Reciprocal Linking is Dead - Or is it?

I seem to be reading all the time that reciprocal linking is dead - in newsletters, forum posts etc. How did the writer come to this conclusion? Usually, it's because they read it somewhere else, therefore it must be true. What's missing, however, is any sort of statistical proof.

When Google did their recent major update, nicknamed "Jagger", many sites saw fluctuations in their rankings. Some were pushed from page 1 rankings to the nether regions of 400+. I know, stevepronger.com was one of them. Those who held the view that reciprocal linking was ineffective loudly proclaimed that Jagger was all about Google penalizing sites with reciprocal links. I've never held this view. Reciprocal linking has been practiced by webmasters long before Google even came onto the scene. And of course once Jagger ran its course all my rankings returned, just like they did 12 months earlier after the so-called "Florida" update.

The problem is, reciprocal linking has been abused to the point where most webmasters don't know how to use it in an effective, appropriate manner. If you have been amassing as many links as you can, from any site prepared to exchange with you, then you probably won't be seeing positive results.

You see my friends, the issue is not reciprocation. The issue is relevancy. It makes sense that Google would analyze the page that links to you to determine if it is relevant and appropriate. Is there a tangible relationship between this page and your site? Is there a common theme on that page? Is it a high PageRank (PageRank is Google's measure of value)? How many other outbound links are on that page?

Let's say your site is about home improvement tips. Which of these pages do you think Google would place more value on with a link to your site:

Link Page Example 1

Site Theme: Home Improvement Product Catalog
Page title: Home Improvement Resources
Heading: Our Recommended Home Improvement Resources
Outbound links: around 30, all to home improvement related sites
meta tags: all contain references to home improvement
Clicks away from home page: 1
PageRank: 3

Link Page Example 2

Site Theme: Pharmacy
Page title: Links
Heading: none
Outbound links: 160 (yours is the only link to a home improvement site)
Meta tags: no mention of home improvement
Clicks away from home page: 4
PageRank: 0 (possibly not even indexed)

It's really not that hard to think like a search engine. Obviously it would consider the first example to be appropriate and relevant, while the second example would be seen as an attempt to game them. And if you were linking to the site in the first example using the same criteria, why would a search engine discount or even penalize your link simply on the grounds of reciprocation? Makes no sense to me. That's why I've never seen anyone back up their claim of "reciprocal linking is dead" with any solid, statistical data. It just doesn't exist.

Bottom line? Reciprocal linking is still effective if done properly and as part of an overall link strategy which includes directory listings, article syndication etc. Choose your link partners carefully and thoughtfully and you'll never run foul of the search engines. You'll also be providing a valuable resourse for your visitors.

Reciprocal linking is not dead. Inappropriate, non-relevant linking is.