Member Avatar for Eico

Does anyone have an opinion on using circular linking versus the good ol' reciprocal linking? Or perhaps how to keep a link circle unbroken?

  • 9 Contributors
  • 10 Replies
  • 392 Views
  • 4 Years Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Robdale

Dani AI

Generated

This started as a practical question from and some classic 2000s tactics (see ’s mini‑ring suggestion). Modern guidance is simpler: any planned, systematic link‑swapping strategy is risky. Google’s spam policies explicitly call out “excessive link exchanges” and partner pages created only for cross‑linking; those links can be devalued or produce manual actions. (developers.google.com)

Reciprocal or circular links are not illegal per se — natural, editorial reciprocation happens all the time — but intent and pattern matter. Google engineers (via public comments summarized by industry press) note that reciprocal links “aren’t necessarily bad,” yet organized swap networks and obvious schemes are easy for systems to spot and treat as manipulation. (searchenginejournal.com)

Practical, low‑risk rules to follow:

  • Prefer earning one‑way editorial links (create linkable assets, co‑authored guides, tools or studies that others naturally cite).
  • Avoid sitewide/footer swaps or repeated, identical anchor text between partners; those patterns scream automation.
  • Mark paid/sponsored links appropriately (rel="sponsored") and mark forum/UGC links as rel="ugc" or rel="nofollow" when you don’t vouch for them — Google treats these attributes as signals.
    These are standard, defensible practices that reduce risk while keeping user value first. (ahrefs.com)

If the goal was to “keep a circle unbroken,” rethink the goal: instead of engineering rings, build durable partnerships that generate genuine mutual references (events, research, shared resources). Monitor backlinks with Search Console and a backlink tool, and follow Google’s manual‑action remediation steps if anything looks artificial. That approach protects rankings and still delivers referral traffic — which, as some in this thread noted, is often the real prize. ()

Recommended Answers

All 10 Replies

Member Avatar for Dani

I'm all for circular linking. It's my opinion that reciprocal linking will die pretty soon. Google is catching on to the idea of raising PR with direct page<-->page links. I even read somewhere that whenever google catches two pages in a direct reciprocal link, they don't count the links towards the sites' PR.

I think the best way is to create lots of mini-link rings. For example, circular linking with only 3 or 4 sites. But participate in lots of 'em ;)

When I do direct homepage<-->homepage reciprocals with someone, I'll ask them to link to www.daniweb.com but I will link back at www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/ (the forum index). This way google doesn't catch a direct page2page recip.

Member Avatar for rex_b

I'm all for circular linking. It's my opinion that reciprocal linking will die pretty soon. Google is catching on to the idea of raising PR with direct page<-->page links. I even read somewhere that whenever google catches two pages in a direct reciprocal link, they don't count the links towards the sites' PR.

I think the best way is to create lots of mini-link rings. For example, circular linking with only 3 or 4 sites. But participate in lots of 'em ;)

When I do direct homepage<-->homepage reciprocals with someone, I'll ask them to link to www.daniweb.com but I will link back at www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/ (the forum index). This way google doesn't catch a direct page2page recip.

ooooh soooo sneaky! I am telling.

Member Avatar for ajax-the-techie

Ok, circular. Is that another term for non-reciprocating?

Member Avatar for Dani

Circular means that site A links to site B, site B links to site C, and site C links back to site A. Of course, the ring can be a lot bigger and can be broken by any one site.

Member Avatar for Matrix28

Ok, circular. Is that another term for non-reciprocating?

Yes kind of. I think reciprical linking will always have a place.

Member Avatar for Dani

Reciprocal linking will always have its place ... but a large part of it Google has control of. If google decides tomorrow that it will no longer count any recip links towards PR, they most certainly won't hold the same value they hold today. Of course, there are always those links that are there to actually drive clickthus ;)

Member Avatar for trifolic

Does anyone have an opinion on using circular linking versus the good ol' reciprocal linking? Or perhaps how to keep a link circle unbroken?

Links are good no matter what. The more time you spend trying to learn how to work the system, the more you will hurt yourself. Yes Google is a big player, however I still recieve about 40% of my SE visitors from Yahoo/MSN.

My recommendation is don't worry about how the sites are linking, if you get some circular links in there good, if you get reciprocal links, good, if you get just one way links to your site, even better.

Member Avatar for nacho45

Links are good no matter what. .

That's what I think! Any link is a good one!

Member Avatar for umeshseo

circular link is very important for one way link to any site........ go for circular site......... maintain the quality is also important for site.......

Member Avatar for Robdale

BTW, what is meant by circular link?

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.