i think following are the right order of activities involved in generating organic traffic to a website.

1. Submission to Search Engines
2. Submission to Directories
3. Reciprocal Linking from similar websites.
4. Article Marketing.
5. Making a Blog with a link to your website.
6. Ensuring unique contents periodically.

What do you think?

1 - design in SEO from the beginning
2 - use a clear and simple link structure (inc. 2-hop html sitemap)
3 - write good content
4 - DO NOT submit to search engines
5 - article marketing
6 - occasional directory listings
7 - NO reciprocal linking
8 - add RSS to pages shartly after they've been indexed.
9 - Refresh the rss content and rss content length 3 times a week
10 - more article marketing

Notes:
*2-step html site map - every page links to SM, SM links to every page - no matter what page a bot or user enters on, all other pages are only 2 clicks away
*SEs will pick you up naturally from link building (AM and DS)
*article written for AM should not appear on your own site, the good contnet from step 3 is for your own site

Northie,
I could use some abbreviation translation, please. Gonna see if I got some of your abbreviations right, just in case, I'm thinking I understand, when I don't.

SM - site map
AM - article marketing
DS - ....ummm, I dunno!

Also, got a question about reciprocal linking. Although the SEs have decided it's suspect (at least), assuming the RLs are mutually beneficial for both sites, aren't they worth keeping anyway, for visitor's sake?

Just in case that wasn't clear, I'll give an example. Say my site is just informational about my personal widget collection, which aren't a very common search item, but fasinate the heck out of those who love them so. I found THE site for widgets, widgetsDOTcom, which tells the history, uses, styles, collection catagories, and links to different widget sites throughout the world, including personal sites. Obviously, they're #1 on the SERPS. My site's link to theirs and vica versa is merely so visitors can look at more and more widgets, and find others who like them too. Isn't it worth it for the benefit of visitors and more targeted traffic, even if the Big 3 SEs thinks it's spammy?!

DS- directory submission

the other 2 are correct Lynn

about the RL you are right- if the links are relevant (which they should be if you want to add them for your visitor's sake) then by all means keep them- a limited number of relevant  RL's won't hurt at worst

Thanks Nic - would have said the same!

I'm saying that RL building should not be part of your link building. Add them as and when you come across a good one. When you think "ooh, this would be good for my visitors" then add a link. Don't expect one in return, but there's no harm in asking

There's been quite a cloud hanging over the whole recip thing lately, one cast by what users believe is fair, and what SE's believe is just plain 'ol SEO.

In her case, yes it would work just fine, but her explanation spells out something quite more than a standard recip. I'm assuming you mean a content page which happens to have a link to someone else, and they link back to you. Sounds absolutely great in all regards.

But what about link pages? I think this is where people get a little confused, and the SE's have not pointed to any proper way to handle this.

If the page is labeled 'links', then duh... it's seo all the way.

On my site I have a links type of page, but it's titled something completely on-theme, and the sites listed are 100% appropriate for the page title. Think of it as a strict form of recip linking.

I've always wondered how G feels about that kind of content. I'm not #1, but would I be if I were to remove the pages? Could I be slightly penalized by G if I were to get too many links, even tho it's clearly a directory style set-up, linked sites are very specific to my sites theme, and their sites are very specific to the niche market they are in, which is reflected in the page title and anchor text to that page? (wow.. there's a run-on sentence for ya)

I'm pretty sure no SE's will ever say anything as recip linking pages are strictly SEO related, not user related, and this new view on recips will greatly change how we develop our sites. I just wish we had some more insight to the issue.

You'd think that I'd score some brownie points for NOT recip linking, and just linking to a quality source. But then I suppose everyone would do it, and we're back to square one.

/rambling

Nic, Thanks!

Stitch,
Well, actually I was picturing a links page, but not simply directory style -- If it's worth linking to, it's also worth explaining why it is worth linking to. (My philosophy, which, with my luck, is probably counterintuitive to good SEO practices. LOL)

If the page is labeled 'links', then duh... it's seo all the way.

I'm not sure what you mean -- possibly because of my ignorance of SEO. Is SEO done strictly to get up to the top positions on the SERPs, or isn't it two-fold -- to get in the top position on the SERP and present valuable content for visitors?! As a SERP user, I like it when sites have a links page, in case I want more info about the subject then that site is giving.

On my site I have a links type of page, but it's titled something completely on-theme, and the sites listed are 100% appropriate for the page title. Think of it as a strict form of recip linking.

I've always wondered how G feels about that kind of content. I'm not #1, but would I be if I were to remove the pages? Could I be slightly penalized by G if I were to get too many links, even tho it's clearly a directory style set-up, linked sites are very specific to my sites theme, and their sites are very specific to the niche market they are in, which is reflected in the page title and anchor text to that page? (wow.. there's a run-on sentence for ya)

Actually, I thought your strict form of Recip linking is the best form! (Almost forgot about the sites that accept any ole RL.)

On this forum, I've read, more then once, that we are to keep link pages down to under 100 links, so I've been assuming we are penalized for it, if we don't. Not sure how much. For SEO, I guess that's good info to know. As a site owner and one who spends way too much time researching all sorts of stuff online, I think that stinks!

Just over the weekend I spent about an hour each, trying to find out two little snippets of info online that I thought should have been easy, quick searches. I wanted to know how old Tiger Woods was for his first TV appearance (2 y.o. and on The Mike Douglas Show) and where I could buy some perilite online (still looking, although now I know too much about the process in making it. ) Lots of sites with a few links, but it would have been so much easier to find a site that gave enough additional links to find the info quicker. I bet if Google didn't penalize sites such as ours, that perilite would be shipping to me by now!

I'm pretty sure no SE's will ever say anything as recip linking pages are strictly SEO related, not user related, and this new view on recips will greatly change how we develop our sites. I just wish we had some more insight to the issue.

I'm not sure where people get this stuff, nor am I interested enough in all that end of the equation to find out, but, from what I've read, that information is searchable, and, apparently, carefully studied by SEO experts. I think it's all that info on Google's patents, although, as been written several times from Gypsy, just because they get the patent doesn't mean they use it.