To clear the air, I did not state that you do not or have not worked hard, or are not balanced and never referenced anyone saying that you do not have a strong site.

Smarter and harder are not exclusive. If you are working harder without the smarter, you are doing so in vein.

Under no circumstances do I look down upon anyone that can or does make a living blogging. Even making decent extra income can be very elusive. I know the value of traffic (on a subscription base or otherwise) and it is also the lifeblood of traditional commercial websites. I applaud you for thinking outside the box, for being able to drive your income through blogging and commend you for your defense of the art and profession of blogging.

Thank you for your blog Google Tutor, I will certainly keep tuned in as a subscriber and extend the virtual olive branch.

I hope to see you stop by on occasion.

Cheers

wow, it’s like being on another planet talking with you guys. I mean really, this is the first time I’ve ever seen TWO people say working smarter isn’t a good thing! lol.

I’m working smarter on top of harder, they aren’t exclusive.

also, 1k was the limit for a trade we me, I have 5k+ subscribers and while I know that count isn’t very important to you, pitfall, it’s the lifeblood of professional bloggers.

If there is any value placed on links in feeds I guess would be what it all comes down to. Not as far as I have seen has anyone posed this question to search engines, yet, or at least a valid response has not been received.

I tend to think that a website should be like tending a garden, add too much fertilizer, water, heat, cold, whatever and you could end up with just a stick of wood. It may be stable and counted upon, but will it provide long term? I would rather have a balanced approach with growing a strong tree of a website.

By no means am I knocking what you do, I have been a subscriber to both Google Tutor and Copyblogger for quite some time. I respect your opinion, even when I don’t agree…

To my readers, I would just like to air a word of caution, not that it should not be considered. I applaud Copyblogger for thinking outside the box. I even enjoy the fact that I have caught your attention and have made a valid point (otherwise you two wouldn’t be defending it so easily).

Copyblogger, keep up the great ideas and Google Tutor keep up the good work.

Cheers!

I think the problem here is simply the words ‘Link Exchange’. This is about trading eyeballs and hopefully subscribers its not about links at all. And it’s really what you said yourself “you are endorsing it” YES I am that’s the point! I can’t just trade rss ads with everyone they are very very limited (one little line per post), AND trading with a subpar blog will hurt my rep.

That’s the only risk here, hurting my rep by trading with junk sites, but that’s not going to happen. I’m only trading with sites I would recommend to my readers anyway.

And if you wanted to look at it another way TLA, Feedburner, and many others sell feed ads and its perfectly legit, but trading them myself isn’t?

BTW, how many subscribers do you have?

There likely is none. But that’s not the goal.

Honestly, I don’t disagree with link exchange at it’s heart. I actually feel that it is has a value, even paid links… but the intention is what I disagree with. If you are looking for the traffic from users that it can bring, great! If you are looking for added benefits from the engines in relation to your SERPs, then not so much.

Similar to a link, when you offer something to your visitors, users or readers (whatever your flavor) you are endorsing it. Your reputation is on the line when you link to another, especially in your feed or on your website/blog. Similarly, Nike is concerned about Michael Vick’s reputation tarnishing theirs.

It is a fine line that we all walk in the marketing industry, how far is too far? Link exchanges did, at one point, bring a lot of value to a given website and it was being abused because it brought more than just visitors.

My concern for this type of behavior is that I do not know the value that is given to RSS/XML feeds and the links that they contain. I also know that the “no follow” tag is a great thought, but it has not translated (as far as I can see) across all of the engines that have signed up.

I would not discount the potential value that this can bring, I guess I am kind of funny when it comes to who and what I read. I read a few hundred feeds per day and I am very selective when adding additional feeds. I find new feeds from the people that I already read, usually in their references in the content.

Don’t let your reputation be tarnished because of something like link exchange RSS or other. Don’t get me wrong, as a marketer, I am always looking for the opportunities that are out there… usually I bite off more than I can chew (even if I had a team of developers). I also enjoy the fact that I don’t have to rely on the money that is generated by my blog (presently, none) but the point to this platform is not money.

I know that driving readers, subscribers and users to a website is difficult and you should look at every single opportunity before dismissing it, but don’t forget the risk reward analysis.

Thank you again Google Tutor and Brian Clark. I encourage debate and would appreciate any additional points that you would like to make.

It’s just marketing man… nothing lazy about doing more rather than less to get the word out.

FWIW, its not anything like a link trade that Google would have any interest in, and it’s certainly not lazy seo, it has nothing to do with seo actually. It’s marketing 101.

All of this I think you know well, so I don’t really get your post.