| Reciprocal Linking |
|
|
 published in LED Digest 2256: Pieces of the SEO Puzzle Moderator Comment >> The LED Digest was CCd late last week when two linking luminaries, Eric Ward and Dirk Johnson, exchanged their views on the oft-debated practice of reciprocal linking. A few highlights from their discussion are published here. From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Reciprocal Linking > I respect you as a world class reciprocal link builder and applaud > your many years of experience. Your particular niche is under > attack left and right, so your passion is understandable and you > raise some great points. I've said for 14 years reciprocal links > are not evil, but can be used with evil intent. - Eric Ward I appreciate the feedback. I just want to have a level-headed discussion. I am aware of your well-earned reputation, and respect it. We each perform different tasks for our clients. I don't try to do what you do. And, for the most part, from what I have seen, you don't try to do what I do. We have a very focused business model here, by specific choice. There is a need for responsible reciprocal link management services. We decided to focus entirely on that aspect of linking. It has served us well, and our clients. We also fully realize that our approach is not the right one for some sites, and that our approach is not the be-all, end-all of link building. We simply try to do this aspect of link building the right way, and we advise our clients that there are other methods of link building that can be added to this mix, or alternatives, if they choose to pursue them. I certainly appreciate this statement you made in your reply: "Your particular niche is under attack left and right". Eric, it comes from almost everywhere in the SEO world these days, or at least it comes from the most vocal portions. Even at that, we have a lot of SEO clients who still bring their clients to us. They realize the value of what we do, but they are also not the "brand name" pundits. They are working SEO practitioners who need results at affordable rates. We're proud to service them. All I have ever asked for from all of these anti-reciprocation pundits is some form of verifiable proof that reciprocation, as a general concept, is nullified. To date, I have yet to see a single shred of proof. Usually, they simply attack me as a "spamming self-promoter", or something worse, and then wash their hands of the argument. I fully appreciate that you did not take that approach in your reply. These pundits have no interest in facts or evidence. We can deliver substantial evidence that contradicts entirely what they say. The challenge is that we are not willing to expose our clients. We don't have their permission, and we would not even assume to ask, nor are we really willing to expose the sites that we link with responsibly. IN other words, we are not about going out and parading our clients or link partner SERP placements publicly. That would be wholly inappropriate, for several reasons. We are just one piece of the SEO puzzle, and we should not even try to take credit for it. But, quite simply, we can show a endless display of sites that reciprocate responsibly, and they use it as their primary means of link popularity, and rank extraordinarily well in Google SERPs, even through all the algorithm changes, some going back several years. Stable, solid results. I am not sure how that can be denied, unless one simply decides to ignore it. It's pervasive. You also said: "the engines would be nuts if they did not analyze reciprocity in some way so as to try and identify a level of trust or relevancy, and to identify scams, link farms, and self run recip networks." We are all for that here. In fact, it has likely already happened at Google, during the Jagger update. Our clients withstood that change quite well. By and large, the sites that we reciprocate with are other legitimate small businesses that use reciprocity properly, to support their business. These are sites that apply editorial control over their sites and link directories, and thus, they establish trust. Links from those sites, even reciprocated ones, are valid. If I might, just for talking purposes, head into the territory of raw speculation. I would speculate that Google has already looked at nullifying ALL reciprocal links, and they did not like what they saw in the test SERPs. It's just a hunch, but they've had 8 years to nullify all reciprocation, and they never have. They'd take down a lot of very legitimate sites, while also driving site owners into even more manipulative one-way linking schemes. So they've attacked the edges, and found methods to establish trust and relevance. Sites that live within those boundaries were left alone, even rewarded. We support that. I fully realized the distinctions that arise with your the use of "could" in your post. However, I feel strongly that most people cannot see the distinction. Wrapping the argument in those kinds of semantics is not helpful to the reader. The implications are self-evident. A lot of things "could" happen, related to linking, such as: - Google could nullify links from "article dumps". That is, the places where people can post all manner of useless "content", only for SEO linkage purposes. - Google could nullify links that come via mass-distribution press release. - Google could seek out and nullify links from the large text ad brokers. Maybe they already do some of this, to some degree. Maybe they don't. But what we need in this world of SE advice is facts, not speculation. The SEO world also needs a good look at the return-on-investment aspects of the various link building strategies. I never see that discussed. I appreciate the exchange. I hope that you understand that I am fighting against considerable mis-information and confusion about reciprocal linking, and it comes from many of the most vocal voices in the SEO world. My policy here is to address it, stridently. Maybe I go overboard, but their lack of understanding of this subject is palpable, and leads them to make recommendations to their clients and readers that may well cost more, take longer, and be less effective than that of competitors who are not following such advice. Some people would call that malpractice in other industries. In the SEO world, anyone can say anything, and with a large enough audience, and the luxury of of a respected format, they can get away with it. It's a sad situation for those who rely on such advice when making their business decisions. Again, thanks for the exchange. I do hope that you can see this issue from my perspective. Best regards, Dirk Johnson www.domaindrivers.com From: Eric Ward > A lot of things "could" happen, related to linking, > such as... Google could nullify links from "article > dumps". That is, the places where people can > post all manner of useless "content", only for > SEO linkage purposes. - Dirk Johnson I'd love it if Google would dump every so-called article directory. > Goodle could nullify links that come via > mass-distribution press release. Ditto. > Google could seek out and nullify links > from the large text ad brokers. Especially those who sell links for rankings improvement reasons. > Again, thanks for the exchange. I do hope that > you can see this issue from my perspective. Absolutely! I think you have a golden opportunity right now because recips are still very useful and you have the skills to do it right. For me, the fact that your clients withstood jagger tells me everything. The tighter the theme, the more likely the cream rises. This is what it says on my site about recips: "Don't believe the hype about reciprocal linking "Reciprocal linking has its place, and can be very beneficial. People who tell you that reciprocal links are a dead-end are clueless. It's all about quality and relevance. I choose to focus on one-way link building campaigns, and have since the day I began this business. I do not engage in reciprocal linking projects if your objective is search rank, because that's a foolish approach. If I see linking opportunities that require a reciprocal link, I study the site to see if a link would provide strategic value other than SEO, and if so, I'll pursue them under very specific conditions that we agree to beforehand. Most of my clients don't offer, nor do they seek, reciprocal links." That's hardly an indictment, and is closer to an endorsement than anything. My own preference is to work one-way projects on behalf of content that can get away with that approach :) I truly admire your willingness to do what you do. It ain't easy. Eric Ward http://www.ericward.com Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
