Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED!
Amazing! You’re gonna want to bookmark this one. According to the new Google Webmaster Guidelines regarding Search Engine Optimization, “Web sites are no longer permitted to exchange links” which is one of the fundamental practices on the internet (which predates Google BTW). Do notice it explicitly states “Link to me and I’ll link to you” is Reciprocal Linking an activity that Google considers a “Link Scheme” that has a likelihood of getting you BANNED!
As Matt Cutts acknowledged, Webmasters are free to do whatever they please with their Web sites and Google is free to do whatever it wishes with its index. This is all “well and good” as I tend to agree with the sentiment. However, a fundamental practice that has been around as long as the modern browser is now being considered as “off the reservation” behavior is troublesome. What about a trackback? You’ve now traded a link with someone by just linking to a site. Without any reassurance or details, all webmasters are left with is a broad range of assumptions. As you would expect, webmasters whose livelihood depend on the success of their websites who are now presented with the possibility of getting banned are extremely worried as related in Michael Martinez’ blog post at SEOTheory. While we may disagree with Michael on a few of his points and tactics, it’s the comment from Google employee Adam Lasnik that has caught our attention.
Instead of empathy or reassurance, Google shows contempt for SEOs and Webmasters:
“Like other Googlers, I welcome and encourage feedback… heartfelt, blunt, and thoughtful feedback. But angry clicks, petulant no-follows, and, quite frankly, unbecoming temper tantrums do nothing to help Google help webmasters… or help webmasters help themselves.” - Adam Lasnik of Google
Sorry but if you’re not even open to letting webmasters vent their frustrations without calling them out with implicit accusations of immaturity, then this is what I see the real problem as being. It seems to be an “ivory tower” mentality that Adam has towards webmasters. That being said, we looked into what Adam’s job description is at Google…
A rundown of Adam Lasnik’s responsibilities at Google:
“My main focus is on broadening communications between Google and Webmasters… learning as much as I can from both Matt and the Webmasters he chats with so amiably and then building upon this rapport. Or, more colloquially, as it’s been joked around the office, my uber-challenging goal is to become a “MiniMatt.” Though a colleague did note that a MiniMatt sounds like a scary cross between a convenience store and a diminutive vacuum cleaner. Hmm.
You’ll find me hanging out at Webmaster conferences and various geek gatherings, occasional replying to Google-related blog or forum posts, tackling some Webmaster-related e-mails, and undoubtedly popping up in other random places.
I’ll also be a “Webmaster Advocate” inside the Googleplex. I’ve seen firsthand that tons of folks here already eagerly read and appreciate Google- and search-related comments throughout the Web; I’ll be doing what I can to expedite concerns, bug reports, and other feedback to the right colleagues.”
As a “Webmaster Advocate” we would like to think that Adam’s initiative regarding his response to unrest would be more supportive. Does Adam’s quote help at “broadening the communications between Google and Webmasters” as his job description states? Being receptive to the webmaster community means being receptive to their concerns - no matter how “petulant” and “unbecoming” their frustrations may seem… to Google anyways.
Here is our take on the “Reciprocal Linking for SEO” controversy.
- We don’t do it; we don’t recommend it - good thing.
- This is an attempt for Google to control Spam - good thing.
- This is a rule that Google has imposed on the entire web community that predates their existence - bad thing.
- This is an example of Google placing the burden of fighting spam in THEIR index firmly on the web community - bad thing.
- The biggest problem is that representatives of their company are adding insult to injury in what I believe to be a patronizing and contemptuous way - bad thing.
Link:
August 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Hi there,
I suppose you didn’t read the google guidelines or did you? it says that linking to bad neighbours or buying and selling of links negatively impact your search engine rankings.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi Rohini.
Thanks for you comment. We’re not talking about buying or selling links. We’re talking about trading links. Try reading the link in the post to the Google guidelines. It’s the first link in the post above. Look at the 3rd bulleted item. The second half of this item is what this post references.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It seems like in the attempt to “clarify” part of the Webmaster Guidelines, they went overboard to imply that all reciprocal linking and link exchanges are bad. I agree, if taken literally this is not a good thing as there are plenty of sites out there that have been around for years providing links to (and receiving links from) sites that really are of value to visitors. Hopefully, they’ll “reclarify” this clarification.
August 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Sorry for any confusion.
When read with the initial paragraph (right above the list mentioning reciprocal linking), it becomes pretty clear that we are NOT inherently against reciprocal links.
Note in particular this sentence: “However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites.”
We Googlers are nonetheless chatting about ways we can better clarify our stance on this subject.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Trading links wont hurt your website. Reciprocal links just may not be counted (weighted) as much as one-way relevant links. Stating that reciprocal linking will get you banned is utter rubbish.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
“Sorry for any confusion.”
dont apologize.. fix the guideline.
“When read with the initial paragraph (right above the list mentioning reciprocal linking), it becomes pretty clear that we are NOT inherently against reciprocal links.”
have you read your guideline???? it says “you link to me I link to you” is considered as a link scheme.
Shame on Google for causing such paranoia among webmasters.
I will not delete my links page. I will not stop link exchanging with relevant sites. My links pages are a content resource for my end users and I am not about to remove it because Google has published such a ridiculous guideline.
Google once was a great search engine loved by webmasters. It’s slowly changing into something else that is now starting to be hated by webmasters. I hope Google is paying attention.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Well the discussion is now a 2 way streak. I have no doubt that a productive conversation will have the result of more webmasters understanding, in more explicit terms, the Guidelines set forth. Most of the post is based on my interpretation of the lack of communication regarding the issue.
Clarification is needed in the webmaster guidelines. This could easily be done by clarifying a single bullet on the page in question:
** Quoting Google’s Webmaster Guidelines **
Examples of link schemes can include:
* Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes (”Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)
** End Quote **
It is not until 2 paragraphs later that there is vague reference to what the definition of a bad “reciprocal link” is even mentioned.
Webmasters are left to believe one of 3 things:
1. Take Google at their word
2. Make an assumption that what they are saying is utter rubbish
3. The truth actually lies somewhere in between yet what that is… definitely needs to be clarified
The paragraph that Adam mentions in his comment speaks of “Partner Pages” for the sake of “cross-linking. There are entire web departments of Fortune 100 companies with the sole duty of creating “Linking Agreements.” These can easily be defined as “cross-linking” schemes that would get you banned without clarification.
Give webmasters some insight in how to interpret the info in your guidelines. Right now it’s up to a lot of interpretation… which is a bad thing… (beginning to sound like Martha Stewart)
August 11th, 2007 at 1:59 am
[…] an Interesting Look at the new Google Webmaster Guidelines. bookmark this […]
August 11th, 2007 at 9:51 am
[…] dazu gibts hier. | Kategorie: Google […]
August 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I think it’s time to move on and use another search engine. Google is always trying to make us believe that their way is the natural way, but it’s not, with all the rules they’re always creating they are making the web (I mean THEIR web) a very artificial environment. Worst, they are fighting the early days internet spirit of freedom. I just don’t care anymore about improving my ranking on Google, and you know what? My website is growing steadly, and Yahoo became my first visits generator. For my surprise, Google is now in 3rd place. My suggestion? Forget about Google, forget about pagerank, forget this old fat auntie! And for the developers around the world: please create new search engines: lighter, smarter and funnier!
August 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
[…] many people are pissed off with this and see it as Google overstepping the mark. Here’s what Esoteric Labs had to say about […]
August 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Is Google trying to tell us what to do and what not? I know Matt Cutts has said a webmaster is fre e to do what he wants to do with his website and google is free to do what it does with its index??
Excuse me Mr. Matt Cuts it is our content that Google is indexing.. If you don’t have our content..well there is no Google!!
August 12th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Wow, is Google going to ban all their own blogs now, because all of them have this “More Google blogs” section in their sidebar?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:42 am
[…] Esoteric Labs titulan su post al respecto “Google hacia los webmasters: Enlaces recíprocos te […]
August 12th, 2007 at 7:46 am
I wish there was some sort of official Google forum for Adam to share these type of pearls of wisdom.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“Buying and selling links is violation of TOS.”
Then how they treat directory links? I mean paid directory links like yahoo directory,etc.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
[…] Här är det förståss punkt 3 ovan “Link to me and I’ll link to you” som orsakat mest upprörda känslor. Intressanta tankar om detta kan du hitta här. […]
August 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
[…] Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED!Does this apply to blogrolls and trackbacks as well Search Engine Optimization 2.0 asks (Aug 9 2007) […]
August 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Oh no!!! I guess since it’s on the Internet, it must be true. Matt Cutts is NOT Google. He might work for them, but he doesn’t make policy.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Hi there,
Thnx all….Hi Esoteric, Sorry,for being so rude but my anger goes for Google for still “clarifying” the situation.
Hope Google betters itself or i doubt another search engine will take it’s place.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Kudos to some great posts above about suggesting we forget about greedy, arrogant Google. I couldn’t agree more! Yahoo is no better however.
Can you believe the arrogance of Google?
On the one hand they rake in all the cash they can and put more ads on the results pages than search results (go ahead count them) and on the other they try to stop spam to save us from it. How noble and brave!
Its ok for Google to pollute the web landscape but no one else is allowed to. They don’t call it spam when Google does it they call it promotion!
Another slap in the face to the webmaster community is now we aren’t allowed to reciprocal link when millions of sites have been doing just that for years. Like Google is GOD!
I got news for you we haven’t been allowed to link since BIG DADDY. All the bough-ha-ha about Big Daddy was just to cover their tightening of every aspect of the information they collate/manipulate/dispense!
They allude to what they consider a bad neighborhood but wont tell anyone else what exactly that is. In other words its the Google way or the highway. If its such a bad neighborhood remove it from the directory! Who started measuring links in the first place? - 3 guesses people and it wasn’t Yahoo.
Additionally Google manipulates the ’so-called’ organic listings to benefit made for adsense sites over real content laden sites & then when we complain about our very own content filled sites being reduced to page 8 or worse, Google acts sanctimonious and tells us they don’t owe us a living and we are trying to manipulate our previously decent rankings. When we make our site better by adding content we are trying to manipulate the rankings too!
Next they forbid us from linking to one another as if link popularity & content was really the ranking criteria they use when any one can see that being a ‘team player’ with Google is the real criteria used particularly an adsense or adwords team player. Sure certain big players they don’t touch but the little guy gets squashed. Don’t be a ‘loose cannon’ whatever you do and stay away from the webmaster panel at Google! Stay under their radar if at all possible!
Google’s technique is a classic example of a con artist or pickpocket using one hand, or in this case specious new rules, to keep us distracted while the other does the dirty move.
Only problem is thousands of SEO consultants go along with this nonsense because they are afraid of this big rotten bully and don’t want to rock the boat. You can guess how I feel about that!
SEO consultants are already put of business by Google they just don’t know it yet.
Here is all you have to do: just make several shallow and broad interlinking sites with plenty of Google ads and breeze to the top of the rankings - its that simple.
Here is an example of such a dynasty; shallow, broad, interlinking and rankling no 1 for many major travel destinations! (only countries on the gringo trail too, ie. where the money is, not off track places just the major destinations.)
These are made for adsense sites and for a long time had many blank pages on them too!
Try it yourselves ‘UK travel’, ‘France travel’, ‘Germany travel’, ‘Italy travel’, ‘Spain travel’ all top spots.
Whoever writes this site cant even speak proper English but Google loves them!
#1www.justfrance.org/
#1www.justgermany.org/
#1www.justgermany.org/
#1www.justitaly.org/
#1www.justspain.org/
You bet your ass I am digrunteld webmaster!
August 13th, 2007 at 7:13 am
I have several blogs.
I want linking of them.
Is it affects my google page rank or seo rank?
August 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
[…] ????? ??? ??????????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????. […]
August 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
part of the problem is that cutts and lasnik probably don’t know all of the nuances that goes along with link exchange.. there are so many wrong (and right) ways to conduct a link building camapign via link exchange and for them to state all link exchange is bad is sloppy and dangerous. they will upset more webmasters than ever with this latest stunt.
I read about what someone called “full duplex” link exchange over on webmasterworld forums and it makes sense. there is full duplex (fully automated link exchange) which I suspect is what they dont like and then there is “editor based” link exchange where we link with quality sites one at a time based on what benefits the end user. I participate in the latter.. always maintaining editorial discretion when making my link swaps.
Adam and Matt probably dont care about differentiating between the two because then that would send a positive signal towards one or the other. they should go back to bashing paid links!
August 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Damn Google!!! whats going to happen next?
August 13th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Check out this post:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/014462.html
Adma Lasnik wrote:
“When read with the initial paragraph (right above the list mentioning reciprocal linking), it becomes pretty clear that we are NOT inherently against reciprocal links.
Note in particular this sentence: “However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites.”
August 14th, 2007 at 12:04 am
[…] will be — due to reciprocal linking. But that’s not quite the case. As Google’s Adam Lasnik says in the questionable blog post that stirred this discussion, Google is looking for relevant […]
August 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
[…] Karþýlýklý link ban sebebi ilgili makale. http://esotericlabs.com/search-engin…you-banned.htm […]
August 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
[…] Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED! […]
August 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am
[…] about link schemes and the google webmaster guidelines view on this area. Originally posted by esoteric blog and also being discussed on digitalpoint forum. The topic of debate? Well take a look at this […]
August 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
[…] Lasnik lo deja bien claro en este comentario: “Cuando lees el primer párrafo ya queda claro que Google no está intrinsecamente en contra […]
August 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
[…] an Interesting Look at the new Google Webmaster Guidelines. submit_url = […]
August 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
@Adam Lasnik: Then can you tell me what is kind of reciprocal link that Google permitted? Without paid and reciprocal links, webmasters will be only competing for one keyword: “click here”.
I mean, there are so many competitive keywords and if you only count your website on natural backlinks, those backlinks will give you nothing but two anchor text. First is “click here” and second is your domain name.
Think with your head. Without the correct anchor text, you’ll never get good SERPs. What I’m asking is, what kind of reciprocal link that Google permitted? Can you tell me? I have read that Yahoo beat Google in users satisfaction polling. (Yahoo won 1%). I doubt that Google can maintain their domination if they keep acting like God.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
[…] you do it right you can make the power or link exchanges work for you. Search Engine Roundtable and Esoteric labs have good writeups of the current state of link exchanges, and misconceptions of google’s […]
August 15th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Reciprocal linking could not be banned because there some official relationships based on link exchange !
There are some partner companies linking to each others in order to show their websites visitors their partnership and to get some Backlinks or a better pagerank !!!
August 15th, 2007 at 6:40 am
#disgustedbygoogle#
“Try it yourselves ‘UK travel’, ‘France travel’, ‘Germany travel’, ‘Italy travel’, ‘Spain travel’ all top spots.
Whoever writes this site cant even speak proper English but Google loves them!
#1www.justfrance.org/
#1www.justgermany.org/
#1www.justgermany.org/
#1www.justitaly.org/
#1www.justspain.org/
”
THAT A BIG SCAMER IS FROM SPAIN THATS WHY HE CAN WRITE PROPER ENGLISH
August 15th, 2007 at 6:41 am
LIKE ME NO SPEAK GOOD INGLISH :)
August 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
[…] will be — due to reciprocal linking. But that’s not quite the case. As Google’s Adam Lasnik says in the questionable blog post that stirred this discussion, Google is looking for relevant […]
August 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
[…] not have released this kind of information until they had the proper context and wording. Over at Esoteric Labs Google’s Adam Lasnik is trying to paraphrase the Google Guidelines stating “We Googlers […]
August 15th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Google, I’m curious where all these free, non-recip, authoritative links are supposed to come from, .EDU sites, news sites, blogs, forums, where?
With most .EDUs so flooded with paid links, you can’t trust anything they link to. News sites are rife with paid advertising and product placement, so can’t trust those links either. Bloggers have cottoned onto the value of their real estate as well (thanks in part to Adsense), so those links are all either; recip, paid, posted for outbound link cred, offset recip or rel=nofollwed, so scratch blog links too. Forums have historically been flooded with spam posts, so can’t value any link from a forum as authoritative either…
Face it, the only free links left are pointing to stupid youtube videos!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
With only natural back links in Google mind, we can’t get good position result anymore…SEO is dying so does competitive keywords in Google.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[…] Reciprocal links will get you banned […]
August 18th, 2007 at 12:56 am
[…] Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED! […]
August 18th, 2007 at 6:28 am
[…] you probably have read in “Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED!” there has been quite a reaction to Google’s Webmaster Guidelines’ update […]
August 19th, 2007 at 8:00 am
I highly doubt that Google will ban reciprocal linking. It is one of the major aspects of their algorithm and PR. It has been a cornerstone of SEO in recent years.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
[…] are outraged over the recent change in Google’s policy, now specifically targetting what they refer to as […]
August 20th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Shorter Google:
Instead of creating something cool you can use and enjoy, we’re going to maintain our domination of the market through fear.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Regardless of who is correct, webmasters and SEO’s have to scramble like headless-chickens whenever Google releases vague guidelines like these.
As if cross-browser compatibility, and the 200 point SEO checklist are not enough we have to jump whenever Google says to!
I can not wait til Google is dethroned.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
[…] So as you can see, reciprocating links isn’t a bad thing if done right and you don’t over-do it. Search Engine Land has a good article that contains some examples of when it is fine to reciprocate links and Adam Lasnik from Google posted a comment on another SEO blog where he says: When read with the initial paragraph (right above the list mentioning reciprocal linking), it become… […]
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Why is everyone bitching at Google? Screw Google. It has been my experience that conversion is much higher from other search engines than google anyway. Rather than fighting with the Internet arm of Big Brother, why don’t we collectively engage the other Search engines in a more peaceful relationship and allow Google to continue being nothing more than the official search engine for Wikipedia, YouTube, etc. If users can’t shop, where is the econimic value in the Web. Let Google turn their search results into a socialist oasis and we can take our capitalism to Yahoo, MSN, etc. See how good Google’s index is with the only commerce mirroring what you see driving down the street. I don’t need Google. I make plenty of money optimizing for the other search engines. Ignore Google, pretend like they don’t exist and let them crawl back to us for search results. “Google”… stupid name anyway.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Hey Adam Lasnik and his Ivory tower is an insult to Webmasters.
He is very negative to anyone who speaks out against Google and its practices and even bans people from Google Webmaster Help Forum if you say something that he does not agree with.
I have documented many abuses by Adam, for gay bashing to Webmaster bashing.
http://del.icio.us/igorberger/Adam-Lasnik
Matt C. is a good guy and tries to help and work with Webmasters but That Adam Guy is the “MiniMi” or just Doctor Evil
August 24th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I also like to add that the only page that I have on my Website for 5 years now exchanging quality links with about 30 Websites has been deindexed from Google…
Link exchange is dead…
Long live Evil Adam Lasnik
September 4th, 2007 at 5:10 am
[…] “Trading links with other webmasters will now get you banned” says Google. That’s right webmasters. Reciprocal linking is now considered a “Linking Scheme” and will get you Banned by Google. […]
September 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Yes , I think they misht have a security reason behind that .
V-empower Inc, who has recently gone into Application Security, has been listed in Inc 500
http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=200702630
September 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
So , are directories also in violation of Google ??
——-
Download Junkie ..
http://mantoadmire.blogspot.com/
September 17th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[…] Posted by moth1 on September 17th, 2007 If you’ve been paying attention to Google’s attitude to paid links this is very interesting. Webmasters are free to do whatever they please with their Web sites and Google is free to do whateve… […]
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I say it’s about time and I applaud Google on this decision to put the kibosh on reciprocal linking. There are some niches where reciprocal linking is rampant and quality websites are few and far between. Webmasters in these niches focus almost entirely on SEO (i.e. link schemes) and put very little effort into actually producing quality content for their sites. And up to now, they’ve largely succeeded in dominating the SERPs and it’s quite obvious that this is largely attributable to excessive reciprocal linking. Putting an end to this will allow the those who put effort into producing quality content for their websites –and gain backlinks because of it– to get higher placement in search results pages instead of getting clobbered by a bunch of no-talent link scammers.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Adam Lasnik states above “Note in particular this sentence: ‘However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites.’
I have two reciprocal links pages on http://www.charlotte-eba.com which consist of only hand-added real estate and relocation links that were removed from Google’s index after the last crawl. Using Adam’s statement as a guideline, I examined the pages and took the corrective action of adding title and descriptive meta tags, thinking that this was why the pages had been removed.
But I don’t know for sure. The pages are still on my site and I don’t know whether what Google really wants is for site owners to remove reciprocal links pages altogether. My ranking took a sharp drop so I don’t want to leave the pages up if Google is still going to penalize the site because of the reciprocal links pages.
So there is this big disparity between what Adam advises according to Google’s guidelines above and what Google is actually doing (removing reciprocal links pages regardless of the “quality” of the links.)
For example, one of the links pages that was removed was a directory of Realtors who had attained the same industry designation level (National Association of Realtor’s “e-Pro” designation) as I have, but are located in other states, so the links are grouped together by state on the page. Google seems to be saying it’s not the links, it’s the link pages that have violated their quality guidelines.
Adam, please clarify: Is Google really saying that regardless of the quality of the individual links, if they are grouped together on a links page, this would be considered a violation of Google’s quality guidelines?
- Julie
September 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am
[…] an activity that Google considers a ?Link Scheme? that has a likelihood of getting you BANNED! Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED! gee… that’s sucks! __________________ Australian Working Visa Visa for […]
September 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Heres my point of view! We are all in a business ( web ) if a certain business wants their client to stick on them they should not make things hard, don’t make things complicated! Google is making rules and don’t give any suggestions to prevent penalties… In the business who should take care of your customers to get more profit!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
stop the trading links and reciprocal link
webmaster do only cross linking i think its much better for the site rankings
November 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I have linked to sites such as Search Engine Land, Search Engine Guide, Techmeme, Small Business SEM, Search Engine Watch, and the list goes on. I have done so because I either found something resourceful to my readers, something that helped to support what I was writing about or simply due to the fact that the site I linked to was the original source of my own writing. These same sites have in turn linked back to our site for the very same reasons. That is true reciprocal linking. So is this a bad thing? Is Google, or any other search engine going to devalue those links because they are not true “one-way” links? I don’t think so. This is a natural process of the web and search engines are smart enough to understand that.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
good! articles
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Yup i know this, but there some website with good content as http://www.webhostster .com the searc engine will know its really good.