It appears Google has recently published this new guideline to explain link schemes but in doing so, you state:
"Examples of link schemes can include: ... Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.") "
This is unfair and overreaching. I will carefully presume you are referring to full duplex linking schemes whereas webmasters pay a small fee to be auto-linked to hundreds of sites in a short time period.
But what about quality websites that exchange reciprocal links with other quality websites within their same realm of interest while maintaining editorial discretion?
I run a site that sells motorcycle parts. I have exchanged links with a site that sells graphics for motorcycles. Both sites have been online for ten years - pre-Google. When I exchange links while maintaining editorial discretion, this is not a link scheme.. but you guideline above says that if I exchange links, I am participating in a link scheme.
Please consider re-writing this specific guideline so that is specifically discusses the difference between full duplex link exchange without any editorial discretion, and low volume editor based reciprocal linking with quality sites for the end user.
Google should realize link exchange can be conducted two specific ways:
-- Link exchange can be abused with full duplex softwares that makes link exchanges in high volume without maintaining editorial discretion.
-- Link exchange (also called reciprocal linking) can be conducted in low volume with quality relevant sites while maintaining editorial control.
It's unfair to lump both methods together. It is unfair to state that I am participating in a link scheme when I am linking for the end user with editorial discretion. Please reconsider this guideline and understand many sites have been exchanging quality relevant links in low volume before Google ever existed.
Natural link exchanges exist all over the place, CNN.com has linked to Foxnews.com, Foxnews.com has linked to Cnn.com, that is not what they are talking about. Its those terrible LINKS.html, partners.html, resources.html pages they are talking about, some even have the balls to have their link exchange policy right on the site. That is spam, and the whole site should be dumped because of it. Try to find the cnn.com link exchange page, try to find any commercially succesfull sites link exchange page, they don't exist.
> It appears Google has recently published this new guideline to explain > link schemes but in doing so, you state:
> "Examples of link schemes can include: ... > Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link > to you.") "
> This is unfair and overreaching. I will carefully presume you are > referring to full duplex linking schemes whereas webmasters pay a > small fee to be auto-linked to hundreds of sites in a short time > period.
> But what about quality websites that exchange reciprocal links with > other quality websites within their same realm of interest while > maintaining editorial discretion?
> I run a site that sells motorcycle parts. I have exchanged links with > a site that sells graphics for motorcycles. Both sites have been > online for ten years - pre-Google. When I exchange links while > maintaining editorial discretion, this is not a link scheme.. but you > guideline above says that if I exchange links, I am participating in a > link scheme.
> Please consider re-writing this specific guideline so that is > specifically discusses the difference between full duplex link > exchange without any editorial discretion, and low volume editor based > reciprocal linking with quality sites for the end user.
> Google should realize link exchange can be conducted two specific > ways:
> -- Link exchange can be abused with full duplex softwares that makes > link exchanges in high volume without maintaining editorial > discretion.
> -- Link exchange (also called reciprocal linking) can be conducted in > low volume with quality relevant sites while maintaining editorial > control.
> It's unfair to lump both methods together. It is unfair to state that > I am participating in a link scheme when I am linking for the end user > with editorial discretion. Please reconsider this guideline and > understand many sites have been exchanging quality relevant links in > low volume before Google ever existed.
As long as the bulk of your site's links does not come from link- exchanges you have nothing to worry about. The links will not penalize your site. At worst, they could be ignored. If you have enough link- value from other sources then you don't have to worry about this at all.
> As long as the bulk of your site's links does not come from link- > exchanges you have nothing to worry about. The links will not penalize > your site. At worst, they could be ignored. If you have enough link- > value from other sources then you don't have to worry about this at > all.
Exactly, all this BS is "half a dozen of one, six of the other". There's no way in HELL the Gbot nor any algo's can determine what is "natural" from what is "unnatural"! Just what the heck is a "**natural** reciprocal link? Such a thing can't exist according to G. "You link to me and I'll link to you" is a "link exchange" and a reciprocal link is a reciprocal link.
G just needs to BUTT OUT of it and LET site owners link to whomever they want and stop trying to penalize site owners, AGAIN, for something like this. Again, they are judge, jury and executioner in determining (or so they say) what is a "**natural** reciprocal link" and what is not. They impossibly expect everyone to have a totally useless POS site like http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm , http://www.turnofftheinternet.com , and hundreds of others like them, that millions will want to link to for a joke, yet those particular site owners link to NO ONE and reap the benefits of an astronomical over-inflated PR's of 5-6+ of as well!
You might not get it but it's possible to judge most reciprocal linkage algorithmically, there are more signals to look at than just two href's. I agree that the help text is improvable. Sebastian
> Exactly, all this BS is "half a dozen of one, six of the other". > There's no way in HELL the Gbot nor any algo's can determine what is > "natural" from what is "unnatural"! Just what the heck is a > "**natural** reciprocal link? Such a thing can't exist according to > G. "You link to me and I'll link to you" is a "link exchange" and a > reciprocal link is a reciprocal link.
> G just needs to BUTT OUT of it and LET site owners link to whomever > they want and stop trying to penalize site owners, AGAIN, for > something like this. Again, they are judge, jury and executioner in > determining (or so they say) what is a "**natural** reciprocal link" > and what is not. They impossibly expect everyone to have a totally > useless POS site likehttp://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm,http://www.turnofftheinternet.com, and hundreds of others like them, > that millions will want to link to for a joke, yet those particular > site owners link to NO ONE and reap the benefits of an astronomical > over-inflated PR's of 5-6+ of as well!
