In my opinion, no. I'm generally not going to recommend someone until I have read their material and got to know them as a writer to some degree. If I haven't recommended someone already, it'll be either because I'm not familiar with their work (this could definitely change over time!), or because I don't think it's worth recommending (this is less likely to change, but it's not impossible).
Recommendation swaps grow the size of the network, sure, but not its quality.
To take the example from the article: I recommend Mike's Everything Is Amazing, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter. That's fine - I didn't recommend Mike's work because I wanted something in exchange, but because I like and enjoy what he does. That's what gives the recommendation value, and why Mike's own recommendations presumably have value, too.
Exactly — it’s both a joy to give and receive recommendations because they are genuine. As soon as it becomes transactional it becomes less honest and not as fun a process.
The problem here is the assumption hanging in the air that a link swap achieves the same thing as a genuinely heartfelt Recommendation - and the further assumption that readers can be "tricked" into clicking through. In many cases it won't and they can't, because readers will see you have no thematic overlap or no prior relationship with that writer you're link-swapping with. It'll stink of inauthenticity.
If that happens, their trust in you gets eroded, your engagement withers away, and everyone loses. That's a lose-lose scenario and the opposite of a growth hack.
Why do you find requests for recommendation swaps frustrating? Isn’t it a good way for us to all grow together?
In my opinion, no. I'm generally not going to recommend someone until I have read their material and got to know them as a writer to some degree. If I haven't recommended someone already, it'll be either because I'm not familiar with their work (this could definitely change over time!), or because I don't think it's worth recommending (this is less likely to change, but it's not impossible).
Recommendation swaps grow the size of the network, sure, but not its quality.
To take the example from the article: I recommend Mike's Everything Is Amazing, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter. That's fine - I didn't recommend Mike's work because I wanted something in exchange, but because I like and enjoy what he does. That's what gives the recommendation value, and why Mike's own recommendations presumably have value, too.
Exactly — it’s both a joy to give and receive recommendations because they are genuine. As soon as it becomes transactional it becomes less honest and not as fun a process.
>>"but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter."
NOT SO FAST, SIMON.
This was an oversight on my part, and it's now corrected. 😁 Sorry to destroy your argument.
You’ve ruined everything, Mike.
MY WORK HERE IS DONE. I AM DEATH.
(WHICH IS WHY I'M SPEAKING IN ALL-CAPS.)
The problem here is the assumption hanging in the air that a link swap achieves the same thing as a genuinely heartfelt Recommendation - and the further assumption that readers can be "tricked" into clicking through. In many cases it won't and they can't, because readers will see you have no thematic overlap or no prior relationship with that writer you're link-swapping with. It'll stink of inauthenticity.
If that happens, their trust in you gets eroded, your engagement withers away, and everyone loses. That's a lose-lose scenario and the opposite of a growth hack.
Best avoided.