Online Casino

[Anonymous]

@howardmoon]Google is using links from other sites to work out what sites are popular. It takes a link as a vote: “this site provides useful information on the subject of I vote for this site”.[/QUOTE wrote:

I agree

howardmoon wrote:

A reciprocal link defeats that object. It’s not a vote of confidence. It’s a vote of “I’ll vote for you if you vote for me”. It tells Google that you don’t hugely care what is on the site you link to, you only care that they link back to you.

I disagree,
if the sites have something in common, this is natural, normal and most legitimate as long as you don’t trade thousands of reciproclas.

See my pets and pets food sample above.

If the sites are not related, that’s a different story which is not related to us because we speak on recip links between two gambling sites.

howardmoon wrote:

It’s common sense that reciprocal links should be no (or little) good, and it’s also common fact borne out of testing. Exactly how much they are valued or discounted is unknown, but they certainly aren’t anywhere near as good as one way links.

If you want to swap links, do 3 or 4 way linking to hide it somewhat. It’s just daft doing it directly.

No offence but
1. Did you do this testing by your self? If so, when and where? Can we have the detailes please?

2. Do you have any official proof from Google about this?

3. Do you really think Google believes their guidelines should construct a new internet structure where reciprocal links should not exists?

Reciprocal links are fundamental, trading is fundamental. There’s nothing wrong in giving something in exchange to something.

As long as you don’t run a link farm, you are safe.