Dropping links hurts?

[redwhiteandblue]

We all get trades that go wrong - sites expire, people drop links for no reason, I've let a few sites go and lost some link trades because of it, I'm sure others have too.

But should you always drop a link because the other side dropped yours? Does G punish link droppers? What if G was giving you credit for the site you were linking to? Is there a case for linking to sites you like anyway, not because you're getting anything in return?

[Hincapie]

Absolutely, there is a case for linking to relevant quality sites of related topics from your site ... but in a link-trading context, thats not always benifitial of course

[webmasterx]

IMHO dropping a link out hurts the linked page far more than it does for the site that dropped it unless that link is to a high pr authoritative page in which case it should affect your sites ranking but not by anything worth worrying about.

[kinkybrian]

Linking to a site simply because you like the site is what Google wants. I think it will probably make a site look more natural and it probably counts for something with Google.

[vrocks]

Really depends on what you were linking in to...

Most people don't realize the true power of outbound links.

If I have a site with a truly kickass BBQ sauce recipe and everyone and their mother links into me...cool... then one day I put up a link to what if you want low-carb BBQ sauce?

Next thing you know I am getting mad traffic for people looking for low-carb BBQ sauce...

Now lets say I put up a recipe for it and stop linking to it... Problem is... Nobody is linking into me for low-carb... and if I get them to do it, Google might see my site as 70% regular/30% low carb and adjust my regular BBQ sauce page spot in the SERPs for it!

So taking all of that into account I might put up the recipe to work on bouncing, but leave the link so Google knows I am still all about my site with some about the other... get it?

You should NEVER link up a link if it is dead though...

[rezzanjin]

sites expire

You like to keep that link alive? For what reason? To show that you don't care your site, that you are not checking what is going on there? I believe, that a dead link is really a bad sign to all search engines

[deejay]

Not sure about this, but one thought: if a site drops a lot of non-reciprocal links over a period of time, it might be taken as an indicator that the site is either participating in a link trading network or selling links. But I've nothing concrete to show that happens.

[redwhiteandblue]

sites expire

You like to keep that link alive? For what reason? To show that you don't care your site, that you are not checking what is going on there? I believe, that a dead link is really a bad sign to all search engines

I'm not talking about dead links, of course you should remove dead links as soon as you find them, and even links to sites that have become link farms etc.

[redwhiteandblue]

Not sure about this, but one thought: if a site drops a lot of non-reciprocal links over a period of time, it might be taken as an indicator that the site is either participating in a link trading network or selling links. But I've nothing concrete to show that happens.

Yes, good point and that was kind of what I was getting at. If you remove a link to a site that hasn't changed, the obvious question is why? So G may suspect you are link trading or PR sculpting, and lower your trust a little. I don't know, I'm only speculating on this.

[vrocks]

I have participated in link sculpting. It worked out better than I could have imagined. I removed about 100 links on a 300 link web site. The links were ab and abc and abcd. All real links. But I noticed certain partners stopped updating their sites. Or let the quality go. Mine updated their look several times, theirs did nothing since day one in 2005. Mine went up 2 pr points and traffic from se's increased dramatically with google being the biggest increase.

[3xpreview]

I have participated in link sculpting. It worked out better than I could have imagined. I removed about 100 links on a 300 link web site. The links were ab and abc and abcd. All real links. But I noticed certain partners stopped updating their sites. Or let the quality go. Mine updated their look several times, theirs did nothing since day one in 2005. Mine went up 2 pr points and traffic from se's increased dramatically with google being the biggest increase.

Yeah, I totally agree. I'm also planning to look over my trades on my sites because somateimes I recognized that the links from the partners decreased PR2 or PR1 to PR0 and they didn't put any new stuff on their sites from ages... While I always try to increase my sites rank and always update my posts. I don't think it's a correct partnership.

[deejay]

If you remove a link to a site that hasn't changed, the obvious question is why? So G may suspect you are link trading or PR sculpting, and lower your trust a little. I don't know, I'm only speculating on this.

I think it's worth keeping an open mind on stuff like this, as it's never been more important to keep things clean in SEO terms. But the ongoing obsession that some have with Google PR (that's visible PR, as displayed in the toolbar) is, to my mind, pointless. I see hundreds of sites on here and elsewhere with PR3 and PR4, but I don't see many of them on the first page of the SERPs for their chosen search terms.