The Essence of Relevant Linking With Post-Jagger(naut) Google
Since the last Google dance reciprocal links lost some of their
magic. Before, their very existence ensured high search engine
rankings. But Google rocked the world (wide web) when it began
to evaluate the relevancy of those links. Many high-ranking
sites woke up to find themselves suddenly plunged to the bottom
of the list, replaced by newer, seemingly less important, sites.
Why? Relevancy.
Google found that its own value as a search engine was being
threatened when too many searches resulted in returns of little
or no relevancy. Realizing how damaging this was, it set out to
re-align the universe-- or at least the web. And with good
reason.
Since the birth of the internet, links have been its
cornerstone. That was the entire point of the internet: For
computers at various locations (initially colleges and
government locations) to be able to "link" to each other. As it
became available to the general public, relevancy became an
issue, but only as an organizational tool. With the introduction
of commercialization, a sudden boom created a demand that a
general organizational tool be developed. And search engines
answered that need. So, in essence, search engines are all about
relevancy.
But until recently the progamming tools available to analyze
these links was limited. They could only see "x" amount of links
and whether they were in-bound, out-bound or reciprocal. While
they had the capability of analyzing millions of sites in a few
minutes, they lacked the programming to break down the results--
until recently.
The result?
Those who worked so hard to create massive link directories
(also known as linkfarms) on their sites in order to force their
rankings up find, instead, all they've "harvested" is link
graveyards. And, though it's painful for them, it is necessary,
too.
But the motivation of those marketers in search of massive
amounts of links is understandable. Because, to them, link
relevancy equates to promoting their own competition. Who wants
a link that may, in some way, pull traffic away from their own
site? While that may seem possible, the truth is that is not
necessarily the case.
Understanding link relevancy -- without linking to the
competition -- is the key to successful reciprocal linking
today. So what IS non-competitive reciprocal linking?
Say, for example, a site sells baseball equipment. They link to
every other baseball related site-- that DOESN'T sell equipment.
Little league sites, major league fan sites and sites for adult
league baseball.
But it could also, strictly speaking, move on to other sports
equipment sites. And, because baseball is a game and "games and
toys" go together, it could link to other toy sites, especially
outdoor toy sites and still be considered relevant on another
level.
Taking that one step further, because baseball is a popular
sport for kids, it could also link to school-related sites.
Then, backing up again and exploring the avenue of adult league
baseball, it could link to businesses that typically support
those leagues: restaurants and bars, for instance. And, unless
that baseball equipment league sells uniforms, it could link to
sports-uniform sites. The list goes on and on. And all of those
sites are relevant in some way to baseball equipment.
This is, of course, a lot more work than simply linking to every
other willing site. But there is a twofold bonus in this.
Because, not only will 10 well-related sites linked together do
much more for rankings in the search engines, the actual direct
links will be much more active themselves, producing
high-quality traffic that will lead to direct sales.
One of the most important factors in understanding the internet
is that it has become, like the real world, "worlds within
worlds," (niches) or a place where whole sub-cultures can
happily co-exist without touching any other sub-culture. Yet the
magic of the internet is that we are not confined to -- nor
defined by -- any one sub-culture.--mo