# Link exchanges: what Google says, and what people actually do

Two sites linking to each other is normal and always has been. A spreadsheet of swaps between forty founders is what Google's link spam policy calls excessive link exchanges. The difference is whether the link would exist if the other one disappeared, and this page is about telling the two apart.

Updated 2026-09-15 · Source: https://porteur.ai/guides/link-exchanges

## The policy, in Google's words

Google's link spam policy names "excessive link exchanges" and describes them as arrangements of the form: link to me and I will link to you. It sits in the same list as buying and selling links that pass ranking, large-scale article campaigns with keyword-rich anchors, and automated link programmes.

Two words carry the weight. Excessive means the exchange is the point and the reader is not. And links that pass ranking means the policy is about ranking signals, not about the existence of a link.

> Since March 2024, Google says its systems mostly ignore spammy links rather than demoting the site they point at. So an exchange network usually fails by achieving nothing, not by triggering a penalty.

## Where the line actually sits

One question separates the two cases: would this link exist if the other side removed theirs tomorrow.

| Arrangement | Reading |
| --- | --- |
| Your integration page links to their docs; their integrations page lists you | Both links help a user with a real task. Fine. |
| You cite their study in a guide; they cite your tool in theirs | Two editorial decisions that happen to point both ways. Fine. |
| A group chat where members post URLs and everyone links to everyone | An exchange scheme. The pattern the policy describes. |
| "We will add you to our resources page if you add us to yours" | The link is the payment. A swap. |
| A three-way arrangement so the links are not reciprocal on paper | Still an exchange, and a familiar pattern to a spam system. |

The three-way version deserves a note because it is sold as the clever workaround. Site A links to B, B links to C, C links to A. It is a scheme with an extra step, and the extra step does not change what it is.

## What gets neutralised, and how you would know

You will not get a message. The usual outcome of an exchange network is that nothing happens at all: the links sit there, nobody clicks them, and the rankings do not move.

- The links are live and indexed, and your positions are unchanged over months.
- The referring domains chart goes up while impressions stay flat.
- No traffic ever arrives from any of them, because nobody reads a page of outbound links.
- In the rare case of a manual action, Search Console's Manual actions report says so explicitly.

That flatness is the signal. It is also why the exchange feels harmless: nothing visibly breaks. The cost is the weeks spent and the pages of outbound links now sitting on your own site, doing nothing for your readers.

## The safer version of the same idea

The impulse behind an exchange is sound: you know other founders, and you want to help each other. Keep the impulse and drop the accounting.

1. **Build the integration** If your products connect, document it on your side. Then ask to be listed on their integrations page. Both pages exist because users need them.
2. **Cite properly** When their study, tool or documentation is the best reference for a paragraph you are writing, link it. Tell them you did, once, without asking for anything.
3. **Recommend to people, not to crawlers** Introduce their product to a customer it suits. Recommendations travel further than links and often end up as one anyway.
4. **Share an audience instead** A joint study, a webinar, a newsletter swap that goes to human subscribers. The link that follows is a byproduct of something real.

Worked example. PingFox monitors uptime; a rival product publishes status pages. PingFox writes a guide on status page reliability and cites their documentation because it is the clearest explanation available. Their team notices, and later lists PingFox on their integrations page because customers ask for it. Two links, no negotiation, both useful to a reader.

## How to answer an exchange request

You will get these emails weekly. A short honest answer takes ten seconds and keeps the relationship open.

```text
Hi, thanks for the note. We do not do link exchanges, but I am happy to
link to your guide on retries if it is the best reference when we next
write about that, with no expectation either way. If our products ever
connect properly, an integration page on both sides makes more sense.

Thomas
```

- Do not argue about policy. Say no and offer the version you would do.
- If they are a genuine peer, the offer is real: add them to your reading when they earn it.
- If the email lists forty sites and a spreadsheet, do not reply at all.
- Never agree to a swap because the other site has a high third-party metric. That number is a tool's model, not Google's.

## What about links you already exchanged

If you did this in the past, in small numbers, with real sites, the honest answer is that it is probably not worth unpicking.

- Remove the outbound links on your own site that exist only for the trade. They are your pages and they are not helping your readers.
- Leave the inbound ones alone. You cannot control other people's pages, and Google's systems ignore what they judge to be schemes.
- The disavow file is for a manual action for link spam, or a known history of paid links. It is not a routine tidy-up, and Google says most sites never need it.
- If you have a manual action, fix the cause, document what you removed, and file a reconsideration request.

Then spend the time on the things that compound: something worth citing, and the people who cite things in your category.

## Questions

### Are reciprocal links bad for SEO?

Two sites linking to each other for good reasons is normal and Google has never said otherwise. What the link spam policy names is excessive link exchanges, where the arrangement is the reason for the links. The test is whether each link would survive if the other was removed.

### Will a link exchange get my site penalised?

Usually not. Since 2024 Google says its systems mostly ignore spammy links rather than demoting the target, so the common outcome is that the links achieve nothing. A manual action is reserved for clear and repeated cases, and it appears in Search Console's Manual actions report.

### What about a three-way link exchange?

A three-way swap is an exchange with an extra hop. It is sold as the safe version and it is the same arrangement: links that exist because of a deal rather than because they help a reader. Spam systems look for patterns, not for reciprocity on paper.

### Should I remove old exchanged links?

Remove the outbound ones on your own site if they only exist for the trade, because they are your pages and they do nothing for your readers. Leave inbound links alone. Reach for the disavow tool only with a manual action or a known paid history.

### What should I do instead when another founder asks?

Offer what you would do anyway: cite them when they are the best reference, build and document an integration if your products connect, introduce them to a customer they suit. All three produce links that stand on their own and relationships that outlast a swap.

## Read next

- [Guest posting in 2026: when it is worth it and when it is link spam](https://porteur.ai/guides/guest-posting): What Google's policy says about article campaigns, how to tell a real publication from a placement, how to choose a site, and the rel attributes to use.
- [Link velocity: the metric people worry about and Google does not publish](https://porteur.ai/guides/link-velocity): Why a natural link profile is bursty, what Google has said about judging links rather than their pace, and the one kind of spike worth investigating.
- [Toxic backlinks: a tool’s word, and what Google actually says](https://porteur.ai/guides/toxic-backlinks): What tools mean by toxic backlinks, what Google says, when you have a real problem, and what to do instead of a rushed disavow.
- [The disavow tool: what it is for, and why you almost never need it](https://porteur.ai/guides/disavow-tool): You almost never need the Google disavow tool. Use it only for a link manual action or unremovable paid links. Here is how to decide and proceed.
- [Manual actions and the reconsideration request](https://porteur.ai/guides/manual-actions-and-reconsideration): Tell a Google manual action from an algorithmic drop, fix the cause, use disavow only when needed, and write a clear reconsideration request.
- [Link building](https://porteur.ai/glossary/link-building): Link building is earning links from other sites to yours. Here is what works within Google’s policies, how to measure it, and what to avoid.
- [Black hat SEO](https://porteur.ai/glossary/black-hat-seo): Black hat SEO tries to game search with cloaking, link schemes and more. It may work briefly, then brings demotion or removal. Here is how to avoid it.
- [Private blog network](https://porteur.ai/glossary/private-blog-network): What a private blog network is, why Google treats it as link spam, how to spot PBN links, what to do if you bought them, and the traps to avoid.

Paste your URL and the free check reads the rivals on your searches and the sites linking to them, so the next link you chase is one worth having. Free check: https://porteur.ai/