SEO and link building always go side by side. From the earliest days of SEO, even before it had a name, people studying the search engines’ behaviour noticed that the number of links pointing to the site improved the rankings of that site very significantly in all search engines. Some engines give the link popularity factor less weight, and others pay more attention to it, but they all use it to some extent in their ranking algorithms.
Naturally, people started looking for ways to drastically increase the number of links pointing to their sites, and to do it quickly. Sure, link building has always been on the scene, as the inbound links have another nice implication: they drive direct traffic to our sites when clicked, so marketing the sites online is impossible without links. But link building for direct traffic and link building for the sake of search engines are very different things, as it now turns out.
Just like everything that can bring us better rankings in the engines, links started being abused by SEOs in many different ways. Link farms and FFA pages were the first and most obvious ways to increase the link popularity of sites, and then people invented pyramids and other complicated schemes. It worked at first, until the engines figured it out and devalued the worthless link rubbish. People started creating multiple sites where a single site would do under normal circumstances, and cross-linking them heavily to increase the link popularity; the engines figured it out, too, and penalised the sites for doing so. Later, everyone started creating general directories looking like identical twins – again, trying to satisfy the same link popularity hunger. All this has made the Net quite messy; in an attempt to clean it up, the engines are now reducing the weight given to link popularity as a ranking factor, and replacing it with other, less easily manipulated, factors.
Back to the future
By definition, the Net can’t live without links. In order to get visibility for our sites, we will have to have them linked from the outside; otherwise, nobody will ever guess they exist. But with the new, very smart and sophisticated SE algorithms working, it’s time to remember the original concepts of the Internet, unless we want our links to be totally devalued by the engines, or worse still, to hurt our rankings.
What are links for? The answer is to be clicked by humans and to take them to a different page. Ideally, the page should be related to the one they are currently viewing, or somehow add value to it. This original philosophy should be the core of our thinking when doing links in a white hat, ethical way.
Good old reciprocal links
When you link to a site and ask for the same favour in return, it is called reciprocal linking. Being the easiest way to acquire links to sites, reciprocal links have been enormously abused, and in most cases their amount crossed all reasonable borders. Consequently, they are almost being equated to spam now, and speculation about reciprocal links having no value with the SEs has become rife across the SEO forum circuit. At the same time, most of the search engine optimisers still practise reciprocal linking. Do you wonder why it works for them? The answer is: they do it the right way.
The first rule when doing reciprocal linking is: ask yourself how many links you wish to acquire. If you are aiming at 15 or 20 link exchanges, one link page will do; if you think you need more, create a categorised mini-directory from the start, and be as niche-specific as possible. For example, if your site is about web design, the “Real Estate” category in your directory will look odd and most likely trigger a red flag of doubt. But an “SEO” category will look fine, because these businesses are complementary.
When writing a link exchange request to the owner of a site you really like and don’t mind sending your visitors to, don’t forget to personalise your email. The person receiving it should see that you really have been on the site. If possible, find the name of the owner on the site. If it doesn’t seem possible (even the whois lookup can give you wrong information in some cases), quote a sentence or two from the site’s linking policies (if applicable in the context), or from an article you especially liked.