say something

Is Reciprocal Linking Bad?

What used to be the common way of helping your community find your peers is now outlawed — reciprocal linking is now a violation against the Google Webmaster Guidelines.

Webmasters are outraged over the recent change in Google’s policy, now specifically targetting what they refer to as “Link Schemes”:

Examples of link schemes can include:

  • Links intended to manipulate PageRank
  • Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
  • Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging (”Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)
  • Buying or selling links

Item #1, #2, and #4 have long been questioned as ethical behavior when it comes to using the hyperlink, all of them somehow gaining the reputation from webmasters and publishers who now largely consider them as inappropriate ways of link building. #1 though is always an after–effect of a hyperlink, be it positive or negative in an SEO context, unless when used with the rel="nofollow" attribute which is typically ignored by search engines. On the other hand, #3 is a different discussion altogether.

Changing the Web’s Nature

Google’s action is significantly questionable since it is posed to alter the way the world wide web behaves, something that already existed even before the birth of the search giant. In a way, it tries to take away our freedom to link meaningfully; your blogroll of friends who most likely are also linking to you is now a possible violation that could get you banned from the Google index!

Google’s Matt Cutts acknowledges the ramifications of their policy update, even suggesting that webmasters may do as they please, continue reciprocal linking and all, just as Google can have their way with regards to their index and the search results they produce. Though all of these actions are indeed meant to produce better results for their users, it is also irresponsible to pass the burden of weeding out unethical linking to the publishers themselves. In their effort to completely remove spam sites from their index, they are effectively asking for a change in behavior from the majority of users and publishers. It’s like regulating and telling us how to use an icepick since it can also be used to do bad things. So maybe my example was a little off, but you get my drift.

Information Monopoly

I think it’s now time for us to realize that Google has some sort of “information monopoly,” based on the fact that it is the preferred tool people use to find anything they need, now both online and even offline. It has too much power at its hands that no publisher or webmaster would dare Google’s ire, since a great deal of sites rely heavily on search engine traffic, in most cases, Google. To be fair, the search giant isn’t to blame since none of its competitors have provided compelling technology to suggest a trend that moves toward a democratized search market. At the end of the day, almost everyone will still be using Google for almost everything they do.

With this in mind, all the more do we need a more understanding Google, we need it to practice its “don’t be evil” mantra pro–actively without adversely affecting those who always try to play fair.

Nurturing Responsible Publishers & Webmasters

Taken in a positive context, though Google’s move may appear over–zealous, their actions should help nurture a more responsible breed of publishers and webmasters. By suggesting that we do as we please, they may be daring us to behave within the bounds of what we think is right, with or without reciprocal linking or the other schemes they cited. By doing so, they can adjust accordingly and learn what parameters to give weight on and what to disregard, to produce the most appropriate search results and discard what shouldn’t be there. However, the process may not be straightforward, it is likely that many of us publishers may be affected in the short–term. And the bad ones weeded out in the long run.

It’s gonna be rough, but what choice do we really have? In the end, both users, publishers, and webmasters will benefit from all this. Hopefully.

Written by Markku Seguerra, rebelpixel.com.

7 people says things!

  1. Good job on the first link. 404.

    By Oli on August 19, 2007 6:05 pm

  2. I think something needs to be done to shake things up. The quality of search results isn’t what it used to be. Somehow, I feel unethical approaches diminish the quality of Google’s product so I think it behooves them to address this. It’s kind of like industry groups buying off our political system. I have 5 clients that place within the top 5 position in Google for various key words within a 100-mile radius of their marketing region. All done without link exchanging. Simply good content and appropriate use of keyword strategies.

    By hcabbos on August 19, 2007 9:08 pm

  3. Hi Oli, I don’t see a 404 on the first link. Perhaps there’s a problem with your connection?

    By Markku Seguerra on August 20, 2007 12:33 am

  4. @hcabbos: Exactly. Google and all search engines should never stop innovating to provide the best results for its users. Unfortunately, some publishers would rather exploit the system instead, thus the proliferation of spam sites that have no original content at all.

    Ideally, good content should be more than enough to get us the traffic we all deserve. But the situation is now so far from ideal.

    By Markku Seguerra on August 20, 2007 6:45 am

  5. Markku: I think somebody must have hopped in and fixed it. I did try it several times last night including refreshing this page. I managed to get there by using another site that you referenced.

    By Oli on August 20, 2007 7:59 am

  6. nothing wrong with link exchange.. its been a great way to brand a website with like minded sites since the birth of the http://WWW.

    Google is having a problem with full duplex link exchange whereas you pay your $50 and get auto-linked to hundreds of sites overnight without any editorial oversite. Avoid any software or service that guarantees links.

    Continue to link exchange when it benefits your end users. Continue to link exchange when sites you are linking to add useful content to your website.

    We have been link exchanging for years.. we use a software called linksmanager to maintain human control and low/natural volume. if you maintain editorial discretion when making links, and keep the volume realistic, its a very powerful way to attract like minded traffic to your website, and brand your website with related sites in your realm of interest.

    By Karen Repkan on August 21, 2007 8:10 am

  7. Karen, good points. Essentially, link exchange isn’t much different compared to good ol’ word-of-mouth referrals in real life, so ideally it isn’t a problem unless you’re passing on information that isn’t true. I’m sure Google has taken all this into consideration, and knows how to deal with it. Knowing how smart their engineers are, I’m sure they know what they’re trying to catch.

    By Markku Seguerra on August 23, 2007 3:21 am

  8. Subscribe to comments via RSS!

    What do you think?