FREE one way links and traffic

[starguru]

Hi

Google no longer rates reciprocal links as much, you need to have links which are pointing to your site and your site does not point back to get a good ranking.

I have devised a new way of doing this, not only will your return links be one way, but they will also be front page links.

The site is new so please join and get your site in the top 20 for life all for FREE what have you got to lose.

http://www.linksvirus.com

I need people to join to get the ball rolling

Cheers

starguru

[Will.Spencer]

Google no longer rates reciprocal links as much, you need to have links which are pointing to your site and your site does not point back to get a good ranking.

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

[mushroom]

I think that your domain name is in question.

containing the word virus and not anti.

[Sweet]

How do it work? Are there scripts that I can paste on my site or just plain html code for linking to those sites?

[ireneherz]

I think you're limiting yourself by insisting the links be on the home page. Frankly, it's an ugly graphic. I'd want to put it on my links page. Also, there should be a way of making sure the links are related to the subject of your website.

[mjstrand]

I agree that the category of the link is important. It also would be important that the site be of reasonable quality to not downplay the quality of our site. If you require that this be on the main page, I suspect that you will discover that people will place it underneath many blank lines or inside of a hidden div once you have manually reviewed and approved it. Your automated link checking software will have a difficult time determining the placement of the links and your logo. You may want to reconsider the requirement for the main page.

Its a good concept though (even though I've never liked the pyramid sales schemes).

[Robert Warren]

SG,

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this. To start with, this has GOT to be one of the all-time ugliest websites I've ever seen.

Are you aware that you've basically reinvented web rings, only without the advantage of appropriate context?

[rbs21]

Why not allow new members to see your directory of members sites and let them choose which sites/categories they would like to have linked to their site.

In order to avoid everyone from requesting links from a few sites you could perhaps make it a fee based option (very low fee).

And, perhaps this is the wrong forum, which does Google deem less relevant, reciprocal links or untargeted links?

[rlrouse]

Google no longer rates reciprocal links as much...

I have several websites (and many client websites) that prove this theory to be incorrect.

[TLDTrader.com]

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this. To start with, this has GOT to be one of the all-time ugliest websites I've ever seen.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Robert Warren :)

[Will.Spencer]

Google no longer rates reciprocal links as much...
I have several websites (and many client websites) that prove this theory to be incorrect.

Please detail this proof.

Thanks!

[rlrouse]

Please detail this proof.

I have a site that used to sell handcrafted widgets. I worked at getting reciprocal links until the home page was #1 on Google for both "widgets" and "handcrafted widgets".

I then replaced all the content with content unrelated to handcrafted widgets (after my supplier passed away).

For over a year now that site has not contained those search terms on any page, yet the home page is still #1 for both search terms. (and still nothing but recips for those terms, virtually no one way inbounds).

Of course this isn't proof as I'm expecting you to take me at my word (which you can choose to do or not, your choice).

Of course the only real way to prove a theory valid or invalid is to test it. I have and I'm very satisfied with the results over several sites targeting several fairly competitive search terms.

[Will.Spencer]

Not meaning to be argumentative (a very bad habit of mine...), but...

Wouldn't that show the value of good anchor text links more than the relative values of one-way vs. reciprocal linking?

When you "replaced all the content", you kept the outbound links which related to the old content?

Sorry, I'm the SEREP (http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/reverse-engineering.shtml) guy. :)

I have no good data on the relatives values of one-way vs. reciprocal linking.

[rlrouse]

When you "replaced all the content", you kept the outbound links which related to the old content?

Yes, of course.


I have no good data on the relatives values of one-way vs. reciprocal linking.

The best way to get good data is to test.

[Will.Spencer]

Just have to come up with a good scientifically valid test, which is quite difficult with many SEO related questions.

[rlrouse]

A simple (and 100% accurate) test is to create a couple of sites in competitive categories and add nothing but reciprocal links and see how it fares over the course of a few Google updates.

I have a couple of such sites myself and control many others that belong to clients. Virtually all of them do extremely well compared to other sites in the same category that refrain from using reciprocal link exchanges.

Of course this could all change with a simple algo tweak (highly unlikely), but as of today reciprocal links work extremely well. Even better than one-way links in fact when you consider that recips are so much easier to get.

[Will.Spencer]

<thinking out loud>

To achieve good results you could match the reciprocal links to the first site exactly with non-reciprocal links to the second site.

This would require that the incoming links be of the same number, the exact same PR (PR isn't really an integer value), and the exact same link text.

Effectively, the links would have to come from the same pages. The only variable which you couldn't "fix" would be that one URL would come before the other URL on the linking page.

The sites... is there any reason that they must be web sites? Could they simply be web pages on the same web site?

And, of course, the page content of the two test pages could not be duplicate, or that would set off the duplicate content filter. And, if they are not duplicate, that means that any SERPS test would create unreliable results due to the number of unknown factors which that would introduce. However, on-page factors should not affect the reliability of a PR test.

</thinking>

<complaining>

Of course, the last two backlink updates have not included PR updates. If this pattern continue, a PR test could take really really really long to achieve believable results.

</complaining>

[Fingers]

Nice Idea

BUT

I would not like to place this on my front page, in fact I would not like your banner on my site at all, Looks way to cheep.

I agree you should alow placement on any page.

How are you monitoring this, I can see links being placed on all sorts of unsavoury sites.

I like the idea but I feel you need to think it through a little more, and possibly change the ID of your site. If the site looked more professional as aposed to something that looks like it was put together in 5 mins, more people would take you seriously, more important the bigger players.

I would be interested very much bar all the above.

[rlrouse]

The problem is, with everyone linking to links in "the pool", it won't be long before everyone incurs a PR0 for participating in a link farm. Talk about a closed loop of links!

[eightpoint]

NASTY site, begon