Marketing & SEO Discussion List - LED Digest

March 16, 2006

this thread morphed from Reputable SEO/M Services which can be found in this category

Let's take a new approach to this ongoing argument about the effectiveness of reciprocal linking, and I'll try to avoid direct exchanges with others who have posted, and talk in general terms. Maybe that's better.

Reciprocal linking, done properly and with relevance, is still very effective as a means to establish brand awareness for a website. That branding work has the secondary effect of being seen and confirmed by the search engines. Thousands and thousands of sites do it, and many have done it many years, and continue. If it did not work, most would stop, since it requires a commitment of time and money. Yes, some people do stop, for various reasons, as there are no guarantees, and there are a lot of factors at play here.

For those who continue to do it and derive tangible benefits, just how do they know that it works? Are they guessing, hoping and praying? No. It's actually very simple. By reviewing their site referral stats before and then during the link campaign. Once they start to see the primary and secondary benefits, they become even more determined to continue the work. It's been happening that way for years.

Here's another much more public way to see if it works. Proper reciprocal linking does affect search results. Just take a look at a broad cross section of search results, and not just a few carefully selected individual cases here and there. Look at dozens and dozens of situations. Again and again, many of the sites that rank well (but this is certainly not always the case) have robust link exchange programs in place, and they rely on reciprocal linking as their primary means of initiating links. That is an undeniable fact, for anyone who looks objectively at search results. Many of them have had these programs in place for years. Moving these established sites out of their established positions is very hard to do. Lots of people try.

There are those in the SEO world who would dismiss this rather substantial community of cooperative, reciprocating sites as being misguided, and following some kind of outdated, pack-mentality, or whatever. After all, all the "experts" know that it doesn't work anymore. These SEO specialists can grind whatever axes they need to grind, for whatever reasons they need to grind them. Some of these people have the advantage of having "big names", and they get high profile speaking gigs, run popular forums, and have widely referenced articles and books.

Many of them have repeatedly published misguided, unfounded statements about reciprocal linking over the years, and some of it is has been outright absurd with it's failure to hold up to scrutiny. It is obvious to me that many of them have very little real experience with the practice, or they no longer do. If many of these "experts" are so confused about this most fundamental aspect of website marketing and branding work, then I have to question what else they do not truly understand about this business. The ability to talk and write about this subject, regardless of how high profile the stage, does not guarantee any sort of factual expertise.

At the same time, there are a large number of SEO practitioners who do understand the purpose and the benefits of a robust and relevant reciprocal link exchange program, and they do pursue link exchanges on behalf of their clients. We encounter them every day, as either clients or as link exchange partners. While some of these people are also very well-known and respected and published, these are also the work-a-day SEO practitioners. They need to get results for clients, at reasonable cost. They look to reciprocal linking as one option of many, in a very pragmatic and unemotional way. Would these people continue the practice, if did not work as a part of the larger picture?

Fortunately, the site owners and SEO specialists who do benefit from reciprocal linking tend to just ignore the nay-sayers, and continue to do what they have done for years, and continue to enjoy the benefits. Those who prefer to take the advice of the detractors then need to find other means to accomplish their goals. Maybe those other means might cost more, be less stable, be less effective, and may carry more risk. That's up to them to decide how to proceed.

Reciprocal linking is by no means the solution for every site. Some people don't like the concept of it. Some people think it is ineffective. Some don't want to commit resources to it. Every site owner must decide if it is right for their own site. Nor does it stand alone. It is just one of a myriad of methods to not only earn links, but to market a website. However, we see in situation after situation where it is, in fact, one of the fundamental components of a solid website marketing and branding program.

Am I self promoting? If that's the tack that one wants to take here, then just call me a self-promoter, dismiss me, and do what you need to do.

But LED Digest is supposed to be a forum for the exchange of web marketing and management ideas, and expertise in this realm does not come from left field. Nor does it come from those who see only limited examples and then make broad, unfounded claims. It comes from those who practice their craft daily, and have done it for years. I do bring that to the table here, so if myself and those like me don't share what we see out here in the course of our work, and accept in advance that it just might be construed as self-promotion, then we'll only have a LED Digest full of speculators and casual observers, and not day-to-day practitioners.

More to the point, folks. Adam tries hard to moderate this forum properly, and has done it well for years. Those who want to constantly advance their opinions in here by attacking their detractors as "self-promoters" are not only insulting all the other LED readers as being unable to tell the difference, they are also taking aim at Adam's moderating decisions in the process. I am not the only one who has endured these kinds of attacks. It's getting rather worn out and transparent as a debating tactic in a closely moderated forum like this one.

Let's exchange ideas, but how about we all lay off the "self promotion" retorts? They accomplish nothing but to put a muzzle on those who might have something relevant to share, but do not, lest they be called out as a "self-promoter". I have a thick enough skin to take it. Others who have something to share may not.

Best regards,

Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations

---

Written by Micheal Martinez
March 22, 2006

I've never said any such thing either on LED Digest or elsewhere. Google confirms I've never posted any such comment to LED Digest. What I have often said is that every site needs links and that most sites don't need continual link building. Also, on many occasions after finding specific sites had hundreds of links already, I have pointed out that additional link building won't help sites with poor rankings.

In LED Digest 2118 Dirk Johnson took a "new approach" and wrote:

"I'll try to avoid direct exchanges with others who have posted, and talk in general terms."

And a little later he added:

"There are those in the SEO world who would dismiss this rather substantial community of cooperative, reciprocating sites as being misguided, and following some kind of outdated, pack-mentality, or whatever. ...

"Many of them have repeatedly published misguided, unfounded statements about reciprocal linking over the years, and some of it is has been outright absurd with it's failure to hold up to scrutiny. It is obvious to me that many of them have very little real experience with the practice, or they no longer do. ..."

He argues that "good SEOs" all "get" reciprocal linking and do it every day and speak highly of it. Well, Matt Cutts from Google has a few things to say about reciprocal linking:

"The best links are not paid, or exchanged after out-of-the-blue emails­, the best links are earned and given by choice. When I recap SES from my viewpoint, I’ll give some examples of great ways to earn links."

mattcutts.com/blog/seo-mistakes-link-exchange-emails/

"The main point I want to get across is that in 1-2 minutes, it was easy to tell whether a site was (over)doing reciprocal links or trying to buy links."

mattcutts.com/blog/tell-me-about-your-backlinks/.

So, you can reciprocal link, but you can overdo it.  You can overdo all linking.

SEO is not about exchanging links, buying links, or building linkage at all.  SEO is about getting the best possible placement for your relevant content.  Sometimes, the other guy really does have more relevant content. It's true that you can bulldoze your way to the top through a large number of links.  That is called link-bombing, not search engine optimization. It's true that a handful of industries such as real estate have become so competitive that all the top players indulge in excessive link building.  That is a self-defeating strategy, not search engine optimization.

Every Web site needs links.  But many highly ranked sites get by with far fewer links than their competition.  And now Google has devalued many paid and reciprocal links.  People have said on several SEO forums that many links Google ignores still work for Yahoo! and MSN.  No one knows if that will always be the case. When it comes to link building, since most people are concerned with their Google rankings, let me reiterate some age-old, general-purpose advice: caveat emptor.  Buyer beware.

Reciprocal linking and paid linking produce unnatural link relationships and these practices entail some risk.  Understand when you do these things that they may be effective only for a while or they may be ineffective.  The truth is that you will never know for sure because there is no accurate method for measuring how much links help or hurt.

There are people who claim to measure the impact of linkage on search results, but I have never seen any credible analyses.  Not one.

Michael Martinez

"Our "Web Guru" at work will always tell our sales guys and clients that the "secret to getting a good rank in the search engines is a good link campaign and you have to get more inbound links than your competition's website." - Tony Gschwend, LED 2116

Here's the thing with incoming links.  It highly depends on the quality of the links.  One link from DMOZ or the New York Times is worth hundreds, if not thousands, of links from other sources.  Of course, notice that it isn't easy to get your link on either of those websites.  Why?  Quality Control.  They only link to quality websites. Which is why search engines respect them so much.

Also, I have noticed that it tends to take months for incoming links to have any effect.  It also can takes months for new pages to get listed, although usually it takes a few weeks.  So if you assumed that the links had no effect after waiting only a month or so, you haven't given enough time for them to have an effect yet.

Incoming links do help, but are not vital to search engine ranking. Quality content is.  And if you get important websites to link to you, that DOES help... a lot.  But again, they only link to quality websites.

Scott M. Stolz

caribbeanchoice.com

---

Written by Dirk Johnson
March 29, 2006

"There are people who claim to measure the impact of linkage on search results, but I have never seen any credible analyses. Not one." - Michael Martinez, LED 2122

All link analysis, public or private, is ultimately based on a limited sample, and is empirical and even anecdotal. It leaves room for all manner of opinion. Anyone can be "right", just by finding specific examples that fit their bias, and then reporting on it in some clever way. Broad conclusions and opinions about linking are often based on very narrow sampling, and those conclusions usually don't hold up.

That's what is so frustrating about some of the SEO / linking forums, where supposedly there are "experts" sharing insights. Yet anyone with an axe to grind can say anything they like, with no requirement that it hold up to even cursory empirical analysis. That's where all of the various linking myths (and there are many) get started.

Some of these forums are dominated by strongly opinionated individuals who shout down, insult and chase away anyone who might disagree with their theorems, and the bullies, by virtue of their familiarity and established relationships, often enjoy the support of the moderators. It's a waste of time to argue with these ideologues and to point out the blatant shortcomings of their theories. They're not listening. Not all linking forums are like this, but many are.

From this cauldron of bad advice, widely-distributed articles about linking tend to boil up to the surface and the myths earn an even larger stage. These bogus, unfounded articles about linking are now everywhere, and they keep coming on a regular basis. Much of what is written publicly about this subject, especially when it relates to gaming the search engines one way or another, fails miserably under close scrutiny.

What to do? Objective people will skip the advice of "experts" and simply try to determine what has worked for other sites, and emulate it. The more results they look at, the better the correlation with what works. There is a convergence. There are undeniable common factors at play. The more situations that are reviewed objectively, the more that the trends reveal themselves. So it comes down to people making their own review of what they see and then build a strategy around it.

Doing that makes sense, and it avoids the nonsense talk coming from the forums. When they do that, they'll find all kinds of linking methods at play. There is no one-size-fits-all. Some methods of linking carry higher risk than others. Some cost more than others. Some take longer to get the links. Some are less stable in terms of the link duration. Some provide more direct traffic. Each situation is unique. Choices must be made.

My own advice to clients and LED readers has always been to deploy all of the legitimate linking methods that are available to them that fit their site and their budget. The most successful site owners use several methods of initiating links. That's just smart business.

Some site owners can only afford to pursue one or two methods of earning links. When that's the case, then choosing the most effective method, for the least cost, is critical. It's not always the same method, either. Determining which method is used is what makes all of this very interesting. That's why taking bad advice based on bad analysis and ideology-driven opinion can be very costly. It can take legitimate options off the table.

Frankly, that's what I like about this business. Site owners will make choices, and then see where the chips fall. Those who make the right choices will benefit.

Best regards,

Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations

DomainDrivers LLC

---

Written by Michael Linehan
March 30, 2006

I have many examples, but this is a good one. Fiona Raven - fionaraven.com.  When we started, I got her to number 1 out of 4 million in Google for the words book designer (non-specific, 'all these words' search).

We went through all the Google updates. Sites screamed into the basement. New sites shot up the rankings.  At each phase of the Google Dance, we heard bitter complaints.  And Fiona Raven just sat there, bouncing up and down slightly between number 1 and number 4. Tens of millions more results appeared. She just sat there at the top.  This went on and on until today there are 89 MILLION pages returned. She is still number three.

So my point -- How was this done?  Plenty of thematically related content, good, basic white-hat SEO, and... a healthy dose of inbound links.

I did my own experiment on linking - a site created with LOTS of quality, thematically-related content and well optimized, but with no inbound linking.  It got NOWHERE, while a couple of client sites, similarly optimized by me, got page one results for the same search. Each of them had a moderate amount of inbound linking.

Michael Linehan, Marketing Alchemy