The Guidelines the article is referring to is vague, but too many people take everything exactly as written - a 100% literal interpretation which can lead to statements like this thread title.
Quote:
Examples of link schemes can include:
* Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes (”Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)
|
I think before going off the deep end, note the word
MAY ... If taken literally, implies that using recip links
may qualify as a no-no.
Adam Lasnik quotes below the article and attempts to clarify a little, but as usual doesn't do a complete job:
Quote:
|
we are NOT inherently against reciprocal links.
|
And goes on to say they are constantly trying to clarify their stance on this subject (read: Decide how much is too much to tell webmasters - Too little and they'll continue this practice, too much and we give away some of how our algo works).
Bottom line:
Recip linking should only been done between similarly themed sites as a long-term, mutually beneficial partnership, that should ideally add value to the site visitor (e.g. "Go here for more help on this subject" etc.) and not for the sole purpose of increasing pagerank and other nefarious motives.
So for all of us linkex'ing, Thunder-balling and linking to anybody that asks, this is nothing new - we've been playing with fire and will get burned. For those that link smartly and/or properly (according the Google's guidelines) you have little to worry about, now or in the immediate future.