What is ABC link building?

In SEO, backlinks are a cornerstone of ranking power. Site owners continually seek ways to acquire links, and one debated method is the link exchange – essentially, “you link to me and I’ll link to you.”

An ABC link exchange (also known as a three-way link exchange) is a specific variant of this tactic that involves three websites rather than two.

Its goal is to make the link swap less obvious to search engines by avoiding a direct two-site swap. This practice has become popular in the SEO community for its clever approach to link-building.

Despite Google’s warnings against link exchange schemes, the practice remains common.

In fact, over half (51.6%) of link builders report using link exchanges as one of their tactics. Many SEO professionals are aware that link exchanges toe the line of Google’s guidelines, yet the potential SEO gains lure them into trying methods like the ABC exchange.

This article takes an objective, in-depth look at what ABC link exchanges are, how they work, how they differ from other types of exchanges, why people use them, and the SEO risks involved.

We’ll also examine real examples, expert opinions, and nuanced perspectives on whether ABC exchanges can ever be “safe” or beneficial in today’s SEO.

Defining ABC link exchanges

An ABC link exchange is a link-building arrangement involving three websites (often labeled A, B, and C) that all agree to link to one another in a looped fashion.

In a typical scenario, Site A links to Site B, Site B links to Site C, and Site C links back to Site A, completing a triangle of one-way links.

Each site gives one backlink and receives one backlink, but no two sites are directly exchanging links with each other (unlike a standard reciprocal link exchange between two sites). This is why ABC exchanges are also called three-way link exchanges – three parties are involved, and each link is routed through a third party rather than directly returned to the origin.

The purpose of structuring links in this triangular way is to make the link exchange appear as a series of unrelated, one-directional links rather than an obvious swap.

As Search Engine Journal explains, the idea is to trick Google into seeing these as independent “one-way” backlinks instead of reciprocal links.

In theory, if done correctly, an outside observer or a search engine algorithm will see that Site A links to Site B, Site B links to Site C, and Site C links to Site A – but since no two sites mutually link to each other, it’s not immediately evident that a link exchange deal took place. The diagram below illustrates a classic ABC exchange pattern:

ABC link exchange vs. reciprocal exchange

In a reciprocal link exchange, only two websites are involved (say, Site A and Site B). Each site places a link to the other, creating a direct two-way connection (A ↔ B). This kind of swap is easy for search engines to detect because the link pattern is straightforward – the two sites link to each other, often around the same time, and possibly even using coordinated anchor text.

By contrast, an ABC exchange introduces a third site to break that direct linkback pattern. Site A links to B, but Site B does not link straight back to A – instead, B links to C, and then C provides the link back to A. From Google’s perspective, there’s no obvious A ↔ B reciprocity because A’s backlink comes from C, a different domain.

Importantly, an ABC exchange is still reciprocal in spirit – it’s a mutual arrangement where each site is giving a link in order to get a link. It’s just executed in a more roundabout way.

All three webmasters typically understand the deal: “I’ll link to your site from mine, and in return I expect a backlink from a different site in your network (or your partner’s site) back to me.” The end result is that each site gains one inbound link but avoids a direct one-for-one link swap with the same site. Advocates of ABC exchanges believe this indirection makes it difficult for Google to detect a link scheme.

In fact, some SEO practitioners even claim that a well-executed ABC exchange is virtually untraceable by Google’s algorithms and thus a “safe” way to exchange links.

However, just because the pattern is less obvious does not mean Google is completely blind to it – a point we will explore in detail.

First, let’s break down exactly how an ABC exchange is carried out and how it differs from other multi-site link schemes.

How ABC link exchanges work

In practice, setting up an ABC link exchange requires coordination among three parties.

Here’s a simple example of how it might work:

1. Site A (for instance, a tech blog) agrees to give a backlink to Site B (say, a software company’s site). This outbound link from A to B is placed in A’s content – for example, A writes an article that naturally includes a link to B’s website.

2. Site B, in return, agrees that it will not link back to A directly (to avoid a reciprocal pair). Instead, B will give a backlink to Site C. Let’s say Site C is another site that Site A owns, or perhaps it’s a partner site suggested by A. So B publishes a blog post that links to Site C.

3. Finally, Site C provides a backlink to Site A. For instance, Site C might be under Site A’s control (like a secondary website or a friend’s site), and it publishes some content with a link pointing to A.

When the dust settles, each site has “given” one link and “received” one link.

Often, these arrangements are facilitated by one person or agency who has access to multiple sites.

For example, an SEO agency might manage Site A and Site C (or have clients willing to exchange), and they reach out to an external Site B to propose the 3-way trade: “Link to our client on your site, and we’ll link to you from another one of our sites.” This way, B gets an incoming link from C, and A gets an incoming link from C – everyone ends up with a new backlink.

From Site B’s perspective, the exchange is appealing because B receives a backlink from Site A, but B doesn’t have to link back to A (which could be risky or against B’s policy); B only links out to Site C. Site A is happy because it ultimately gets a backlink from Site C. And Site C (if it’s controlled by A or a friendly partner) is contributing a link to A in exchange for A’s link to B. The three sites form a closed loop of link credit.

One key requirement in ABC exchanges is trust and alignment among all parties. All three webmasters need to agree on the plan and the quality of the sites involved.

Often, there is a mediator coordinating the deal (for instance, if one person owns two of the sites, they effectively broker the exchange with the third site). We at The Backlink Company happily act as that broker for our customers.

There may be back-and-forth about which pages to link, what anchor text to use, and so on. Compared to a simple two-site swap, a three-way exchange is more complex to arrange and maintain.

As a result, these exchanges are sometimes facilitated through private link exchange networks or communities (more on that shortly).

Beyond ABC: multi-way link exchanges and link wheels

The ABC exchange is essentially a 3-way loop, but the concept can be extended to larger loops or networks of sites. SEO communities have experimented with four-way or multi-way link exchanges that involve four, five, or more websites linking in patterns intended to obscure the connections.

A classic example is the link wheel, which is like a bigger version of an ABC exchange. In a link wheel, a chain of sites each link to the next, and the last links back to the first, forming a closed loop (e.g., A → B → C → D → A).

Another variant is where multiple sites all link to one central “target” site but interlink among themselves in complex ways (sometimes called a link network). The primary idea is always to avoid obvious reciprocation by increasing the number of sites in the exchange.

However, the larger and more elaborate these schemes get, the harder they become to manage.

We’ll discuss the risks in detail later, but it’s worth noting here that an ABC exchange is considered a relatively simple link scheme by comparison – it’s a contained triangle, as opposed to a sprawling link network. That simplicity is part of why ABC exchanges became popular: they strike a balance between being just complex enough to mask a swap, yet not so complex as to be unmanageable.

Why do SEO professionals use ABC link exchanges?

Despite the warnings from Google about link exchange schemes (which we’ll cover in the next section), many SEO professionals and webmasters continue to engage in tactics like ABC link exchanges.

Why? There are a few compelling reasons that drive the use of ABC exchanges:

To acquire backlinks “for free”

For site owners on a tight budget, exchanging links can seem like a convenient, cost-free way to build backlinks. Unlike buying links (which is explicitly against Google’s rules and costs money) or digital PR campaigns (which require effort and resources), link exchanges leverage mutual benefit – “I’ll give you a link if you give me one.”

From a purely transactional standpoint, it’s an even trade with no money changing hands. As an industry analysis by Backlinko notes, reciprocal linking is essentially free marketing – each site gains exposure to the other’s audience without payment.

In an ABC exchange, this principle extends to three parties. All participants get the SEO benefit of an extra inbound link, essentially at no monetary cost. For resource-strapped businesses or bloggers, that’s an enticing proposition.

To circumvent reciprocal link penalties/detection

The primary motivation for using the ABC format is to evade detection by Google’s algorithms.

SEO practitioners use ABC exchanges because they believe it hides the exchange and thus avoids the negative treatment that blatant link swaps might incur.

The hope is that by making each link one-way and involving a third site, the links will look natural, allowing link equity (PageRank) to flow normally.

Indeed, a well-executed ABC exchange passes PageRank just like any organic backlink.

In other words, they expect these links to count toward SEO rankings, whereas a direct A↔B exchange might be flagged and discounted.

An article on Respona (an outreach platform) even claimed that 3-way link exchanges are “arguably the safest and most common way to exchange links in 2024,” precisely because Google’s systems supposedly have “no way to track” them.

To build links at scale via networks

Over the years, link exchange practices have evolved into organized communities and networks. Many SEO professionals connect through private Slack channels, Facebook groups, or email forums to arrange link swaps en masse. In these communities, a common strategy is to set up multi-way exchanges, since not everyone has two websites to trade directly.

For example, SEO Professional X might say, “I can link to someone from my Site A, if someone else can link to me from a different site.” In a group of dozens of webmasters, it’s relatively easy to find trio arrangements that benefit everyone. These are essentially ABC exchanges brokered at scale.

According to a 2025 industry report, such private networks have become popular for trading backlinks, effectively creating a marketplace for ABC exchanges. The allure is that one can systematically grow a site’s backlink profile by swapping links with many others, while ostensibly keeping each swap hidden through the multi-site pattern.

For SEO agencies, this can be a way to deliver links for clients: they might orchestrate ABC exchanges among their roster of client websites or with partner sites across different niches.

Mutual benefit and traffic

Beyond pure SEO ranking boost considerations, a well-chosen link exchange can offer mutual benefits in terms of traffic and audience exposure. When done with relevant partners, exchanging links can drive referral traffic between sites. Each site effectively endorses the other’s content.

For example, an e-commerce software blog might link to a marketing guide on another site, and via the exchange, that second site (through a third partner) links to the e-commerce blog’s case study. Both links could send interested readers back and forth. If the audiences are similar, both sites gain new visitors. Some SEO experts argue that reciprocal links, when topically relevant and genuinely useful to users, can be a win-win: both sites improve their authority and get traffic.

In an ABC exchange, the same can hold true – as long as the content context makes sense, each site could receive some qualified traffic from the links. This user-side benefit is often cited by those who defend moderate link exchanges. They contend that not every link exchange is solely about manipulation; in some cases, it’s about cross-promotion of relevant resources.

Of course, one can cross-promote without an arranged exchange, but the point stands that exchanges aren’t always “link spam” in intent – sometimes they’re born of genuine appreciation between sites, though in an ABC scheme the exchange element is by design.

When direct exchanges are not possible or desirable

Another reason ABC exchanges occur is when two sites want to trade links, but one or both prefer not to openly reciprocate. Some high-profile websites have policies against linking back to every site that links to them (to avoid appearing biased or for editorial reasons).

Let’s say Site A really wants a link from Site B, but Site B says, “We can’t link back to you because that would look like a paid or reciprocal link.” In such cases, Site A might offer, “No problem – if you link to me, I’ll have Site C (which I control or can influence) link to you.” This way, Site B gets a backlink from C as a reward, without B ever having to violate its own linking policy to A. We often see this scenario when one party has multiple web properties.

For instance, an SEO agency might own a network of sites; they approach an external authoritative site for a link to their client, and instead of asking that authority site to link back directly (which it won’t), they promise a backlink to that authority site from a different site in their network. It’s basically barter trading of links across a pool of websites. The ABC method provides the flexibility to negotiate such deals when direct swaps are off the table.

In summary, SEO experts use ABC link exchanges primarily to gain the advantages of reciprocal linking while minimizing the downsides. By making the exchange less transparent, they hope to enjoy improved rankings and traffic without tripping Google’s spam alarms. This tactic is seen as a way to amplify link-building efforts—some have even described 3-way exchanges as a method to “multiply the efforts” of regular link building, turning one backlink given into one received plus maintaining the link juice flow.

In the next section, we will explore into the risks and consequences associated with ABC link exchanges, and examine what Google’s official stance is on this practice.

Risks and SEO implications of ABC link exchanges

ABC link exchanges come with substantial risks, chiefly because they violate Google’s guidelines on link schemes.

In Google’s eyes, an arranged exchange of links – whether direct or via a third site – is considered an attempt to manipulate rankings. This means that engaging in ABC exchanges can put your site in danger of ranking penalties or lost trust.

Let’s break down the key risks and what experts and Google itself have said about them:

Violation of Google’s link spam policies

Google’s Webmaster Guidelines explicitly list “excessive link exchanges (‘Link to me and I’ll link to you’)” as a form of link spam to avoid. The inclusion of this practice in Google’s spam policies means the search engine views systematic link swapping as a deceptive tactic.

ABC exchanges, by definition, are link exchanges – just with an extra step. They still fall under this policy, since it’s the intent and arrangement that matters. Google uses strong language here: links intended primarily to manipulate rankings are considered spam, and Google states that its algorithms and manual review team work to “nullify these unnatural links at scale”.

In plain terms, if Google detects that your backlinks are coming from link exchange schemes, best case they will simply not count those links (so you gain no advantage), and worst case they could issue a penalty against your site.

Algorithmic detection and nullification

There’s a common misconception that Google cannot detect three-way exchanges. While it’s true that ABC schemes are less obvious than direct swaps, Google’s algorithms have become increasingly sophisticated at analyzing link patterns.

As Google’s Search Advocate John Mueller has explained, the ranking algorithms do look for patterns that indicate link trading and will try to ignore or discount those links.

In a webmaster hangout, Mueller stated plainly:

“A link exchange where both sides are kind of like ‘you link to me and I’ll link back to you’… that is essentially against our guidelines. Our algorithms would look at that and try to understand what is happening and try to ignore those links.”

Even though he was referring to a two-way exchange, the same principle applies – if the algorithm can discern a closed loop like A→B→C→A (especially if done at scale or repeatedly), it may simply not count those links toward ranking. This means all the effort put into an ABC exchange could yield zero SEO benefit if Google successfully figures it out. Modern machine learning-based systems (like Google’s SpamBrain) are designed to detect unnatural linking patterns, and link loops are not off-limits to them.

Manual penalties for link schemes

The bigger danger is if Google’s human webspam team reviews your site’s link profile and sees clear evidence of link exchanges. Google explicitly notes that engaging in link exchange schemes can lead to a manual action penalty in Search Console.

John Mueller cautioned that if the majority of a site’s backlinks are from exchanges, it could trigger a manual review and penalty.

In the same Q&A, he added: “If the webspam team were to look at it they would also say this is not okay… if this is the majority of the links to your website, they might apply a manual action… that’s something I would avoid.”. A manual penalty for “unnatural links” typically results in your site’s rankings plummeting or being removed from Google’s index entirely until you clean up the links.

For example, your site might receive a notification that it has “Unnatural links to your site – impacts links” which can either dampen your PageRank or, if severe, lead to complete removal from search results. Recovering from such a penalty is neither easy nor quick – it often involves auditing and removing/disavowing the problematic links and then filing a reconsideration request to Google. SEO experts note that manual link penalties can be challenging to bounce back from, sometimes taking months to fully recover, even after cleanup.

In essence, the cost of getting caught can far outweigh any short-term benefits you gained from the exchange.

Ambiguity around “excessive” – where is the line?

Google’s guideline uses the word “excessive” link exchanges, which implies that a small number of mutual links might be tolerated. This ambiguity can be misleading. Some in the SEO community interpret it as Google allowing a low level of reciprocal linking (since naturally any site might have some reciprocal links).

For instance, one SEO commentator pointed out that it’s normal for big publications – say, Business Insider and MarketWatch – to occasionally link to each other’s relevant articles, and Google likely considers that fine. They speculate that Google has some threshold or percentage of links below which exchanges won’t raise a red flag.

However, “excessive” is not clearly defined, and Google’s stance as voiced by Mueller is that any systematic or intentional exchange is bad practice.

In other words, if you are planning out link exchanges (even a handful), you’ve crossed into risky territory. It’s true that Google is not going to penalize normal, organic back-and-forth linking between websites that genuinely reference each other. But an ABC exchange is by nature a planned scheme.

Thus, even if you only do one or two of them, you are engaging in something against the guidelines. Relying on the leniency implied by “excessive” is dangerous – as one SEO site wryly noted, Google included the word “excessive,” but that doesn’t mean a small number of exchanges are “OK” in a risk-free sense.

The bottom line: any form of quid-pro-quo linking carries risk, and the fewer such links you have, the better. You never truly know where Google draws the line, and that line could also shift over time.

Quality control and “bad neighborhoods”

When you participate in link exchanges, especially via networks or groups, you’re entrusting part of your site’s authority to other webmasters. One oft-overlooked risk of ABC exchanges is ending up associated with spammy websites or what’s known in SEO as “bad neighborhood” links.

In an exchange network, there might be rules like “no gambling or adult sites allowed” to maintain quality. But as SEO veteran Brian Dean warns, these networks can slip: “They eventually allow… a borderline one and then it’s a free for all. And then your link… goes from ‘Oh, this is a really nice link’ to like on a spammy site with bad neighborhoods.” .

We built a blacklist database to check against bad quality links. You can give it a try here:

A site that looked reputable when you swapped links could later deteriorate (for example, start linking out to shady payday loan or casino sites, or get penalized itself). Your outbound link to that site, or the inbound link you got from it, then associates you with a spammy neighborhood.

This can harm your site’s reputation with search engines. Google assesses the quality of sites linking to you; a few bad or toxic links typically won’t derail a strong site, but if you’ve actively exchanged links with sites that turn spammy, it could drag you down.

Moreover, if Google manually reviews your link network and finds you interlinked with a cluster of low-quality or unrelated sites (common in arranged exchanges), that’s a huge red flag. This risk underscores why link exchanges are often called “gray hat” at best – you might think you’re trading only among decent sites, but you have limited control over those sites’ future content or outbound links. The only way to completely avoid guilt by association is not to engage in these artificial link partnerships in the first place.

Unintended footprints

ABC exchanges, if repeated, can themselves create a pattern.

For example, suppose you do multiple 3-way exchanges with different partners. Over time, your Site A might link out to several sites (B1, B2, B3…) while getting links back from several other sites (C1, C2, C3…).

If an analyst or algorithm looks at your link graph, they might notice that every site you link to somehow has a corresponding site linking to you, just not the same site. There are cases where SEO teams uncovered link networks because the domains involved reused the same Google Analytics codes or had interlinked IP addresses – clues that the sites were connected.

While ABC links try to avoid obvious patterns, things like all sites linking in a circular manner, or a small community of sites heavily interlinking, can still surface. Google’s John Mueller has suggested that rather than chasing loopholes like complex exchange patterns, it’s safer to “simply walk away from link exchanges” altogether. The effort to mask footprints can quickly spiral into an arms race with Google’s detection capabilities. If your SEO strategy is sound otherwise, engaging in exchanges is an unnecessary gamble.

As the saying goes, build your house on rock, not on sand – and manipulative link tricks are very much shifting sand.

Opportunity cost and false sense of security

Lastly, consider the opportunity cost. Time and energy spent on organizing ABC exchanges could arguably be better spent on earning genuine links. Sometimes, webmasters get lulled into a false sense of security by a successful link exchange or two – they see a ranking bump and assume it’s a sustainable strategy.

However, if those gains vanish with the next algorithm update (because Google caught on and nullified those links), you’re back to square one.

Meanwhile, you might have neglected creating high-quality content or building real relationships that could yield organic backlinks. Industry leaders often emphasize that while manipulative tactics might work in the short term, they are unstable. “Spammy link schemes are a short-term solution for a long-term problem,”  one Search Engine Journal article noted, urging marketers to think beyond quick hacks.

In the long run, content that naturally attracts links or outreach that secures editorial links on merit will pay off more reliably – and without the Sword of Damocles of a Google penalty hanging over your head.

Nuanced perspective – when is a link exchange “natural”?

It’s worth clarifying that Google is not against all reciprocal linking. Links between two sites can and do occur naturally in many cases, and Google’s algorithms expect to see some of that.

For instance, two universities might cite each other’s research, or two companies in a partnership might link to each other’s announcements – these are organic, and search engines typically aren’t concerned by a reasonable number of such links. The problem is when reciprocity (or multi-way reciprocity) is orchestrated solely for SEO benefit.

When reciprocal links happen naturally and are relevant, they’re generally harmless or even beneficial to users; it’s the intentional strategy known as a link exchange scheme that crosses the line .

ABC exchanges, by definition, are intentional schemes. There’s virtually no scenario where a true “ABC” pattern happens by coincidence without webmaster coordination. It would mean, by sheer chance, three sites decided to link in a perfect triangle among each other – highly unlikely without planning.

Therefore, if you engage in ABC link exchanges, you should do so with full awareness that you are stepping into gray/black-hat territory as far as Google is concerned. The safest approach, and Google’s own recommendation, is to earn links by creating content worth linking to and building genuine relationships.

Are ABC link exchanges ever worth it?

Given the risks outlined, a logical question arises: Are ABC link exchanges ever a good idea in modern SEO? The answer depends on one’s risk tolerance and ethical stance, but the consensus among most seasoned SEO experts leans toward caution or avoidance.

Here we’ll consider a couple of opposing viewpoints and nuanced scenarios:

The case for ABC exchanges

A few practitioners argue that when done sparingly and intelligently, ABC exchanges can provide a boost without serious fallout.

They point out that link exchanges do work in terms of improving rankings – after all, why would Google explicitly ban the practice if it had no effect? Because it does work, Google has taken steps against it… This, by itself, is proof that it does work.

A link from a willing partner can meaningfully increase your PageRank, especially if it’s from a high-authority site, and exchanging links is a pragmatic way to get those votes.

Advocates of this strategy might operate under a “low volume, high relevance” rule: only exchange links with a few very relevant, high-quality sites, and do it infrequently.

In their experience, such conservative use of exchanges may fly under the radar and deliver real SEO value. They also argue that if the content you’re linking is genuinely valuable to users, then even though the exchange was arranged, the end-user impact is positive (which might make it less likely to be seen as spam).

There are even agencies and services (like The Backlink Company) that offer controlled three-way link exchange packages, claiming they can boost rankings safely by carefully vetting partner sites and keeping the exchanges discreet.

When we build links for our clients, our clients never link out from their websites, so it's technically not an ABC exchange even though we call it that.

The case against ABC exchanges

Most SEO experts with an overly careful mindset advise against relying on ABC exchanges as a strategy. The reasons circle back to unpredictability and risk. What might work today could lead to penalty tomorrow.

Google’s algorithms are continuously improving; a tactic that slips through now might be caught in the next core update or by a future iteration of SpamBrain. The history of SEO is littered with once-effective link schemes that later got punished (e.g., link wheels, private blog networks, mass directory links).

As Barry Schwartz quipped in 2021, “link exchanges are so 2019” – implying that search engines have moved past that loophole. 

Additionally, there’s an opportunity cost: time spent wheeling and dealing links could be invested in content, UX, or legitimate outreach that builds your brand and earns links naturally. There’s also a reputational aspect – if your site gets known for or publicly called out for link scheming, it can damage trust with your audience or customers.

Given that Google’s own representatives have unequivocally said “that’s something I would avoid” regarding link exchanges, the safer route is to heed that advice.

In competitive SEO verticals, some sites do take risks with exchanges (and some get away with it short-term), but for a business that values longevity, it’s often not worth the gamble. As the SEO company Moz famously advocated, focusing on “earning” links rather than “building” them tends to align your efforts with what search engines reward in the long run.

Nuanced middle ground

There is a bit of a grey middle ground where, say, two site owners who know each other might occasionally trade links in the course of collaboration – for example, doing guest posts on each other’s blogs (where each naturally links to the other’s site within the content). Is that an exchange?

Technically yes, but it’s also authentic content marketing. The key is that it’s not a clandestine, purely-for-SEO operation; it’s out in the open and provides value to readers.

Google is less concerned with that kind of scenario, especially if the links are earned editorially. The more hidden and systematic the exchange, the more it veers into “scheme” territory. An ABC exchange by nature is hidden (you’re deliberately trying to conceal the quid pro quo), which is why it’s problematic.

So, are ABC exchanges worth it? If you ask most reputable SEO professionals in 2025, they’ll likely say the risks outweigh the rewards. A short-term rankings uptick is not worth a potential penalty that could sink your site’s traffic.

There might be edge cases – for instance, a small niche site exchanging with two other niche sites in a one-off, highly relevant triangle – where the participants might judge it relatively safe and beneficial. But it’s still a roll of the dice.

Real-life examples and case studies

To ground this discussion, let’s look at a few real-world observations related to ABC link exchanges:

Private exchange communities

SEO forums and networking groups often have threads where members propose link swaps. On platforms like Reddit’s r/SEO or private Slack groups, you can find people saying, “I’m up for an ABC link exchange – my Site A (DR60, 100k traffic) can link out, looking for similar quality link back.”

This illustrates how commonplace the practice is behind the scenes. This confirms that this isn’t just a theoretical discussion – many practitioners do engage in it.

However, these exchanges are typically done quietly. No one is writing public case studies boasting “I did 50 ABC link exchanges and here’s what happened,” because of the fear of drawing Google’s attention or community backlash. Most evidence of ABC exchanges comes anecdotally or from SEO audits where unusual linking patterns are discovered.

Notable crackdowns

While Google rarely pinpoints specific sites for link exchange penalties publicly, there have been instances of link networks being penalized that likely involved reciprocal or multi-way linking.

For example, in 2014 Google took action against several European link networks (in Spain, Italy, Germany) that coordinated links between many sites. Those were more sophisticated than simple ABC exchanges, but it shows Google’s willingness to enforce its rules on a large scale.

In smaller scale, SEO practitioners have reported receiving manual actions for “unnatural links” where upon investigation, the cause was excessive reciprocal linking with partner sites.

In some cases, even having a sitewide “Partner Links” or “Friends of our site” blogroll (essentially exchanging sidebar links) has triggered penalties – Google’s algorithms in the Penguin era (circa 2012–2016) became adept at catching those patterns. An ABC exchange could potentially slip by longer, but if discovered, it would be treated as any other link scheme. There isn’t a public case of “Google penalized X site for ABC exchanges” specifically named, but that’s likely because such penalties get lumped under the general umbrella of link spam.

Case of a network gone wrong

Consider a hypothetical (but not uncommon) scenario: A small group of travel blog owners decide to help each other rank. They set up a ring of ABC exchanges among five blogs.

For instance, Blog1 links to Blog2, Blog2 links to Blog3, Blog3 links to Blog1 (that’s one triangle), and similarly they arrange another triangle among themselves to cover all sites. Initially, this gives everyone a minor rankings boost, and they’re thrilled. They continue the practice over months, adding more exchanged links.

However, one of the blogs (Blog3) starts posting low-quality content and peppering it with affiliate links and paid guest posts, deteriorating its quality. Google’s algorithm picks up on Blog3’s issues and possibly flags its outbound linking pattern.

In the next core update, Blogs 1, 2, and 3 all drop in rankings – perhaps Google didn’t penalize them outright, but it might have devalued the links between them or the authority of Blog3, causing a ripple effect. Blogs 4 and 5 might remain okay for now, but the network’s benefit has essentially unraveled. This kind of outcome is frequently discussed in SEO communities: one participant in a link scheme can drag down the others.

Expert audits

SEO agencies that perform backlink audits sometimes share anonymized stories like, “Client came to us with a manual penalty. We found they had been involved in extensive link exchanges (including multi-way exchanges). We worked to remove those links and filed for reconsideration.” These cases underline that real businesses do get burned by such tactics. The recovery often involves contacting exchange partners to remove links – which is ironic, because those partners wanted the links too, and now you’re both harming each other by having to cut them. Disavow files (a tool to tell Google to ignore certain backlinks) are also used in desperation when you can’t get links taken down.

Essentially, what began as a mutually beneficial scheme can end with both sides scrambling to undo the very links they traded, just to get back in Google’s good graces.

Positive case study (with caveats)

On the positive side, consider an AI-driven meeting assistant startup that went from 500 to 20,000 monthly visitors in just nine months with a focused link-building program.

Rather than relying solely on one approach, they built roughly 15 high-quality backlinks per month through niche edits, guest posts and ABC exchanges—each contextualized within relevant industry blogs—and simultaneously expanded their in-house content from 56 to 186 articles on best practices for meetings and note-taking. This blended strategy drove a 40x traffic increase, lifted domain authority from 22 to 46, and sent top-3 keyword rankings from 23 up to 255.

Yet even here, practitioners warn against overdoing exchanges. As one SEO specialist notes, reciprocal links aren’t inherently “good” or “bad”—it’s all about moderation, context and quality. In this case, the startup used link ABC swaps and paired them with ongoing outreach and content creation, so they never tripped any algorithmic filters. The result: a supplemental lift in competitive rankings without penalty.