Honestly, I don’t care “what” it is. I would ignore the first one and block the “person” if there was a second attempt at engaging in such games. It’s not even worth reading the tweet in the first place, is it? So why take it on? There’s an appropriate zen saying somewhere for the right attitude to have with this sort of thing.

There are too many different types of players, games and networking rules all on one platform. You decide which “game” you want to play and run with that one. There are people who want to play 2 different games on one platform and they should have 2 dfferent accounts… otherwise I’m not sure how well they’ll be able to play either game.

I think you are right about a more “sociable web environment”. The thing is that you have to base it on sound thinking. I see signs of group thinking and mass hysteria all over the place. It has to start with the individual.

Case in point. This Twitter handle recently followed me:

backfollower – I follow back

“Bio Follow me and my followers and they will follow you back. Unfollow me and I will unfollow you.”

Is this a (ro)bot or a real person? What’s the use of this? Should I block this Twitter user?
.-= Martin Lindeskog´s last blog ..THE BERLIN WALL =-.

What I question is not the value of link exchanges but the attitude people have when asking for them, or being asked for them. A “closed” mindset does not get you anywhere in intenational networking. And you can see this in people’s linking mindsets. If you comfort yourself by saying that you always reciprocate you still have a narrow vision. Because you are still waiting for everyone else to make the first step. That’s a problem in international networking. With this attitude you won’t get very far either unless you sell the hottest item on the market and everyone is clammering to meet you.

Outside of the scope of international networking, and only looking at linking… I think there are similar values in giving your links first and focusing on the value to your readers.

Sure you can easily get a large number of links back to you through link exchange tactics. Buts what’s the value. Google is getting more intelligent and will pick these up. Links from relevant sources have more value, whether you network for them with “link exchange” requests or through standard networking practices. But most of the “link exchange” requests I get add no value to my blog and my readers.

What’s interesting as we move towards a more sociable web environment is that I think “link exchange requests” are a couple of years out of date. The current trend is towards more sociable networking where reaching out and giving first is more “natural”.

Your post got me thinking on how I could write a piece on link exchanges, SEO and the trader principle. I don’t think you should be obliged to give a link to someone by default. It is all about a voluntarily exchange between two parties (bloggers).

I have been blogging since 2002 and according to Alexa Internet, Inc., I have about 200 sites linking in to my EGO blog.

Here is an excerpt from my post, Start of Weekly Workflow Review:

“One of the main points with implementing a new integrated work-life guide is to come in contact and meet new rational individuals, so I could have positive exchange with them regarding ideas and “stuff”, according to the trader principle.”

Best Premises,

Martin
.-= Martin Lindeskog´s last blog ..THE BERLIN WALL =-.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by DihydrogenOxide: useful post The Biggest Mistake In International Networking http://bit.ly/1kmUsY…