Will Google perceive these as paid links? Thoughts?
-
Here's the challenge. I am doing some SEO triage work for a site which offers a legitimate business for sale listing service, which has a number of FOLLOWED link placements on news / newspaper sites - like this: http://www.spencercountyjournal.com/business-for-sale.
(The "Business Broker" links & business search box are theirs.)
The site has already been penalized heavily by Google, and just got pushed down again on May 8th, significantly (from what we see so far).
Here's the question - is this the type of link that Google would perceive of as paid / passing page rank since it's followed vs. nofollowed? What would you advise if it were your site / client?
From everything I've read, these backlinks, although perfectly legit, would likely be classified as paid / passing pagerank. But please tell me if I'm missing something. My advice has been to request that these links be nofollowed, but I am getting pretty strong resistance / lack of belief that these links in their current state (followed) could be harming them in any way.
Would appreciate the input of the Moz community - if they won't believe me, and the majority here agrees about nofollowing, maybe they'll believe you.
Thanks!
BMT
-
Google doesn't always send out messages for penalties. They're getting better, but they still have a ways to go.
If the site is experience large drops in traffic (vs. slow declines) it's almost definitely a penalty of some sort. Steep declines are unlikely to be caused by navigation and architecture unless pages are completely unreachable or something large is altered. If there are large drops, try to line those up with the algorithm change history.
-
Thank you, Marie - that's been my thinking as well, from every angle that I look at it. And while there's been no "official" notice from Google, this site has lost >50% of its Google / organic traffic year over year, and it looks like (too early to say for sure) it just suffered another ~20-40% drop around May 8th.
Just trying to get some support for one small piece of extensive triage efforts we're embarking on for these guys - they haven't done anything malicious, but they do have some significant site quality and architectural / duplicate issues to tackle. Right now they're a long way away from being close to ready to request a reconsideration, and I think once we get the bulk of their issues addressed & repaired, they may not need to request one. Plus they were never entirely de-indexed, just hammered very badly and "de-impressioned."
Thanks for taking the time to post your view - I appreciate your input!
-
I'm going to disagree with a few of the responses here and say that these links are definitely against the Google quality guidelines. The first line in the section on "link schemes" of the quality guidelines says that a link scheme could be any link that is bought or sold that passes PageRank. If this is a followed link it passes PageRank. It certainly looks like an ad to me and as such, in order to meet the guidelines it needs to be nofollowed.
One or two of these links are not going to get a site penalized, but a lot of them could.
Now, do you actually have a penalty in WMT? If a site already has a penalty and is trying to file for reconsideration, one of the things that Google wants to see is that they are committed to following the quality guidelines from this point on. If the webspam team sees that the site is actively building new links like this then this is not going to help your case.
But, on the other hand, if there is no manual penalty at play here then I would guess that this type of link is unlikely to hurt the site algorithmically. I'd still nofollow them though because they could be harmful should the site ever go under manual review.
Earlier this year Google devalued the PageRank on many news sites (most of them European though, I believe) because they were selling links. It's possible that the drop in ranking for your site is related to this and not a direct penalty on your site.
-
Michael - agree absolutely - it's certainly not THE reason - there are multiple (multiple) reasons why this site is currently not performing / well & has been penalized in the past. I'm just trying to eliminate / get consensus on whether one small (but known) reason may be a risk, so that we can apply best practices to address it.
Curious - why do you feel that Google would specifically not possibly categorize exact same backlinks, not using nofollow, placed in an advertising section of a newspaper / news site, as violating Google's quality guidelines? If you can point me to a specific article / Matt Cutts post, etc., I would be grateful for the info. So far in my searching, I haven't been able to find anything which advises not simply employing nofollow on this type of link placement.
And (see above replies - also) no warning in WMT, but what appears to be a clear drop in Google organic traffic for this and a sister site, commencing May 8, with a number of references to "More Focus on Paid Link Schemes" (this synopsis from a recent Matt Cutts video: http://returnonnow.com/2013/05/2013-google-penalty-plans-matt-cutts-video/ )
So, my recommendation to the customer is to simply have these nofollowed, based on the potential risk, to eliminate any additional penalty. But the customer is hesitant to believe that Google would possibly perceive these as falling into the "paid link / passing page rank" category. So it's not even concurrence on whether the site was penalized specifically for this, this time around, but whether these could be perceived as paid / page rank passing - in which case it seems the best practice would be to nofollow them. So that's the question I'm looking for input on - not why (overall) the site has been, and continues to be penalized. All the potential issues at the moment are too many to list here.
Thanks for your input!
-
Thanks for your post, Karl - very good point on the branded note. The brand in this case = the business type = a top key phrase. I completely agree, there's definite risk there if little to no variance is applied (which, in this case, there is not much). As for the overall backlink profile, using OSE and much more in depth tools - it's actually not bad, nor were they penalized for their overall backlink neighborhood.
Just to clarify - there are multiple reasons for this site being penalized in the past, which we'll be addressing as we have time / resources. It seems like it's been hit hardest by the low quality site updates, vs being penalized for bad neighborhood association. I'm just going through a process of elimination in targeting what we can / should fix that we have control over. And this fairly large set of links - all followed vs. nofollowed - stand out to me as being potentially perceived by Google as being paid / passing pagerank since nofollow has not been applied.
So what I'm looking for are thoughts on whether in this specific context (same backlinks / format, no links deper than homepage, followed vs nofollowed, placed in "paid" sections (classifieds, etc.) of news sites - might be perceived as paid per Google's quality guidelines / algo's. If so, I am of the strong opinion that they should be nofollowed - just to eliminate even the potential for penalty, as well as adhere to best practices.
Hope that clarifies a bit, and thanks again for your insight!
-
Thanks for the reply, Workzentre - however - I'm not sure you're fully interpreting how follow / nofollow can work in regard to passing pagerank. This article calls out the issue with paid links / pagerank / using nofollow pretty clearly, I think: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-reminder-about-selling-links.html And, as has been seen quite recently, either the publisher OR the advertiser can be penalized for not employing nofollow on this type of link.
Even if custom tagging were used, the question I'm trying to get answered is, based on their own recent algo update statement and the quality guidelines posted by Google, would these links, placed in a paid / classifieds section of a news site, and NOT set off by nofollow - be potentially perceived as paid?
This is just one small part of cleaning up a massive amount of issues for a site which has been pretty heavily penalized for low quality already. But since it also just took another hit, I'm trying to eliminate what I can as being a potential risk / cause.
Hope that makes sense, and thanks for your post!
-
Thanks, Adam, for the reply. I read that as Google might send out a notice, however, vs. receiving a notice of paid links is absolute. According to Matt Cutts (this link: http://searchengineland.com/google-sends-hundreds-of-thousands-of-webmaster-notifications-each-month-90-are-black-hat-related-148524 ) the link buying / selling notices are less than 3% combined out of all the WMT notices sent.
If you read the WMT policy, it seems to clearly state that this type of link - when NOT specifically nofollowed - violates Google's quality guidelines: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-reminder-about-selling-links.html
Also, if you read Rand's SEOMoz thread which you linked to, the overall consensus, even back then, along with Rand's adjusted guidance, is that there is significant risk involved with placing paid links at all.
What I'm looking for here is consensus on whether links with this specific placement (in a "paid advertiser" section of a news / classifieds site, which are NOT using nofollow, would likely be perceived by Google as potentially paid. IMO, they could easily be perceived as such, given the context.
It sounds like you think differently, which I completely respect, but it would be great to see any recent authoritative articles / resources which give more info on why these would not be interpreted as paid / passing pagerank.
Thanks!
-
Thanks, Carson for posting. And no, no WMT "bad link" smackdown notice (nor is their % of toxic / suspicous links alarming). As for a paid link warning, does Google even send those? Either way, negative on that count, too. There are numerous other issues with the site in question, including some hesitant architectural decisions which have resulted in a large amount of duplicate content / multiple paths to destination URLs, so the site's very likely been hammered for that as well. Plus incredibly tortuous nav, an insane amount of links on the homepage, previously no robots.txt, no sitemap (coming soon) and at one point up to 3.4 million pages indexed (for a 30K page site). Also two parallel coding platforms, DotNet + ihtml.
I've got a complete audit already, and we've stuffed cotton in the wounds hemorraghing the worst, while we start to tackle fixing the architecture & duplicate nav / content / non-customized URLs piece, etc. Also addressing a number of server errors.
Aong with that, we're also working to address other potential issues, and these particular links, since they're already on paid / advertising (classifieds, etc.) pages - stand out to me as links which seem to fall under the "paid placement which can pass page rank" category, which is clearly stated to be targeted in algo updates, as well as the Google Webmaster Policy. However, the customer in this case is confident that these links are not hurting them - so it's a bit of a challenge pursuing the path of "fix what we have control over" and employ best practices. They also rolled these backlinks out in two large batches last summer (way before I was on board), rather than spreading them out a bit, and there is little variance in the anchor text (brand name / business name).
Almost everything I've read indicates these should be nofollow, but the customer would like to read what the SEOMoz community has to say also. So here we are.
Thanks again, for your input!
-
It's possible that these links have something to do with it. At least I think it's premature for us to be ruling it out. Has there been a warning about unnatural links or paid links in Google Webmaster Tools?
The "businesses for sale" links are fairly widespread and styled in a way that could be considered hidden. Exact-match anchors styled to look like text are never a good combo.
I don't know whether the links are the source of the problem. It could be manual, it could be a search quality update like Panda. Without more info and a full audit, it's hard to tell. The letter of the law is pretty clear that one should nofollow links if money is changing hands for the link. Personally, if I was constantly getting slapped by Google, I would follow the letter of the law.
-
I'd agree with the people here that it is unlikely these kind of links are the reason for the penalty. If you haven't already, do a backlink analysis on Open Site Explorer and look for any links that look like spam such as article directories, low quality directories etc. Also, have a look at the percentage of branded links vs anchor text links because it may be this that resulted in the penalty.
-
Having such links does not seem to be the penalty cause, follows vs. nofollows are for your own care and to decide who would you help in reference. Anyway to prevent google treating these links as "paid PR", if this is some kind of white label widget, make sure that every website that uses this widget uses unique links, so with a quick mod to the system add an extra parameter to the links depending of the customer using the widget. I don't know If I catched the point.
Regards.
-
I highly doubt that is the reason the site was penalised.
Did you receive a warning in Webmaster Tools?
-
I've always thought it was ok as they are advertisements but to be honest I dont know the answer.
These might help.. In the first article Cutts is quoted as saying you would get an unnatural links warning in webmaster tools.
But I thought these two might help you:
(An old one)
2. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/our-stance-on-paid-links-link-ads
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
-
Links on Brand Banners
Hi, For one of our ecommerce clients, we have brand banners on each brand page that links to their most popular product lines. Some of the banners just have a column of links, and some are paragraphs with copy and anchor text. Example below: Brand Line 1 Brand Line 2 Example 2: For the utmost in quality, performance and comfort, purchase Brand Line 1 . Brand Line 2 offers the perfect ease of use for beginners while not compromising on quality. Obviously these are just examples, and there are several links (more than 2) per brand, but I was wondering if this harms SEO in any way because of keyword stuffing? It makes sense to have the brand name in the link, otherwise the name of the lines might not make much sense (an example of this is one of the lines is called 849.. so without the brand name that doesn't mean much and looks weird) Do you think it would be better to have the links in just columns in the first example, or in paragraph format?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AliMac260 -
Getting Spam Links
Hi There, I am planning to Disavow one spam domain but when check Google cache it shows my client domain name. So if I disavow this spam domain which link Google considered? Please help me. Thanks Satla
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TrulyTravel0 -
Trying to escape from Google algorithm ranking drop
in 2010 our website was ranking number 1 for many keywords. we suddenly saw a crash in this a few years ago. we have since identified we have been hit by many shades of Panda and penguin updates. Mainly due to low quality back-links and poor content (some duplicates). since then we have done a major overhaul of our backlink profile. We have saved rankings that went from number 1 for many keywords to number 60 -70. We are now placed at around 11 to 18 rankings. We have also looked at our duplicate content issues, and removed all duplicate content, introduced a blog for fresh bi daily updates in an attempt to gain traffic. We also amalgamated many small low quality pages to larger higher quality content pages. we are now mobile friendly with a dynamic site, and our site speed is good (around 80). we have switched to https, and also upgraded our website for better conversions. we have looked at the technical issues of the site and don't have many major issues, although we do have 404's coming up in the google webmaster tools for old pages we removed due to duplicate content. we are link building at a pace of around 40 mentions a month. some are no follow, some do follow and some no links. We are diversifying links to include branding in addition to target keywords. We have pretty much exhausted every avenue we can think of now, but we cannot jump over to page 1 for any significant keywords we are targeting. Our competitor websites are not that powerful, and metrics are similar to ours if not lower. 1. please can you advise anything else you can think of that we should look at. 2. we are even considering going to a new domain and 301'ing all pages to this domain in an attempt to shake off the algorithm filter (penalties). has anyone done this? how long can we expect to get at least the same ranking for the new domain if 301 all urls to it? do you think its worth it? we know the risk of doing this, and so wanted to seek some advice. 3. we have on the other hand considered the fact that we have disavowed so many links (70%) that this could be a cause of the page two problem, however we are link building according to moz metric standards and majestic standards with no benefit.. do you think we should increase link building? Advice is appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Direct_Ram0 -
Google Manual Penalty - Dilemma?
Hi Guys, A while back, my company had a 'partial match' manual penalty from google for 'unnatural links' pointing to our site. This glorious feat was accomplished by our previous SEO agency for quite heavily spamming links (directories, all kinds of low quality sites). That being said, when the penalty hit we really didnt see any drop in traffic. In fact, it was not long after the penalty that we launched a new website and since our traffic has grown quite significantly. we've doubled our total visits from prior penalty to now. This previous SEO also did submit a couple of reconsideration requests (both done loosely as to fool Google by only removing a small amount of links, then abit more the next time when it failed - this was obviously never going to work). Since then, I myself have submitted a reconsideration request which was very thorough, disavowing 85 Domains (every single one at domain level rather than the individual URLs as I didnt want to take any chances), as well as getting a fair few links removed from when the webmaster responded. I documented this all and made multiple contacts to the webmasters so i could show this to Google. This reconsideration request was not successful - Google made some new backlinks magically appear that i had not seen previously. But really, my main point is; am I going to do more damage removing more and more links in order to remove the penalty, because as it stands we haven't actually noticed any negative effects from the penalty! Perhaps the negative effects have not been noticed due to the fact that not long after the penalty, we did get a new site which was much improved and therefore would naturally get much more traffic than the old site, but overall it has not been majorly noticed. What do you guys think - is it worth risking drop in rankings to remove the penalty so we don't face any future issues, or should I not go too heavy with the link removal in order to preserve current rankings? (im really interested to see peoples views on this, so please leave a comment if you can help!)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Sandicliffe0 -
How to ignore spam links to page?
Hey Moz pals, So for some reason someone is building thousands of links to my websites (all spam), likely someone doing negative seo on my site. Anyway, all these links are pointing to 1 sub url on my domain. That url didn't have anything on it so I deleted the page so now it comes up with a 404. Is there a way to reject any link that ever gets built to that old page? I don't want all this spam to hurt my website. What do you suggest?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WongNs0 -
Server down - What will happen to the SERP?
Hi everybody, we have a lot of websites (about 100) on one Server in Italy. This Server crashed 5 days ago and now it should go online (I hope!). What will happen to the SERP? What shall I do to recover the rank of every key? New links, new content, just wait...what? Tnks 😉
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Sognando0 -
White hat link technique to banned domain
The question is: I have branddomain A (manually penalization by google, one year ago and after 4 consideration requests and more than 3/4 of links removed, stills banned) authority 42 And and new branddomain B (with fresh content created after penalization in the case of no recovery as it happen) authority 26 There are no links from A to B, both are now with same traffic but i want people that find me on domain A (partial penalized) to come to my new web brand. Both domains have same name, different extensión. So the question: Can i link with photo domain A to domain B, if i place nofollow and no ancor text on those linked photos. I want to have my traffic unified and i dont want to go against google guidelines
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Google Sitemaps & punishment for bad URLS?
Hoping y'all have some input here. This is along story, but I'll boil it down: Site X bought the url of Site Y. 301 redirects were added to direct traffic (and help transfer linkjuice) from urls in Site X to relevant urls in Site Y, but 2 days before a "change of address" notice was submitted in Google Webmaster Tools, an auto-generating sitemap somehow applied urls from Site Y to the sitemap of Site X, so essentially the sitemap contained urls that were not the url of Site X. Is there any documentation out there that Google would punish Site X for having essentially unrelated urls in its sitemap by downgrading organic search rankings because it may view that mistake as black hat (or otherwise evil) tactics? I suspect this because the site continues to rank well organically in Yahoo & Bing, yet is nonexistent on Google suddenly. Thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RUNNERagency0