Reciprocal linking is one of the most disputable SEO questions. The problem is that it is two-fold in nature. First, reciprocal links are natural being the essence of the Internet like linking overall. (So undoubtedly, we can’t do without them.) Secondly, it is the easiest way to manipulate your rankings by engaging in numerous link exchanges.
Google also gives contradicting definitions of the term:
It can provide visitors with links to other sites of a similar topic. [= reciprocal links are useful for human beings]
Reciprocal links are considered the glue that binds the World Wide Web together as they allow users to cross over between Websites, pages and documents. [= reciprocal links represent the nature of the Internet]
This is a proven way to build link popularity … [= reciprocal links can be used to unnaturally grow your link popularity]
We’ve had a plenty of discussions (one of them at SEJ by the way: “reciprocal linking and interlinking“) recently on whether reciprocal linking is worth the time, whether it can hurt and whether it is legit. We’ve also heard a few words from Googlers on that and that’s what I would like to bring up for discussion now.
John Mueller at Webmaster Groups mentioned that the violation takes place if a link was added in order to gain a reciprocal link (though I can’t imagine how this can be put into practice as no one knows another person’s intentions). He also considers reciprocal links harmful for the visitors as they might be distracted by seeing many links to alternative resources/ businesses. (which can be also up for debate).
Anyway, the two definitive points he mentions is that reciprocal links shouldn’t be numerous (”a handful”) and should be relative (”Would you hang a directory of wedding-hemed businesses up in your shop”). He also points out the social factor of exchanging links with people “people that I know really well” saying that that’s ok and natural.
Matt Cutts in his recent interview with Eric Enge also said that reciprocal links are ok as long as they are not “excessive” compared to your site other backlink sources:
if your portfolio has a very large fraction of links where you’re getting them by sending automated emails saying Did you know that exchanging links can help your rankings in search engines? That’s not a basis for fundamental long term, solid growth of your links if that’s all you are doing.
Now this brings us to two officially confirmed points:
- reciprocal links should be relevant in order to be useful, natural and hence effective;
- reciprocal links should be in minority (so focus on a couple of big players in your niche rather than wasting time exchanging links with everyone).
Another thing is that these rules are not for everyone naturally. While smaller players might be figuring if they are allowed to link back to their friends, big players will still be successfully building deep reciprocal links through their automatic link exchange program (a well known and widely discussed example is Askmen.com):
or Buzz it at Yahoo :
Comments
10 responses so far ↓
Harsh on Jul 7, 2008 at 8:05 am
Having natural and relevant links is definitely a must to have a long term standing. However, the points put up for the excessiveness still holds a debate i feel. If the links are natural and relevant then why should it matter how many of them are there. As you rightly mentioned, there is no way you can know the intention or tactics as such. The sword still hangs over the head without any reason.
Ken on Jul 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Fantastic article Ann! Good points and you even back up your claims with quotes! I think reciprocal linking is good if they’re relevant and in moderation.
Donovan Roddy on Jul 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I maintain a few sites that are region specific, for link exchanges I usually set up a directory to handle the monotonous work, I keep the directory specific to the industry or theme of the site but I also include business in that local area and I’ve it hasn’t hurt my position in any respect from testing the added non-related industry/theme but specific to the area.
Ann I think your right on the mark with your three bolded statements up top. It’s always nice to be doing seo for a great product or service, the links would come naturally, but when your not link exchanges is a good avenue to take.
ryan on Jul 7, 2008 at 5:51 pm
What is considered excessive though? 1,000 sites with a link exchange?
Arnie on Jul 7, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I sort of assumed ‘excessive’ might imply from one large “links page” to another. I would say try to follow that other link building rule of thumb: get as many links for traffic as you can.
CT Moore on Jul 8, 2008 at 9:35 am
Matt Cutts’ comments makes me think that something like “reciprocal link density” might be a useful guideline — like keyword density is.
Raj Krishnaswamy on Jul 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
Excellent write up. This is a highly debatable subject as everyone knows. I tend to agree also with comments by Harsh. Thank you.
Trezora - Art, Glass, Fashion, Jewelry on Jul 8, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I am extremely stingy in giving out links and always carefully consider page rank of the other site before doing so. Based on this article, I am being overly conservative.
Your advice is great and I will now link to relevant sites that I previously would not have considered.
Mendy
Karen Allen on Jul 9, 2008 at 2:23 pm
There is nothing wrong with link exchange. All you have to do is keep your volume natural and link with quality sites within your realm of interest.
I have never seen so much paranoia about linking. Matt Cutts has restated many times that link exchange is fine as long as you avoid the high volume irrelevant linking that some software and services offer. Why can’t you SEO’s understand the difference between relevant link exchange for the end user and irrelevant high volume linking??
I just saw this blog which sums things up fairly well.
http://blog.linksmanager.com/?p=68
Bill Sebald on Jul 12, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Matt Cutts’ comments give me a reassurance that they are not bad as long as they are themed and relevant; but Matt often gives suggestions to SEOs that are user aimed primarily.
I’m always open to reciprocol links for my blog if I think it’s a good link for a user, and vice-versa. I don’t really want my blog (or clients’ sites for that matter) where they don’t belong. The traffic is wasteful and the SEO is extremely low value. If everything else is optimized well, these “benefits” are under the threshold so to speak.
@Karen Allen - I think a lot of SEOs do actually get it. It’s SEO 2.0!
Leave a Comment