Google sending warnings about Artificial or Unnatural links in Google Webmaster Central
-
Has anyone seen warnings about Artificial or Unnatural links notice show up in their Google Webmaster central yet? I just looked at each of our clients and had not but after reading the Search Engine Land article at http://searchengineland.com/google-warning-more-about-bad-link-networks-117079 I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding this topic?
We are not purchasing links for our clients sites but definitely going out their and building links. Article concerned me that I may run into issues for my link building clients. Thoughts?
-
Similar story here, got lots of sites, got warning ion 2 I least expected, was using some article blogs a while back, but only as part of a wider link profile. No penalty from warning, am hoping it's just a wake up call. Wish things were clearer, google needs to be more transparent.Fixing anything they don't like is also ridiculously difficult.
-
I have access to dozens of legitimate websites and knowledge of their SEO. One of the sites received the notice from Goggle, but had no rankings drop. Another site had sudden rankings drop for permutations of a keyword (went from averaging position 8 to averaging position 23).
I looked into what made these sites / keywords unique.
We did not knowingly use any blog networks. (and if we had links from them, it would have been low quantity)
We had many anchor text links. The quantity was similar or less than other website which received no penalties or warnings.
The website that received the warning did have some pure spam PR backlinks, but they were removed 7 months ago.
What seemed to make the website which received the warning unique was the high percentage of anchor text links to natural social and forum links. The website had less than 1,000 links total. Other websites with 2,000 to 10,000 links (and a similar to slightly larger quantity of anchor text links) received no warning,
What seemed unique about the site that received a drop for one set of keywords was that the site was having ranking problems with that keyword and a push was made to make more inbound links with that keyword. (we talking 10's of links, not hundreds or thousands.)
These sites have competition with 10,000 to 50,000 inbound links I would call "unnatural" we haven't seen those website dropping in rank.
It seems to me that google was very upfront when they state "over optimization". It is relational to your total link profile.
-
I have access to dozens of legitimate websites and knowledge of their SEO. One of the sites received the notice from Goggle, but had no rankings drop. Another site had sudden rankings drop for permutations of a keyword (went from averaging position 8 to averaging position 23).
I looked into what made these sites / keywords unique.
We did not knowingly use any blog networks. (and if we had links from them, it would have been low quantity)
We had many anchor text links. The quantity was similar or less than other website which received no penalties or warnings.
The website that received the warning did have some pure spam PR backlinks, but they were removed 7 months ago.
What seemed to make the website which received the warning unique was the high percentage of anchor text links to natural social and forum links. The website had less than 1,000 links total. Other websites with 2,000 to 10,000 links (and a similar to slightly larger quantity of anchor text links) received no warning,
What seemed unique about the site that received a drop for one set of keywords was that the site was having ranking problems with that keyword and a push was made to make more inbound links with that keyword. (we talking 10's of links, not hundreds or thousands.)
These sites have competition with 10,000 to 50,000 inbound links I would call "unnatural" we haven't seen those website dropping in rank.
It seems to me that google was very upfront when they state "over optimization". It is relational to your total link profile.
-
I had three show up for one of our test sites. All came on 3/29. All said the same thing.
Funny thing is, while it said that we had to request re-inclusion into the index, the site remains well ranked on other terms.
This makes us think that the infractions are for getting exact match anchor text links (they were the ones that got the messages). Compared to the other organic links we earned (variations of the anchor text in the links).
So, this latest wave of penalties applies to keywords, not the site, which is a step in the right direction.
We are already anticipating what the next penalized type of link will be, and we are already actively testing.
-
Having artificial or unnatural links isn't strictly limited to purchasing links. Are you doing anything else that might not be considered above board by Google? I'd start there and examine your clients' backlink profiles and make adjustments if needed.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can a company group have reciprocal links on their company websites without being penalised by Google?
A client which is part of a group of businesses all within one industry but have different purposes has come to us aith a "brilliant idea" that they all have a blog on their website that links to every business within their group. We are pretty sure that this will be seen as "black hat" by Google, but just wanted to see what you all thought? Thanks!
Link Building | | RedAntSolutions0 -
Inbound link is follow link but we put no follow link back - is it beneficial for rankings?
Dear Moz Community, We are operating in a niche market, where there are not so many content marketing options. What we are left with are link exchanging with relevant sites that are on the same topic but to not directly compete with us. Now we know that if we link back to site A and site a links back to us - for google this is not a very good link. But, some of the sites we are exchanging links with, do not know the term follow vs no follow links. My question - if your link is to site A is a no follow link but they give us a follow link - does it mean thats a better option than a follow vs follow. Thanks for help!
Link Building | | advertisingcloud0 -
Links in google+ profile
THe links people can add in the about part of a google+ profile - do they have any effect on rankings? is this worth doing for link building?
Link Building | | pauledwards0 -
Link building / baiting in the Google zoo
I work for a consultancy, and in the past most of our links have been acquired by giving away privacy statements etc for websites, including a link back in the body of the document, and making it a licensing requirement that the link be kept. We're launchinga new site. We want this one to be whiter-than-white, and would appreciate some advice on the following options. Option 1: no links Remove the links from the documents, and don't require links for the use of the documents. Leave a non-linking credit in the documents. Perhaps ask nicely for links from other pages. Option 2: links on other pages Remove the links from the documents, but make it a licensing requirement that users will link to our site from another page on their site. I appreciate that most won't, but some will. Option 3: retain the links Keep the links in the document, using domain name (with and without http and www) and business name anchor text. Option 4: script the links Use scripts to generate randomized links in the documents, so that no two are the same, but with relevant linking text for the most part. We're risk-adverse with the new site, and it will pick up some links "naturally". We're therefore tending toward option 1, on the basis that it may well generate as many links as option 2. Which of these options would you choose? Are there any other options we should be considering?
Link Building | | seqal0 -
Link profile looking unnatural
Hello, I checked out link profile and noticed that we have 169 linking root domains with 501 links containing the same KW anchor text - all pointing to our homepage. I found out that it's actually a friend of the owner who is getting the links as a favor. All links were in a short time, and it's making our link profile look unnatural. The linking root domains look like... www. iraqculturalattache-prague .org/ I did notice a positive increase in rankings for the KW; however, i'm sure that this will be short lived, as Google will pick up on the unnatural link profile. Should i ask that he remove the links? Or just leave them? I don't want out website to be penalized. Thanks!
Link Building | | ShaneO0 -
Natural vs UnNatural Links: How to Understand It?
Today, I was reading one help article on Google webmaster tools help regarding Google friendly sites. I found that, Natural links can give us more benefits compare to Unnatural links. So, I have search on Google regarding Natural vs Unnatural links and come to know about great video. But, I am still confuse with exact understanding. I am trying to create external links on different websites. So, is it natural or not? How can I justify value of external website before creating link over there.
Link Building | | CommercePundit0 -
Link Building: Asking for links versus building links
I am currently delving into link building for SEO having started out from a social media marketing side. From that angle, it was always my belief building high quality links came from engaging targeted bloggers and sites in my market and related verticals for product reviews and/or providing expert advise and opinion for posts they are creating. As I am learning more the "technical" side of SEO, I've read a lot of posters on here talk about asking from links from websites. While I get the concept from a strategic stand point, are links really asking for or is better to continue to pursue the long term investment of pitching to get coverage from well known bloggers and sites?
Link Building | | joshuaopinion1