Banned For Reciprocal Linking?

Update: Google added the word excessive in front of the passage I mentioned today (8-16-07). It clarifies a little bit, but still begs the question: what’s excessive?

Google recently updated it’s webmaster guidelines with some information that’s causing a big stir on the internet. If you look under the examples of “link schemes” you’ll see this little tidbit:

Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes (“Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)

Am I to understand that one can now be banned from Google for having reciprocal links? If so, there’s some serious implications that come to mind:

1. What about all of the sites that pre-date Google? Reciprocal linking happened way before Google was around. You can’t expect all these websites to suddenly change.
2. What about sister sites? Example: On Noslang.com I link to my drug translator, and on the drug translator I link to my slang translator. I don’t do this for pagerank, I do it because my visitors may be looking for a slang term that the other dictionary includes. It’s proven useful. Am I to get banned because both sites are relevant to each other and helpful to the user?
3. What about press mentions? It’s very common for a website to link back to a news article that mentions them. You want your visitors to see your press accolades. Are these seen as reciprocal links and bad for my website?
4. What about blogrolls or blog networks? Even Matt Cutts had a blogroll at one time, and many of these people linked back in their blogrolls. It’s helpful to users because they can read similiar content. Is this a penalty? Backlink Doctor has the best guides on fixing your site if a Google penalty has hit you.

There’s got to be a better method than “banning” that the guidelines mention. If Google can detect reciprocal links, they can just as easily not give them any weight in the algorithm. This way, users still benefit and the search engines aren’t “gamed.” Maybe it’s just a clarification issue on the webmaster guidelines page, or I’m reading it wrong.

Either way,I think we still need some clarification on this new update from Matt and Adam – because as it’s written I’d venture to say that about 90% of sites are in violation of the new guidelines. Of course, banning everybody who uses reciprocal links would certainly save on bandwith and allow Google to index the remaining web with near real-time updates. Isn’t that what we’ve all been pushing for?

5 comments August 14th, 2007

Happy Maddenolidy

Today is the day many football games have been looking forward to since the Old Trafford brawl. We’ve been dreaming of new rookies, new animations, new moves, and end zone celebrations. I’m talking about Madden 08.

Like a child eagerly heading downstairs on Christmas morning we’ll all be heading to the stores (or the mailbox) today in search of gaming greatness. This Maddenolidy though, it seems as if we’ll be opening up a big pink bunny suit instead of our red rider B.B. guns. (sorta like how you’re reading tired cliches here instead of insightful commentary.)

This year’s version of the game offers little else other than improved rosters, and new animations – except for the increased product placement. Now, things like the coin toss are actually sponsored. Just what I needed!

I’ve never understood why EA doesn’t approach video games from a “software as a service” model. The main reason I buy new versions of the sports games every year is for the updated rosters. My Wii is online, so why not offer me a continually updated roster service? I’d gladly pay a yearly fee to be able to have it automatically update with the newest version of the game and rosters (or just the rosters for my old version.)

I’ll still buy this year’s version, (it should already be waiting at home in my mailbox) and I’ll still play it for hours – not because it’s so much better than last year, but because it’s the only one out there to feed my football fix.

1 comment August 14th, 2007