Does reciprocal linking carry any value?
-
No matter how much I research this one, there's no definite answer and there's a lot of contradictions.
Basically we're looking to launch an article on 24 expert interior design tips for 2015. Each tip is submitted from a different interior designer we have chosen who have a reputable, trusted website.
The main goal for this article is to generate various inbound links for our site from the designers and it will help to create engagement on social media. Although if we're giving out links to these designers for their contributions, the inbound links we receive in return will be little or no value as this is reciprocal linking?
Some say this is okay as it's completely natural within the blog posts, others say to avoid it as it can be seen as an obsolete practice to deceive Google. Does anyone have any more information on this and how it should be carried out?
Would a better process be to link to their social media accounts? Rather than reciprocal linking?
Thanks
-
Hello Joshua,
What you are describing is nothing to be concerned about. It is a completely natural process when content is being created for there to be some form of reciprocal linking. This is especially true in list-pieces such as the one you are describing. There is no real need to avoid linking directly to them, and certainly nothing to worry about with regards to their social media accounts.
What Google is trying to get away from is people creating websites to link to each other using the same hosting or from the same webmaster. This is what leads to penalties. From their perspective, you are all (likely) on separate hosting, you all have different webmasters, and you are clearly recognized brands that are completely separate from one another. This is the kind of article they would want to see show up and is unlikely to create any unwelcome attention.
The links you receive will have plenty of value, assuming you are not being linked-to extravagantly over and over from the same domain. It's totally normal to see a couple of pages on a single domain link to another, but it gets to be spammy when you begin seeing 10's, 100's or even 1000's of links coming from a single source.
What you are describing is normal content creation - something Google has been adamant about for years. I don't think there's anything for you to worry about here.
Best of luck with the launch!
Rob
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Bing search results - Site links
My site links in Bing search results are pulling through the footer text instead of the meta description (see image). Is there any way of controlling this? 2L2VusT
Technical SEO | | RWesley0 -
Should I reverse renaming of a page that lost value?
I have a site with a handful of links that are ranked. One of those links was ranking for "pantsuits for sale". The slug was mysite.com/pantsuits. I decided to rename the slug to mysite.com/pantsuits-for-sale and used the term "pantsuits for sale" twice in the page which it had not been appearing before. I did a 301 redirect old page to new. I then organized 5 pages below Pantsuits-for-sale in a silo. Before they were all at the same level. I ran 301s for those also. I suddenly lost 40 spaces in rank a few days later! Clearly Google did not like these changes. So do you think I can regain my position by reversing the silo and changing back to the old slugs? Other thoughts/ recommendations?
Technical SEO | | dk50 -
Are no follows leaking link juice?
Recently, in a discussion on resources pages EGOL informed me that just because I had no followed the links on my my resource page, I was still leaking link juice. He mentioned that this was a recent change in Google policy. This was quite a surprise. I have done a couple of searches on this recent change but have not found any information. Am I simply the last one on the planet to learn this and this change is widely known and understood? If so, does that mean honest resource pages (I have two such pages) that are there to help visitors are negatively impacting the site - at least in terms of SEO? If they are leaking link juice is it comparable to a followed link or a smaller amount that has less impact?
Technical SEO | | leatherhidestore0 -
Site links show spam
Hi folks, I'm working on a website that runs on WordPress and was not updated by the owner, this has resulted in a malware injection and now when you search the companies name in Google, the site links appear with words like Viagra, et al. I've seen this a number of times, so I went through the code and have removed all the malware. I presume I now have to wait for Google to recrawl the website and update the site links? Is there anything else I should be doing to speed up the process? Thank you 🙂
Technical SEO | | ChristopherM0 -
Diagnostic says too many links on a page and most of the pages are from blog entries. Are tags considered links? How do I decrease links?
I just ran my first diagnostic on my site and the results came back were negative in the area of too many links one a page. There were also quite a few 404 errors. What is the best way to fix these problems? Most of the pages with too many links are from blog posts, are the tags counted as well and is this the reason for too many links?
Technical SEO | | Newport10300 -
Code problem and the impact on links
We have a specific URL naming convention for 'city landing pages': .com/Burbank-CA .com/Boston-MA etc. We use this naming convention almost exclisively as the URLs for links. Our website had a code breakdown and all those URLs within that naming convention led to an error message on the website. Will this impact our links?
Technical SEO | | Storitz0 -
Why would you remove a canonical link?
Currently, my client's blog makes a duplicate page every time someone comments on a post. The previous SEO consultant told the developer to not put a canonical link directing it to the main blog post. Did taking out the canonical link result in these duplicate pages? My question is why would she recommend this action? Is it best to now add in the canonical link in or should we implement a 301 redirect or insert a index: no follow? Would adding a canonical link keep duplicate pages from happening in the future?
Technical SEO | | Scratch_MM0 -
Links from Youtube Channel
I stumbled across this blog post: http://garyreid.com/youtube-removes-nofollow/ and also this one : http://www.kevin-barnes.com/youtube-secret-authority-loophole/ which talks about no-follow links from your Youtube Channel Page. We've setup a Youtube channel, and have begun updating it regularly, however the link appears to be a redirect-type link -presumably this means no link juice is passed? The code of the link on our Youtube channel: http://www.pretavoir.co.uk The second blog mentions building PA on your Youtube channel by commenting on other videos which then links back to your channel page - if that juice can't go to your site, then I assume the technique is of limited use? Apart from boosting your Youtube Channel's rankings of course, which I guess can't hurt.
Technical SEO | | seanmccauley0