Regardless, they still get a lot of credit for reciprocal links.

[Dave Hawley]

My question still stand though. That is, How do you know the reciprocal links are being credited the same as non-reciprocal links?

[mtbot]

I understand now. Your point is that if reciprocal links are given even a little less credit, that means that Google can at least detect some reciprocal links.

I can't prove it, but I think Google cannot currently detect reciprocal links.

For example, there is another medical transcription service in India called Accu-Swift. Like Spectramedi, most of their incoming links are from link exchanges. They have been ranking #5 for the last year and have not gone down at all. This does not prove anything, but I think it does support the idea that reciprocal links are given the same credit.

Furthermore, if Google spent resources trying to detect reciprocal links instead of using those resources for something else, I doubt they would give nearly the same credit for reciprocal links. I would expect at least a mini-shake up like one of the post-Florida algorithm updates we saw last year.

[Dave Hawley]

Furthermore, if Google spent resources trying to detect reciprocal links, I doubt they would give nearly the same credit.

This what I believe takes place now. They credit non-reciprocal links higher than reciprocal links. I would be very suprised if Google is not able to detect a reciprocal link.

I absence of proof either way one can apply common sense, logic and put oneself in Googles shoes. Google states that links to pages are a "democratic" vote for that page. A reciprocal link is not a "democratic" vote by any stretch.

If I were Google, I would not give the same credit for non-reciprocal links as reciprocal links, would you?

[mtbot]

If Google can currently detect reciprocal links, they are doing a terrible job in the way they value them. If this is the way Google will treat reciprocal links in the future, then we should all engage in reciprocal linking.

Of course, time will tell. For the time being, my guess is that exchanging links even with casinos would enhance ranking quite well.

[mtbot]

Yes, democratic voting is the ideal, but Google will always be non-democratic. This has been said before. Some examples of non-democracy:

1. My signature link below
2. Comments on blogs that include one's link
3. Buying link inclusion

[cbp]

They may be devaluang them or valuing higher the non-reciprocals for PR purposes - those medical transcription sites you mention may just be ranking well ffrom the anchor text of all the reciprocal links they have - nothing to do with PR or how Google values them for PR.

CBP

[mtbot]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Of course, anchor text is so important that not devaluing it would make reciprocal linking very worthwhile.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by cbp

A reciprocal link is really "if you vote for me, I will vote for you" type of thing (which defeats the purity of what PR was supposed to be about)- ie linking for the purposes of page rank.

Not necessarily. Like you, cbp, except in very rare circumstances, I do not exchange links. However, my site does of course contain a lot of links to sites that I feel will be helpful and of interest to my visitors. Some of those sites apparently feel the same way, since when I check backlinks I find many of them linking to me. I haven't asked them to do so; nor is my link a response to a request for a link. So the links are reciprocal but they exist because the links are relevant to both sites.

I can't see Google endorsing a scheme that would penalize such a situation intentionally.

[Dave Hawley]

Not passing as much credit is not penalizing. It's levelling the playing field.

[Dave Hawley]

Some examples of non-democracy:

1. My signature link below
2. Comments on blogs that include one's link
3. Buying link inclusion

1) No PR or rank boost is passed for forum signature links.

2) If the link can be added freely by the page owner no PR or rank boost is likley passed. This again is simply self-promotion.

3) This one is likely harder for Google to detect. However, I doubt they have thrown it into the "to hard basket". I would bet they can tell many paid links (paid directories for one) and either pass no PR, rank boost etc or less than unpaid links.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Seems quite logical to me that Google would treat non-reciprocal links differently than reciprocal links. To me it's more a case of can they? I would think they could.

Why? It's not reciprocity per se that's the potential problem - it's the relevance or relatedness of the links to the rest of the site. Whether links are reciprocal or not is irrelevant.

If I were Google, I'd be putting more effort into looking at how to measure/estimate/rate context/relevance than into worrying about reciprocity.