Leveraging "Powered by" and link spam
-
Hi all,
For reference: The SaaS guide to leveraging the "Powered By" tactic.
My product is an embeddable widget that customers place on their websites (see example referenced in link above). A lot of my customers have great domain authority (big brands, .gov's etc).
I would like to use a "Powered By" link on my widgets to create high quality backlinks.
My question is: if I have identical link text (on potentially hundreds) of widgets, will this look like link spam to Google?
If so, would setting the link text randomly on each widget to one of a few different phrases (to create some variation) avoid this?
Hope this makes sense, thanks in advance.
-
I'd defenitely recommend not to use keyword rich anchor text. Just use your brand name and diversify your link profile.
-
Dan,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.
Your advice is sound. Matt certainly advises a nofollow however at the beginning he cautions against making widget links the primary source of link building in a strategy. At the end he says that links from widgets don't "carry the same weight" as links freely given.
As such, I wouldn't necessarily expect a blanket penalty for widget links. Rather than abandon widget links entirely I will instead apply a nofollow to all the links except a hand selected few on the very best domains (.govs and major brand / media sites).
Hopefully this approach will not raise any red flags (or black hats as the case may be).
Thanks again.
-
I would be very careful making embeddable widgets as an important facet of your link building campaign. This tactic used to work very well, but has been on Google's radar for some time now. In August of last year, Matt Cutts said the following: "I would recommend putting a nofollow, especially on widgets." The attached video of him discussing this may be helpful to you as you consider this tactic.
With regards to the anchor text, I would be VERY careful with it if you decide to proceed. I would personally recommend abandoning this tactic (unless there is a value outside of link building) and investing in high-quality content instead, but, if you do decide to proceed, I would build solely branded anchor text. This would be more defendable if a Google engineer ever flags the site. It won't look like you were trying to game the rankings on a keyword, but may still have a positive impact on the rankings. I would proceed with caution before doing that though.
Instead of putting the effort into a widget, I would put it into something that lives on your site (evergreen content) and provides a ton of value to end users. That will attract links and real users.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
How Does Google's "index" find the location of pages in the "page directory" to return?
This is my understanding of how Google's search works, and I am unsure about one thing in specific: Google continuously crawls websites and stores each page it finds (let's call it "page directory") Google's "page directory" is a cache so it isn't the "live" version of the page Google has separate storage called "the index" which contains all the keywords searched. These keywords in "the index" point to the pages in the "page directory" that contain the same keywords. When someone searches a keyword, that keyword is accessed in the "index" and returns all relevant pages in the "page directory" These returned pages are given ranks based on the algorithm The one part I'm unsure of is how Google's "index" knows the location of relevant pages in the "page directory". The keyword entries in the "index" point to the "page directory" somehow. I'm thinking each page has a url in the "page directory", and the entries in the "index" contain these urls. Since Google's "page directory" is a cache, would the urls be the same as the live website (and would the keywords in the "index" point to these urls)? For example if webpage is found at wwww.website.com/page1, would the "page directory" store this page under that url in Google's cache? The reason I want to discuss this is to know the effects of changing a pages url by understanding how the search process works better.
Technical SEO | | reidsteven750 -
What is Too Many On-Page Links?
in campaigns i see " Too Many On-Page Links " what is this ? can anyone please tell me ?
Technical SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Link Diversity
With the current updates in the Seo world how critical is link diversity. We are revamping our site and planning to add many new pages to our site and planning to build links to relevant pages with relevant anchor texts keywords. Also we are planning to add relevant H1, H2 and H3 tags with metatag description and content with keyword rich content specific to that page. Any advise
Technical SEO | | INN0 -
Sitemaps and "noindex" pages
Experimenting a little bit to recover from Panda and added "noindex" tag for quite a few pages. Obviously now we need Google to re-crawl them ASAP and de-index. Should we leave these pages in sitemaps (with updated "lastmod") for that? Or just patiently wait? 🙂 What's the common/best way?
Technical SEO | | LocalLocal0 -
Eliminate all comment handle links to avoid even the appearance of comment spam?
I've stopped putting my url behind my handle on the blogs in which I participate, out of the fear of the appearance of comment spam. It's not comment spam, we're talking about real interactions on a few blogs and forums. What do you think? If it is limited to a handful of domains on which I am active, and there are no indications of comment spam in my overall link profile, is a handle link a bad idea? The real purpose of the link is not to gain any link juice, but to direct the people I interact with in these comment conversations to my site if they would like. But it's not worth the risk of a google-slap.
Technical SEO | | jotham20 -
Unwanted spam pharmacy links
Somebody has been building spam pharmacy links to one of our client sites. I presume they hacked the site and were trying to get their injected pages to rank for pharmacy keywords. The hack appears to be gone now, but we will check more code to be sure. However, we're still left with a bunch of really spammy links, with pharmacy related anchor texts. Anyone had any experience dealing with this? Did the links hurt your rankings? How did you get rid of or mitigate them?
Technical SEO | | AdamThompson0 -
If you add a no follow to a time sensitive link, will it get picked up as broken link 404 in WMT report?
We have a client who publishes deals that are time sensitive. Links to the deals expire and so Google's crawlers are picking them up and finding a 404 If I no follow them, will the 404's still get picked up and reported in WMT? The same question applies to SEOMoz Pro.
Technical SEO | | Red_Mud_Rookie0