<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/skins/common/feed.css?207"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=User%3ASonOsgood543</id>
		<title>User:SonOsgood543 - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=User%3ASonOsgood543"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:SonOsgood543&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-04-20T02:33:17Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.15.1</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:SonOsgood543&amp;diff=3243&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>SonOsgood543:&amp;#32;Created page with 'What You Ought To Know About Reciprocal Linking  This is a topic that everyone is apparently arguing about currently. Everyone trying to help second-guess Google's actions - whic…'</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:SonOsgood543&amp;diff=3243&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2012-02-27T22:44:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Created page with &amp;#39;What You Ought To Know About Reciprocal Linking  This is a topic that everyone is apparently arguing about currently. Everyone trying to help second-guess Google&amp;#39;s actions - whic…&amp;#39;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;What You Ought To Know About Reciprocal Linking&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a topic that everyone is apparently arguing about currently. Everyone trying to help second-guess Google's actions - which will never complete - and asking yourself whether reciprocal linking is dead, dying or whether it is something worth having on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enough of the particular speculation. Here's the evidence. Google do not like reciprocal link directories and so they can sniff just one out a mile off. There was a link directory on my site until just lately, but I have finally removed it, because it got become as useful to be a chocolate teapot. Whilst the main front page on the site has retained it's Google Pr of PR5, in one of their last updates, Google relegated of which directory, which had furthermore previously had some sort of PR5, to a PUBLIC RELATIONS 0. Meanwhile, I had not really altered my linking structure that pointed going without running shoes. I had certainly not altered my procedures either: I did not connection to any PR0 internet sites, kept the amount of links per page as a result of a minimum and there was even text descriptions for each entry listed. Google could tell what it had been and acted when they saw fit. This online game has evolved since the most recent Panda update  and although [http://www.backlinksant.com/edu-links/ edu links], contextual back links, and several different backlinks still carry some weight, some link creating methods are far less powerful than before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's zero point wondering or whining over it. They can and perhaps they are doing so so that you can provide better brings about searchers. You can think it’s great or lump it, but if you would like them to give you decent listings, ranks or send you any site visitors, their rules rely. My advice: forget *artificial* reciprocal backlinks completely. The time come to maintain the index, approve and disaprove distribution (mostly this latter, because the merely people still trying for links are weak PR0 sites as well as spammers) may be much better spent.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>SonOsgood543</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>