Organic Links and Skimlinks Affiliate Program
-
Hi All,
If you're not familiar with Skimlinks, what they do is turn organic links into affiliates links so that publishers can earn commission through our affiliate program. Pretty much every SEO's nightmare.
myfashionlife.com/archives/2013/07/16/get-anne-hathaways-paper-denim-and-cloth-look/ anchor text "Floppy straw hat"
Looking at the source code the link looks clean, but as soon you click on it you get redirected via a 302 to our site. My questions is; is it just users that get redirect or is it the same for search engines?
Screaming frog recognises the link as a 200.
Are we losing all the link juice, or is it fine? I've have half a mind to kick them out of the program.
Cheers
-
The selling point makes sense and I could see how that would be true. But if you are not seeing an increase then it is not worth it, especially if your focus is on the organic traffic.
-
You are right, when I used screaming frog with Googlebot as the agent it didn't pick the link
-
Their selling point was that because bloggers would be rewarded for their links they'd feature our brand and products more often in their posts..... I don't think it is the case. We are just losing organic links and paying for traffic that used to be free.
I'll make sure they are taken out of the program.
Thanks for your help!
-
I think that Googlebot's going to recognize that this is a 302 and not a straight link.
-
Here is what I am seeing. When I view source and look at the link for Floppy Straw Hats I see the URL
http://www.surfdome.com/baku_hats_-baku_congo_hat-_volcano-108584?i
and this link shows me a 200 when I run through it directly. This is probably what Screaming Frog is doing. I would re-run the frog and set the user agent to Google Bot just to see what happens there.
Now when I view that link in the browser and I hover over it and right click the URL and copy I get
When you run this, you get the 302 redirect to the target page
If you scroll down to the bottom, you see the skimlinks JavaScript that is doing this manipulation. FYI it is also adding redirect a link to "Surfdome" at the end of that same line. This is not linked at all in the source code. You have a simple JS rewirte action going on there.
So the bot sees the regular URL and the human sees a redirect via JavaScript.
Depending on if you wear a white or grey hat, this could be considered "cloaking"
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en
"Cloaking refers to the practice of presenting different content or URLs to human users and search engines."
This is not the traditional use of the redirect. You would often see a completely different page shown to the bot vs the human using JS versus your example of just showing a 2 different links on a page. That said, Google is reading more and more JS these days http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/11/get-post-and-safely-surfacing-more-of.html
Your issue is not about the 302 passing link equity, but if you want to get penalized for cloaking or not.
The other point that comes up is that since you are paying these bloggers to have this link on the site, I would call these paid links
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en
I know you said, "these are organic links" we are now just paying for the referrals. Well, if Google finds that this is worth penalizing, then you have no one to argue with but yourself.
As I see it, you have 2 choices
-
No follow the links and do not use them for link juice but to pay for traffic.
-
Lose the redirects and use the links for ranking benefit (plus you can still get some traffic).
Honestly, seems like you were already getting organic links and traffic for free, so not sure why you would pay people for what you already had. I am sure this helped to get additional links, but you just need to consider the points above to see what is more important for your site.
Hope this helps!
-
-
It looks like it's turning them into 302's, so they're not the straight links you would like.
-
Chris, thanks for your advice, but I think we are going into a completely different subject.
-
Some of those links were created years ago. Created by the bloggers because they simply wanted to. We didn't request them or had any input on what that anchor text would be.
-
I suppose that when I wrote "That link, and hundreds just like that" could have been misinterpreted. There are hundreds of bloggers, linking to hundreds of different pages from our site, all with different anchor text. Again, 100% organic.
We didn't build those links or tell them what the anchor text should be (there are not two with the same anchor text). They were 100% organic links for years, but once Skimlinks joined our affiliate programs, SKIMLINKS changed all those links into affiliate links.
-
-
referral or affiliate, you set yourself up to be penalized if the links and anchor text aren't natural. You're actually better off with the 302'd skimlinks than hundreds of straight links with the same anchor text. I know this isn't what you're looking for but read through this from Yoast: http://yoast.com/cloak-affiliate-links/
-
Ok, maybe if I give some background it will be easier to understand.
That link, and hundreds just like that one used to be organic links, that bloggers created because they wanted to link to an specific product from our site. As soon as Skimlinks joined our affiliate program all those links became affiliate links.
As a result; sales that used to be attributed to the referral channel, are now attributed to the affiliate channel. But what worries me the most is whether those links are still SEO-friendly or not. In the source code they still look SEO-friendly.
-
What is it that you want get out of the non skimlink and what is it that the skimlinks are doing that you think you don't like?
-
They are not affiliate links, they are organic links. What happens is that the blogger uses a tool called Skimlinks (they are the affiliate) that turns organic links into affiliates.
Skimlinks gets paid by us and then they pay part of the comission to the blogger.
If I were to kick Skimlinks out of the program, the organic links would stop redirecting to our site via a 302.
In the source code there is no affiliate tagging in the links, it looks clean. I'm guessing the redirect is done using JavaScript. My questions is: does Google see a clean link, or do they also get redirected via 302 when they try to follow it?
-
You won't be getting any link juice through those links but you shouldn't be looking for any from your affiliates either, as best practice for aff links is that they are not followed links.
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
-
Breadcrumbs versus in context link
Hi, I remember reading that links within the text have more value than breadcrumbs links for example because in context links are surrounded by the right content (words) but google search engine optimisation starter guide says breadcrumbs are good, so which one is recommended ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Rel=canonical and internal links
Hi Mozzers, I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question: How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A? I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not. I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs links. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unirmk0 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Link Juice + multiple links pointing to the same page
Scenario
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch
The website has a menu consisting of 4 links Home | Shoes | About Us | Contact Us Additionally within the body content we write about various shoe types. We create a link with the anchor text "Shoes" pointing to www.mydomain.co.uk/shoes In this simple example, we have 2 instances of the same link pointing to the same url location.
We have 4 unique links.
In total we have 5 on page links. Question
How many links would Google count as part of the link juice model?
How would the link juice be weighted in terms of percentages?
If changing the anchor text in the body content to say "fashion shoes" have a different impact? Any other advise or best practice would be appreciated. Thanks Mark0 -
Link Building for E-Commerce
Hi, Our on page optimization, albeit for a few dupe content issues, is ok - We have good keyword rich URL's, Titles, H1's and unique product descriptions. So now I want to look at building links that will boost our DA and PA's. We have over 2000 products on the store and around 130 categories/subcategories -and I would appreciate any views on where to start - My initial view is to get backlinks from the relevant manufacturer websites to the "shop by brand" page on our site related to these manufacturers - What other strategies should I look at? Thanks, Ben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
Google Indexing Feedburner Links???
I just noticed that for lots of the articles on my website, there are two results in Google's index. For instance: http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html and http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thewebhostinghero+(TheWebHostingHero.com) Now my Feedburner feed is set to "noindex" and it's always been that way. The canonical tag on the webpage is set to: rel='canonical' href='http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html' /> The robots tag is set to: name="robots" content="index,follow,noodp" /> I found out that there are scrapper sites that are linking to my content using the Feedburner link. So should the robots tag be set to "noindex" when the requested URL is different from the canonical URL? If so, is there an easy way to do this in Wordpress?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbrault740 -
Link from archived article.
A strong news site has an "archived.domainname" folder, where they have older articles listed. I can get a link on a page where there is a 4 year old article, which will be in this archived sub-domain. My questions: Will Google view a link from a 4 year old article as less valuable. Will Google notice the article is 4 years old and find it odd why the page all of a sudden has a link to my site, and thus devalue such link the sub-domain "archived" does that tell Google it is old and a link will be less valuable thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
Dynamic Links vs Static Links
There are under 100 pages that we are trying to rank for and we'd like to flatten our site architecture to give them more link juice. One of the methods that is currently in place now is a widget that dynamically links to these pages based on page popularity...the list of links could change day to day. We are thinking of redesigning the page to become more static, as we believe it's better for link juice to flow to those pages reliably than dynamically. Before we do so, we need a second opinion.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RBA0