Reciprocal Linking: Good? or Evil?
A bit of history can help you plan a future strategy...
OK
- the title of this article is a little over the top. Then again,
maybe not.
If
you've been reading the latest doctrines from the various self-appointed
Google Gurus, they have descended full force on the word of linking.
Not that they ignored it in the past. But lately, after an apprenticeship
in various supporting roles, "linking" has taken the lead
as the Evil One for this crowd, to be hunted down, tried and convicted,
then drawn and quartered. Or at least analyzed to death.
Like
Don Quixote, the Gurus seem to thrive when they have a distinct
opponent. And, like Don Quixote, if a real opponent doesn't exist,
they'll make one up. Which is what has happened to the quiet little
niche called reciprocal linking.
A little
history is needed here. Back in the old days (around 1997), many
sites in related realms of interest would link to each other. The
term "reciprocal link" evolved to describe this mutual
exchange. It was a good deal for all participants, and it drove
*a lot* of traffic for these sites. As the number of exchanges grew,
there was a need to categorize them, and many niche-focused link
directories were the result. Within their niche, many of these directories
were superior in content to the big, general directories.
Then,
when Google ascended and people realized that Google used link popularity
as part of their indexing algorithm, the Gurus who had previously
ignored linking as nothing but "low-rent" web marketing
suddenly became instant experts. Even though they had not really
done much of it. To them, there was an angle to be played, a strategy
that would circumvent the considerable work involved with managing
a real reciprocal link directory.
Further
fueling this approach, Google provided a toolbar that presented
us with a PageRank number. But they provided no guidance as to that
number's genesis, or to it's actual use in their index results.
And there was that famous formula from Stanford University and Google's
founders that tied PageRank to relevancy. Throw in some other ingredients,
like Alexa rankings, and we had some real red meat for those who
wanted to reverse engineer the Google indexing algorithms.
So
the game was on. And since the Google Gurus make their money by
liberally dispensing their advice in an effort to develop legions
of followers, book buyers, or clients, they tend to write a lot
of words. These words show up in articles, on forums, and in newsletters.
And those words get re-published, analyzed, re-packaged, and morphed
into ever more "evolved" theories.
For
those of us who had actually been doing linking work diligently
for a few years, all of this "new age" theory about what
works became ever more bizarre in it's complexity. Most of us simply
continued to do what we had been doing. By looking at our own referral
logs, we knew what really did work, and but we had little time or
motivation to write about it. The voice of reason was drowned out.
Most
frustrating was that a lot of sites now had a battery of "requirements"
that they demanded before they would reciprocate. This was a new
and annoying development to the basic old "I like your site.
Let's link" approach traditionally used by the grassroots linking
crowd. These new requirements came directly from the writings of
the Gurus, almost verbatim.
Never
mind that there have always been giant holes in all of these theories
and games. Never mind that the people who developed them would regularly
betray their real inexperience at linking by advising their readers
to use the most rudimentary, inefficient methods possible to pursue
this work. Never mind that Google specifically warns people against
complex schemes that are only designed to beat their system. What
mattered was that people believed. And bought the books. Or became
clients.
Then
Google shuffled the deck in November 2003 with an update they call
"Florida". Many of the disciples of the Gurus were slaughtered,
wholesale, and lost their index positions for top keywords. In an
effort to find culprits, the Gurus began pointing fingers. Except
at themselves, of course.
Since
they never really understood it in the first place, and they really
didn't like doing it, linking itself became their favorite suspect.
Some "experts" now advise against reciprocal linking,
in rather strong terms. What this is based on, I am not sure. They
never really say. But they need an antagonist.
The
facts are quite the opposite. The evidence is extreme, and pervasive.
All one needs to do is look around at a lot of real results, in
a lot of categories of keywords. Google has very generously rewarded
sites that have large, well-structured link directories that have
relatively low reciprocity rates. I've personally seen dozens of
examples where sites like this held their positions well, or made
gains. These sites do also have a lot of links coming back to them,
from a lot places, but primarily the links come from the reciprocal
directory-to-directory exchanges that have developed over years
of work.
Curiously,
these sites have used the same anchor text keywords in their incoming
links, over and over. After all, a good title and description that
works is like a good business slogan. You keep using it. I have
a lot of doubt that keyword repetition in incoming anchors is really
much of a penalty, which another new linking theory that is also
being bandied about these days.
So
the Gurus will just have to look elsewhere for culprits.
In
other words, the sites that used traditional linking methods that
pre-date Google itself were rewarded, and this has always been the
case. That is, honest, well-formed directory linking that provides
a genuine resource for real users, regardless of PageRank, Alexa
rank, or reciprocity of the listed site. As opposed to linking strategies
that were contrived to only beat the search engine.
So,
is linking Good? Or Evil? I guess it depends on how you use it.
If you link to a site only to beat Google through some complex battery
of strategies, then you may be heading down the wrong road.
If
you link as if Google did not exist, and do it for the good of your
site and your site visitors, then it's very hard to fault that.
And the more you do, the better. There's really no "game strategy"
to linking. In truth, it's just boring, detail-oriented work that
requires a real commitment over the long haul. Which is what separates
those who do it from those who choose not. Reciprocal linking is
extraordinarily simple in concept, but hard to do well, and Google
seems to have recognized this.
Would
you like more detailed information about our services? Please send
an email to djohnson@roiwebsites.com
with your site address and contact information, and we can begin
the process of building a firm quote for our services.
copyright
Dirk Johnson 2004
The next page on the tour is:
Pricing
- Our competitive advantage
Find
out about reciprocal linking, the right way....Please
tour our site for a complete review of the benefits,
our unique process, our competitive advantage, industry specific programs and
custom services..
| 
