PDA

View Full Version : Still Think Reciprocal Links are a Good Idea?



vangogh
08-12-2009, 02:02 AM
For anyone thinking that reciprocal links are a good way to build links you may want to reconsider. The practice of trading links with other site owners solely for the links is clearly frowned upon by the search engines.

Now I don't want to imply to web pages can't link to each other or that if they do they'll be automatically penalized. However, you might want to look at two posts that cover a new Microsoft patent.

How Search Engines May Mine SEO Forums to Find Web Spam (http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=2750)

Are the search engines spying on SEOs? (http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/Are-the-search-engines-spying-on-SEOs-.html)

Both posts will concur that no patent was really needed here, but the main idea behind it is to look specifically at seo and webmaster forums where there are sections devoted to link exchanges. Then use the information found in the threads as a seed to go out and checking for unnatural linking patterns.

You can read the two posts for a better description than the above.

Now you might be thinking that you don't have to worry since you never exchange links publicly on a forum. Keep in mind though that the forums are only used for a seed to start. If you consider the idea of six degrees of separation how many degrees of separation do you think you are from the form link exchange?

Admittedly no matter how hard they try search engines are not going to detect every reciprocal link on the web. And again not every exchange of links is necessarily a bad thing to be punished.

However, it should be clear from the posts and the patent that search engines do not take kindly to artificial link exchanges so you probably want to stay clear.

billbenson
08-12-2009, 07:45 AM
Interesting read VG. It also goes to the point of "don't do stuff today that might hurt you down the road" as mentioned in other threads. That certainly includes any manner of unnatural linking.

royhunters
08-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Yep Bill I guess we all need to unplug our blogs, forums, hide our URL's and go home.

royhunters
08-12-2009, 11:45 AM
This is a quote from the Author

Bill Slawski
August 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm


Hi Ralph,

I understand your frustration. I heavily recommend to anyone who has a web site, and an interest in showing up in search results that they spend some significant time going though the guidelines from the search engines, and trying to understand what they mean in those guidelines. I’m concerned as well about the possibility that someone might try to use a method like this to make it look like their competitors are engaging in conspiracies to manipulate search rankings.

As I responded to Stefan, “I’m not sure that the search engines really mind people buying links. It’s the buying of PageRank (or other link equity) that bothers them.”

We’ve been told by Matt Cutts, and others at the search engines to do things like disclose paid relationships through things like nofollow values for rel attributes in links, so that the search engines can understand that a link is paid for. There’s a huge media buying/link buying industry on the Web that sells links, including Google’s Doubleclick. The search engines don’t mind people buying links. It’s buying links in a way that passes along PageRank and manipulates search results that they are concerned about.

Just like Vangogh Said: " And again not every exchange of links is necessarily a bad thing to be punished."

Dan Furman
08-12-2009, 12:13 PM
Yep Bill I guess we all need to unplug our blogs, forums, hide our URL's and go home.

I don't quite think that's what he's saying. I do think the "let's do this little thing to make you rank better" are slowly coming to an end. Which is good.

vangogh
08-12-2009, 12:37 PM
Roy I'm not following the conclusions you're drawing. Like Dan said I don't think Bill (Benson) was suggesting we should close down our sites. Just that we should be forward thinking.

I'm also not sure what the comment you pulled from the post has to do with reciprocal links. Bill (Slawski) seems to be talking about paid links in that comment and is responding to someone who posted a different question than the one on link exchanges.

What I mean by not all reciprocal links being bad is that sometimes two pages will naturally link to each other. For example if we link out from here to a blog that lists trackbacks in their comments section, then each page is linking directly to the other. The links would be reciprocal, but I don't think search engines would have any problem with that.

What the posts above are looking at is a patent by microsoft (again why is a patent necessary?) that looks at seo and webmaster forums specifically. Most of those forums have sections devoted to link exchanges as well as discussions about trading links in other sections. The search engines can easily find those threads, see the links in them, and from there start building out to put together a link graph of who's trying to manipulate their ranking.

If you happen to be someone who posts link exchange requests in those forums it's going to be fairly easy to find. Even if you don't post in those threads it's likely not going to take too long to tie you to those who do.

Regardless of whether or not you get caught, the patent seems to me like a pretty clear signal of how search engines feel about link exchanges. It should be obvious they don't like them so if you're engaging in the practice as a way to build links into your site you should understand you're taking a risk.

There's nothing wrong with taking a risk and you certainly don't have to do everything a search engine tells you to do. You should at least understand the risk and reward before making your decision.

cbscreative
08-12-2009, 01:21 PM
Maybe the patent is nothing more than a ploy to expose the rats when they try to run. A patent is public record, therefore leading to buzz all over the Internet. Those with something to hide may expose themselves when they react to the news.

vangogh
08-12-2009, 01:31 PM
It's possible. Both Bill and Dave even wondered in their posts if this was done in part because Microsoft knew Bill would cover the patent. He's too modest to think that's really true, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was a consideration.

royhunters
08-12-2009, 05:53 PM
Business patents are real estate as well as a way to develop revenue.

This is an application for a method patent, it does not mean it is being done, and the patent has not been approved. IF google was doing this currently, then you would have a problem if Microsoft is awarded the patent because there would be a court case to see who was doing it first. Chances are that this is not a patent that will get approved as it will have some constitutional implications if a website is penalized for promoting an exchange of information without actually having done it. It will cost a lot of money in lawsuits every time a SEO is falsely accused.

But hey, it sure is a great thing to talk about and make people form opinions of things that do not exist and scare the hell out of everyone for no reason.

What Microsoft is doing, if they succeed with the application, is trying to patent a method that if any of their competition uses this method they are going to have to license the patent and that is another revenue stream for Microsoft as well as create another barrier to entry in the search arena.

If Microsoft knew Google was using this for their algo then they would not be dumb enough to apply for the patent and if Google was doing it, THEY would have filed the patent a long time ago.

The thing that I see being implied Buy Bill in his post and in others he has made is that exchanging links is a bad thing. The Author brought up a good example, Google's double click.

Then it starts this snowball of "what you are doing is wrong" when there is nothing wrong with doing it.

The context of this article was destroyed with your post and is now being served to the forum to mean something totally different than the author intended, and having "unnatural" link building is going to get you smacked.

Define Unnatural

Is advertising your website to get links useful in promoting your business unnatural or is natural only word of mouth?

The exchange of links is basic advertising, it is how things get found. This is not some evil that Google is trying to destroy.

Google or Microsoft does not like two things when it comes to links, Link farms for the purpose of getting ranked higher in search results, and the sale of a link to a commodity Google has created. That commodity is "Page Rank"

The reason Google does not like PageRank to be sold is because it will defeat the purpose of PageRank in the first place. It destroys the hierarchy they are trying to create.

Outside those two things Google wants links to be exchanged, THEY even sell them with Double click!

They also want you to remove the nofollow links and stop page sculpting as it interferes with page rank distribution.

They only want the nofollow attribute used when A) you can not vouch for the quality of a site or it's connection B) If that link is a paid placement.

If you were to strip all the links to everything on every web page we would be back to the bulletin board days of channel to channel connecting. It totally defeats the purpose of a network and the Internet. How you get links is totally fine if you do not violate the basic principles that Google and Microsoft have defined.

I am going to bring up another "relevancy" example again and hope this is understood.

If a magazine has a website and on that website there is a page of 300 links to the advertisers that have a business relationship with that magazine, according to Bill and some of the other statements I have seen on the board, this is considered a BAD thing because those links are not relevant to that website. That is the biggest BS statement I have heard this month.

Lets talk about "legal link farms" Delicious is a perfect example. It is a website of nothing but links. Links from browsers to a central site. That site keeps track of those links by count. People have bookmarked a site because it is important to them and those links have nothing to do with each other. Each link is a vote of popularity.

How about yellow pages? How about the Yahoo directory? Millions of totally unrelated links.

Call them Directories, or bookmarks, or bunjakins, they are all sites with unrelated and consolidated links for the purpose of finding information.

Relevant to the host site or not.

If I publish a web page and I have 30 links to information I want the world to know about, who mows my grass, who paints my house, my favorite restaurant, whatever, what is being implied by Bill in his post and previous posts and the context I see being taken from this article is that the Search Gestapo is going to send you to a spam concentration camp!

That is totally insane.

Stripping your links from your website or trying to prevent someone from linking to your website from a non related website defies all logic known to man and the Internet.

What is being discussed in the article is a BUILD on the link farm principle and the sale of PageRank. Thats it!

In my other post I brought up an example of a site that was done by a 14 year old, the focus of that example was ONLY to show that 60,000 links (that are totally not related and most likely not from relevant websites) created a site that ranked #1, as well as had a page rank of 4. Regardless if anyone see's any value in that site or not.

But, I was told by Bill this is a "bad" thing, you are going to get your hand slapped if you do this and made to look like a fool.

What I would really like to know is, if this is the case, with all the buzz about that kids site in the Media... don't you think Google would have slapped his hand? Instead they gave him a page rank of 4.

Whats up with that?

So does it, or does it not, seem to imply that Google supports links across the internet on sites, in articles, in forums, on blogs that may or may not be relevant to "making money online"??????

The 800 pound Gorilla says it's ok, Matt Cutts says it is ok, millions upon millions of websites have links to totally unrelated content and the internet functions, sites get page rank, and for the most part, everybody is happy.


What they don't want is link farms that exist SOLELY for the purpose of manipulating a sites placement in the search results and people selling a commodity that Google gave you in the first place. As it states in the Patent, Microsoft has their own 3 flavors of PageRank that I am sure they do not want sold.

Like that poster in the Authors blog had said, it would be very easy to discredit your competition buy putting his links on sites that Google will issue a penalty for. Do you think Google is really that dumb?

What Google will do is smack your hand if they have given you some page rank and you start to sell it to inflate another sites ranking.

If you have a page rank of zero and are linked to 20,000 other pages that are ranked zero who cares?????

But if you have a page rank of zero and all the sudden you appear on 10 pages with a page rank of 8... I am sure they are not going to be very happy because THAT is unnatural linking and that is the linking they want to avoid.

Go ahead Vangogh, tell me I am being Myopic again. I love it when you talk dirty. :D

How about creating something constructive rather than feed another conspiracy.

royhunters
08-12-2009, 08:59 PM
What to hear it from the horses mouth?

Follow Matt Cuts on twitter

his account is:

mattcutts

Probably the best twitter you an follow.

vangogh
08-12-2009, 09:15 PM
Roy once again your drawing conclusions where none exist and your twisting words to suit your own purpose.

1. No one ever said this patent had been granted or was currently being implemented. That Microsoft filed the application is an indication of how they feel about artificial link exchanges. It seems evident they don't like them

2. No one has said anything about advertising or buying links in this thread. This thread is about a patent Microsoft files about using webmaster and seo forums as a seed to find artificial link exchanges on the web. Do you know what a reciprocal link is? When someone buys a link or an ad it runs one way, not two.

3. In the context of this discussion "unnatural" would likely be defined as an exchange of links for not other purpose than the exchange of links. It is admittedly difficult to determine the motivation people have for linking in some cases. Hence the patent application.

4. Here's a definition of a link farm from Aaron Wall's SEO Glossary (http://www.seobook.com/glossary/) (emphasis mine). I'll assume it's ok to use Aaron's definition.


Website or group of websites which exercises little to no editorial control when linking to other sites. FFA pages, for example, are link farms.

Notice the "no editorial control" in the definition. Your magazine example would be a case where there is editorial control. Delicious bookmark links have rel=nofollow applied so I'm not sure how they apply here. They are also not reciprocal links as the bookmarked page generally doesn't link back to where it's been bookmarked on Delicious.

5. Just because Google doesn't penalize a site that engages in link exchanges doesn't mean they endorse the practice. It's not always an easy thing to programmatically determine link exchange practices. Again, hence the patent application

6. Before you start telling us what Matt Cutts says is ok you should actually read some of the things he says.

Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-061608.shtml)


Matt Cutts: Yes. And, that’s another place where not so long ago improved our documentation, because at first we said avoid the reciprocal links. Really, what you need to do is avoid the excessive reciprocal links. So we added the word excessive.

Yes he uses the word excessive. Like I said above not all exchanges of links are bad. There are good reasons why two web pages would link to each other. Excessive of course is defined by Google in this instance

Indexing Timeline (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/)

You should really read this post. It pertains to what was called the Big Daddy update and Matt points out some sites that got in trouble with Google over the practice of reciprocal linking to unrelated sites. And yes once again these sites were doing it to excess.

7.
Go ahead Vangogh, tell me I am being Myopic again. I love it when you talk dirty.

You need to start showing more respect for me, the other members here, and this forum in general. Things like your comment above are not appropriate. You may think that comes across in a friendly way, but it doesn't. I suggest you refrain from making similar statements and treat people and this forum with more respect.

8. I mentioned in the other thread that I won't be splitting your post. It's essentially the same post you started the thread with and we've discussed it long past the point of there being any value in it. Instead I closed the thread.

One last note: Please pay very close attention to what I said under #7 above. I appreciate that you have a different opinion about things and I even welcome it, because it's an important part of having a debate. Disagreement is welcomed and encouraged here. Disrespect is not. You may not have intended to show a lack of respect, but understand that much of what you've written here comes across that way. Please change the tone of your disagreements in future posts.

royhunters
08-13-2009, 12:17 AM
Number 7

Certainly. If I get the same in return.

I never said you said anything about the patents. It was a point made to give an understanding of what was going on to clarify the purpose of the filing.

Even the author did not know why the patent was filed, I have a lot of experience with method patents so it was an explanation as to what Microsofts motivation was as I believe that was also being discussed, No?

Everything else you said goes right in line with the point I was making. I am glad you made that very clear.

Thank you for the Matt Cutts quote, it reinforces my point even more.

Perhaps the slack I copped from a certain member for doing something that is allowed by Google has been proven unjust and the BS I received because of it was also excessive. Rather than making my thread something productive, it made a mockery of it.

Perhaps you could remind him of #7 as well, after his little digg in his reply to your post and my thread.

I read the articles, both of them and all the comments. I think I understood Microsofts intent more than the author does because I know why the patent was filed.

Do I know what a reciprocal link is?

Refer back to #7

Advice about "actually" reading what Matt Cutts says,

Refer back to #7

I follow 12 people on twitter, he is one of them. I probably read more of his words than you do.

Closing my previous thread, fine, it suits your interest to do so.

And I am over trying to create something productive in here anyway.

The whole point to me posting a list or tips is for forum discussion on how to make a list like that into something useful for a new site owner. Rather than trying to accomplish that, you just write it off as BS and give me the same hell in the end that I gave you.

THEN you criticize my website

What did that have to do with the post???????????

Did you know you have 5 images on your site without alt tags????? I checked your code the same way you checked mine. Yet it is OK for you to give me hell about basic SEO and tell me I need to learn it...

5 images without alt tags....

vangogh
08-13-2009, 02:08 AM
Roy if you feel I've shown you any disrespect then I apologize. Personally I think I've shown you a lot more respect than you've shown anyone else, but perhaps I haven't and again if I've said anything you felt was disrespectful then I do apologize.

As for your points.


It was a point made to give an understanding of what was going on to clarify the purpose of the filing.

You're argument was to attack the patent on something that really isn't related to the discussion here so you could later make the claim that it is a scare tactic. Whether or not the patent gets approved is irrelevant. The point was simply that Microsoft is looking at was to discover link exchanges. The information in the patent also suggests that they don't want those kind of links helping web pages and websites to rank.


Thank you for the Matt Cutts quote, it reinforces my point even more.

Here's what you said regarding Matt Cutts


The 800 pound Gorilla says it's ok, Matt Cutts says it is ok, millions upon millions of websites have links to totally unrelated content and the internet functions, sites get page rank, and for the most part, everybody is happy.

The quote and the Indexing Timeline post I linked to, both say that everyone (everyone being Google) is not happy with reciprocal links. Google sees them as an attempt to manipulate their search engine results and they've penalized sites for excessive link exchanges. Again that doesn't mean two pages can't link to each other, but the practice of seo by link exchanges is something they clearly don't care for.


I understood Microsofts intent more than the author does because I know why the patent was filed.

Bill Slawski has been reviewing patents in the search industry for years. He knows more about how search engines work than either of us, probably more than both of us combined. It's kind of insulting to suggest a man who's blog is built on reviewing patents, knows many of the people who work for the search engines, and is perhaps the foremost authority on search engine patents outside of the companies who filed the patents knows less about Microsoft's intent here than you do.


I follow 12 people on twitter, he is one of them. I probably read more of his words than you do.

I highly doubt that. You're not the only person who follows Matt Cutts on Twitter.


The whole point to me posting a list or tips is for forum discussion on how to make a list like that into something useful for a new site owner. Rather than trying to accomplish that, you just write it off as BS and give me the same hell in the end that I gave you.

No. I disagreed with several points on your list and still do. I don't have a problem with lists, but you can't teach someone new to seo what seo is all about in a simple list. Recipes don't work here. The reason I didn't split off your second list into a new post is because it doesn't make any sense. It's pretty much the same list as the first. What would be accomplished by having the same discussion about the same list?

I criticized your website, because you were trying to pass yourself of as something you are not. You were throwing numbers around about only wanting to take on 6 digit contracts from people and acting very arrogant as though you are one of the foremost experts on seo. It was what I took for arrogance that made me point out obvious mistakes on your site.

You're right I don't stuff keywords in every alt attribute. First that attribute is meant for people who can't see your images. When an image is simply background (say the gradient behind a navigation bar) I don't add text because it doesn't make any sense to. It's not going to improve the site for the person who can't see that image.

Also alt text doesn't quite have the effect you seem to think it does. It's minimal at best unless you're specifically trying to have the image rank in an image search. I don't see how having some images rank is all that beneficial. Other images I do see the benefit and so do add alt text.

Skipping alt text on some images is the right thing to do and skipping it on others is not that big a deal. Having your home page display as domain.com, www.domain.com, domain.com/index.html and www.domain.com/index.html is a big deal. Also not linking your blog to your main site when it exists to help promote your main site is a very big deal. Comparing either to a few images without alt text makes no sense.

billbenson
08-13-2009, 10:38 AM
Perhaps the slack I copped from a certain member for doing something that is allowed by Google has been proven unjust and the BS I received because of it was also excessive. Rather than making my thread something productive, it made a mockery of it.


Interesting read VG. It also goes to the point of "don't do stuff today that might hurt you down the road" as mentioned in other threads. That certainly includes any manner of unnatural linking.

Well let's see Roy. I said that unnatural linking can hurt you today and in the future. You agreed, but said what you do is natural linking. I don't think so but your entitled to convince yourself of whatever you want. Funny, nobody here has agreed with you though.

You considered what I said a personal attack on you. I really doubt what you are doing is endorsed by google. Whatever. You consider the fact that I disagree with you a personal attack. Sounds like insecurity to me.

Did a search for your favorite web kid who is "all over the internet" Apart from the fact that your article implied that his dad actually did it, the article appears only on get rich quick sites. I couldn't find one credible site where it appeared. I can only assume that you get your information from get rich quick sites and use that to claim you are an expert.

All of this is fine if you are doing it on your own site. If you are selling your services as a SEO using your techniques without educating client and warning them of the risks, you are putting every one of them at risk of of loosing all SE placement down the road.

There are plenty of SEO companies out there who use techniques to give short term results for their customers that won't work or will harm them down the road.

So, no, I only disagreed with you. I did not attack you. I posted my opinion.

Dan Furman
08-14-2009, 02:37 PM
Number 7

Certainly. If I get the same in return.

Two things:

You likely would have been better received if you didn't become the loudest guy at the party thirty seconds after arriving.

Number two, I didn't read everything you wrote, but much of what I did read had a somewhat grating, snide undertone. Not sure if you meant that, but that's how you come across.

cbscreative
08-14-2009, 03:07 PM
You may want to take note of the "Banned" under Roy's user name. His disrespect for other members crossed way over the line. His last post (immediately deleted) was basically asking to be banned while taking a final jab on the way out.

Personally, I found it interesting, at times entertaining, as Roy added "spice" to our discussions. His different perspective was certainly welcomed, and disagreement was not a problem because we encourage civil disagreements here. Many of his posts spent too much energy jabbing at other members, which we tolerated but did not approve of.

His motives for being here were suspicious almost immediately. It did not appear that he was truly interested in honest debate. But like I said, his crossing way over the line and blatently disrespecting, rather than just disagreeing, was our reason for banning him.

Dan Furman
08-14-2009, 03:45 PM
You may want to take note of the "Banned" under Roy's user name. His disrespect for other members crossed way over the line. His last post (immediately deleted) was basically asking to be banned while taking a final jab on the way out.

Personally, I found it interesting, at times entertaining, as Roy added "spice" to our discussions. His different perspective was certainly welcomed, and disagreement was not a problem because we encourage civil disagreements here. Many of his posts spent too much energy jabbing at other members, which we tolerated but did not approve of.

His motives for being here were suspicious almost immediately. It did not appear that he was truly interested in honest debate. But like I said, his crossing way over the line and blatently disrespecting, rather than just disagreeing, was our reason for banning him.

Yea, he seemed a bit underhanded. And he was definitely looking to stir things up (which, like you mentioned, may not be all bad in many cases.) But he had a terrible way of doing it.

KristineS
08-14-2009, 05:00 PM
A lot of people, sadly, can't seem to comprehend the difference between civil disagreement and name calling and being disrespectful. Personally, I was also concerned that the "advice" Roy was handing out was not the best but people who were now knowledgeable about SEO might not be aware of that fact. Part of what we do here is try to present both sides of the issue and to inform those who might not be expert or experienced. If we let blatant bad information go unchallenged, we wouldn't be doing our jobs as good forum citizens.

billbenson
08-14-2009, 05:11 PM
I'd make a couple of observations. While he posted, most of the board went very quiet. He did take control of the board. VG did a very good an diplomatic job of dealing with him, but this is not a seo board; seo is part of the board. He did harm while he was here imo by distracting other parts of the forum and just the general tone.

What he suggested doing may work in some instances. Instead of "have you thought of this" he tried to convince us that commonly accepted seo strategies were wrong and he was right. If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot. Worse, he considered opposing views an attack on him.

Had he arrived accepting traditional seo, and presented what has worked for him, I would have taken a close look at what he was doing. Even if I came to the conclusion that what he was doing or was black hat, he would have been presenting valuable information.

I don't know why he kept posting except for ego. He only hurt himself if others read these threads. It is an example of poor salesmanship which we all can learn from. How many of us have had something shoved down our throat with a good pitch and actually bought the product. I'm sure I have.

He kept mentioning a Mexican restaurant, and may indeed have brought them a lot of business they didn't have. His strategies may have been a good idea in certain instances. But not always which is what he was saying.

This is also a reason that the non web savvy need to be careful. Before you hire someone, do some searches. It can reveal overt or covert problems or also reinforce the fact that you want to hire someone. Also, remember there will always be some negative feedback.

cbscreative
08-14-2009, 05:32 PM
While he posted, most of the board went very quiet.

It was hard enough just to read all that, much less respond to it :)

I salute vangogh for being able to handle that.

I suppose I should add a note if anyone wonders what we are referring to. Of course, if they didn't already follow the http://www.small-business-forum.net/search-engine-optimization/1781-step-step-instructions-get-higher-ranking-search-results.html thread, it will probably be overwhelming. It also comes with a Contains Bad Advice alert.

b2bmarketing
09-09-2009, 03:59 AM
Very interesting and informative read.