Link Building/Link Exchange thoughts for SEO's

[mantawebsolutions]

Getting quality one-way links from other sites to your client's site is part of a SEO's daily routine. This used to be the case with reciprocal linking, but as we all know, reciprocal links is not what it used to be.

Before you get bored, let me go on. I received an interesting email from another SEO company which I thought I'd post here to see what the overall response would be, so here goes.

I received a reciprocal link exchange request for one of my older inactive clients and replied that I am not doing any links or SEO for the client. I usually delete these emails but thought I'd ask that they remove the link and perhaps add a link to another client that I actively do SEO work for.

The reply I received was rather astonishing. They said, and I quote: "Unfortunately one of our other clients are already on there. This would create unwanted competition between them".

??? What... So I wrote back the following...

"I don't believe links on link pages compete at all. The purpose of having a links page is to have related quality resources that your site visitor can click through to. If I was of the opinion that links on links pages compete against each other then my client who has a site about scuba diving will never have links to other scuba diving sites. If this was the case then I would be adding links totally unrelated to the content of my site, which could be penalizable by some Search Engines. Wouldn't you agree ?"

I have not yet had a response and will post it here should I get one.

My reply reflects my personal opinion and I wanted to see whether I am correct or need to be corrected.

What are your thoughts ?

[Tubby]

quote;
"but as we all know, reciprocal links is not what it used to be."

Sorry, But I never got past your first paragraph - 'We all know'
Sorry, but not all of us 'know' this (yes most of us have read this) . . I certainly do not 'Know'. I actually believe reciprical links have as high a value as they have ever had.

Of course I decide what 'I Know' based on my own acute and carefull observations from my own web pages.

mantawebsolutions We ALL - do not know
I keep reading it - and I keep not believing it.

I am getting excellent search results from new pages that only have two or three reciprical links.

I am sorry I never got past your first paragraph mate. maybe you should have specified what type of reciprical links the evidence is pointing at.

[mantawebsolutions]

Tubby, thanks. Critism noted. You are right, my choice of words are incorrect. I also have read and heard this but do not really "know" that it is a fact.

From everything we hear and read it sure indicates that reciprocal linking does not have the same value it used to have. Perhaps it would be wise to not act or align our strategies simply on what we have heard or read.

[Tubby]

mantawebsolutions, Thank you for being so polite.

I might be able to give you an example. If not an example at least one of the many route causes for my conviction that reciprical links are fine.

This is on memory. Google search for 'chevrolet 1927'
(one of my favourite cars thats why I remember.
this) with luck will find my new car directory
sumpy.com/chevrolet/1927 (something like that)
hopefully in the top 10 or twenty.

If you check the links to and from that page they should be - or were when I looked a few weeks back all reciprical (3) (I put them there)

Sumpy.com stats (just basic ones) can be found at sumpy.com/stats . You should find search phrases to match on that page.

You might need to go back a month to find the first 1927 chevrolet - or chevrolet 1927 entry in 'search phrases. and see if you can find what the links were at that time. But I do recall finding the page in the top 15 in a search for google some weeks back when there was at that time only three reciprical links .

I can give other examples, but time moves on and makes changes so looking back is not always so clear as looking at today.

If you think that the evidence points in any way to the reciprical links being anything but positive, let us know. Yes I expect some of the smarter ones here will find other factors. But to me I believe reciprical links are a good investment. Sigle factor theories are usually wrong in the search engine world. .

Its a new site, still putting it together. . so no hidden secrets there..

Mate, This business feeds me, puts fuel in my car, and beer in my fridge. . I do not make any move lightly, (despite popular belief)

[Tubby]

Re the later half of your question.
Quote;
"They said, and I quote: "Unfortunately one of our other clients are already on there. This would create unwanted competition between them"

There are several ways at looking at reciprical links. there is the wise way, looking at what is good for your users. . and the other way - looking at what is good for search engines. The two ways of looking are not always mutually compatible. you simply have to accept the webmaster is doing it his/her way.
If a webmaster sees two similar links as compromising - then thats what they are. You simply have to believe the webmaster understands his own traffic better than an outside observer does. . .

[mantawebsolutions]

There are several ways at looking at reciprical links. there is the wise way, looking at what is good for your users. . and the other way - looking at what is good for search engines. The two ways of looking are not always mutually compatible. you simply have to accept the webmaster is doing it his/her way.
If a webmaster sees two similar links as compromising - then thats what they are. You simply have to believe the webmaster understands his own traffic better than an outside observer does. . .

Tubby, you make a very good point there. Each webmaster does (or should) know what's best for his site (same for SEO's and their client sites).

With regards to reciprocal linking and your sumpy website.

You have reciprocal links from http://restored-classic.com/chevy/1927.html, http://restored-classic.com/chevy/1927.html and http://restored-classics.com/bvac/au...ly/page25.html

Your stats show hits for a few variations of chev related search phrases, see below:

June 2006
3 hits for the phrase "1927 chevy"
2 hits for the phrase "chevrolet 1927"
332 Referrer hits from http://www.restored-classic.com/chevy/

July 2006
8 hits for the phrase "1927 chevy"
14 hits for the phrase "1927 chevrolet"
6 hits for the phrase "chevrolet 1927"
484 Referrer hits from http://www.restored-classic.com/chevy/

August 2006
7 hits for the phrase "chevrolet 1927"
5 hits for the phrase "1927 chev"
4 hits for the phrase "1927 chevrolet"
3 hits for the phrase "1927 chevy"
2 hits for the phrase "1927 chev."
501 Referrer hits from http://www.restored-classic.com/chevy/

September 2006
8 hits for the phrase "1927 chevrolet"
6 hits for the phrase "chevrolet 1927"
348 Referrer hits from http://www.restored-classic.com/chevy/

In this case the reciprocal link helps your sumpy site, as http://www.restored-classic.com/chevy is a quality site, well indexed by all three major SE's and with a good number of backlinks.

It basically comes back to quality links, it's no use to reciprocate with a site that is not indexed, has no backlinks, does not have quality content or is a link farm, etc.... :)

[Tubby]

Well done. I waste far to much time chatting.

But I think there are only reciprical links on that page. I think that is enough evidence for me to say that the sumpy page does well out of recipricating that link - no penalisation. and good search results for a new page.

I would not dream of arguing that arranging a reciprical link with Some pages would not be a wise move. . But I do think reciprical linking has not lost any favour, (with some exeptions) I have no problems offering a caution on how it is implemented.

But I think it is always wise to take into consideration what the page might look like to a search engine in 12 months time -

I do have a glimmering of information coming in that indicate that outbound links from a similar page - another year another make . also have retained a good value. But I do not realy feel inclined to do a tour of my new sections on this forum - today.

mantawebsolutions, thank you. . I think it is probably important for newer users to get a bit of feedback on why we have opinions, and that we do have members here that do not simply repeat parrot fashion what they read on other forums. We have some great members here that can be useful. I can be a bit frivolous and I have my silly moments but I do try where I can to put my case with the clarity that time permits me.

[mantawebsolutions]

I agree, this forum has some great members who regularly contribute valuable information. Thanks for your comments, it takes various opinions to see all sides of one cube...

[Tubby]

manta, I always feel happiest when I find myself in a one to one conversation on this forum.

It was nice meeting you, as they say. I shall look forward to future conversations.

if anyone out there or anyone you know can help my comedy group reach 100 000 hits on each of its videos (there are 6) i will personally pay them $1000 dollars... anyone interested contact me at info@36inchallstars.com or di0nysus13@hotmail.com or www.36inchallstars.com

[jacobwissler]

I only do 2 reciprical links, one with Mountain Eagle Web and one with an SEO firm in Canada. I also link to sites we have built and control.

I feel reciprical links have very little value, and unless I am 100% certain the other site is clean, and has high quality content, I am not linking to it.

The WORST thing you can do is have a "links" page. Call it something else, anything else, just don't call the page links. You might as well title the page spam.

[greeneagle]

Thankyou Jacob,

There is always a way to maximize reciprocal linking. First it is important to be relevant but on top of that, I carry Jacob's articles because they are sharp, to the point and informative for the targeted audience. They draw visitors well on my site and convey visitors to his.

Ken