Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Good discussion here. I tend to lean a bit toward Marie in that, even if these are low-relevance site-wide links, one site isn't generally going to tip the balance. You could request removal and disavow, but I don't think I'd lose sleep over it unless I saw a pattern. It may be moot, because I'm now showing that this blog has been removed. So, others may have had an issue as well. Once Google re-indexes, these links will be dead.

Thanks, Branagan. This is what I meant by "..a little knowledge being dangerous..." I've been reading a lot here and there (plenty here in SEOMoz)  about the dangers of link exchanging and taking it as a hard and fast rule to never exchange links that is rather new due to recent Penguin updates. What I was missing was "excessive" or unnatural and that if it makes sense, is approached wisely and isn't done in bulk, it's still ok.

Hi Tom, Thanks for reply. i will check this out for sure.. Regards

We've had the same problem on one of our client's sites and our solution was to optimize only one of them and change the anchor text for the other. I wonder if you could achieve the same result by nofollowing the links to the page that is not for search engines.  Would nofollowing an internal link essentially cancel out the anchor text, allowing users to experience the site without messing up SEO?

for example one of your bullet points may be put all you images into a cdn. So you may search for [put all you images into a cdn] and you'll find many blogs which says the same, these are blogs focused on tips to webmasters which are just saying the same as you're advcing. So note those down and repeat with all bullet points. Then you may perform general search like webmaster tips, how to build a website, and so on and you'll enlarge your list. After you've done write to all those blogs and publish there your articles or, at this point it could be better an infographic.

I think that the answer to this question has nothing to do with the PA or DA of either site.  Exchanging links is not a bad thing.  It can actually be a good way to get links if you do it correctly. To answer your question, think of the following: -Are your sites closely related? -Would it make sense to have links to each other even if search engines didn't exist (i.e. would it benefit both sites' readers?) -Does his site consist of good material or is it all a mashup of low quality blog posts from other sites who are trying to get a link? My guess is that in this case you will find that the answer to whether or not you should do this is no.  But this may not be the case every time. I'll give you an example.  We have a real estate site.  I have a colleague with a home staging site.  His site is new and has low PA/DA.  My site has really good PA/DA.  I found a page on my site where it made sense to link out to a home stager.  In return, he allowed me to write a blog post for his site.  The blog post was a helpful one that his readers will benefit from.  Google is not going to get upset at a link exchange like that.  However, if you are doing this over and over and over again then it can start to look like a link scheme.

thanks Marcus

Hi Gina Thank you for the extra information that you have provided, I have gone with Cemper for the moment as they have a free online trial. The link removal request tool sounds really handy as well. I'll pass that all onto my clients and let them make up their mind as to which one is right for them. Thank you for your help. Hi Alan Thank you for your feedback, yes you are right I can look at a website and see whether we would want to be linked to it or not. And yes its a good point that all of the links would need checking before doing anything with them. I was looking for the tool to help with clients who don't have any SEO experience and are wanting to keep costs down to help clear up bad links that are currently pointing at their websites that other company's have set up for them. I wanted to be able to give them confidence to be able to use tool's that were simple and effective to use that would help them make choices that were right for them. Thank you for your feedback about double checking the links I will add that into the mix with the advice from Tom, Kyle and Gina and pass it all on. Thank you for your help.

screaming frog is your best bet

I think it depends a lot on quality, honestly - a "mat release" could just be glorified article marketing, if the sources are questionable. It's easy for someone to make big promises, but odds are you won't be on the LA Times, you'll be on the "hundreds more trusted sites", especially if the price-tag is too good to be true. I disagree re: first-indexed always winning. Authority can overwhelm that, in some cases, and a major news outlet could get credit for your content. Google is still not great at this. Now, if it's linked back, as you said, that definitely helps a lot. So, let's say you post something and it goes out to 800 sites. Typically, some of those sites will be flagged as duplicates and filtered out. Yours may not be, but if enough of them are, those links will lose value, too (a non-indexed page doesn't carry link equity). So, even if you get credit, the links could be of limited value. Now, if you actually could get on 800 top media sites, that may be different, but if it's really syndicated it's not going to get top billing. So, it's not just a matter of the sites, but where on the sites you appear. Are you on CNN's home-page or buried on some citizen reporter opinion mini-blog? I just tend to hear a lot of too-good-to-be-true in this, honestly.

Could be an issue with Panda. Could not be. Hard to tell. If the article was published on the authority BEFORE the others you should be ok. Just think of news aggregation websites like Yahoo News and look at how they do it work. Publishing the same article in multiple locations isn't really best practice - whatever that means.

Thank you so much Mash!

Tom has the right of it. I would consider doing a few different things in addition to what he's talking about. Make sure you link from one to the other with something like "Check this out...." like Tom said.If it's an e-book or case study or something I would also consider either getting e-mails or using something like pay-with-a-tweet to make sure the person who comes to visit that content is going to get repeated exposure to your brand.

Thanks Mike

lol.Before adding this thread here.I am 110% sure that I shall get these kind of responses for sure but my question is still same. Any one can please add in trick for getting links from wikipedia any source.

Thank, Francisco I am new to this and I am trying to learn as much as I can.

Thank you Dana.. Appreciate your response

This is a tough one.  I would attack it initially like any other unnatural links project.  Contact each of the sites linking to you via the footer code and ask them to remove or nofollow it.  Then, document your attempts and communicate your efforts to Google. But, the problem is that if the free templates are still available for download then you'll get more of these and could get penalized again. I don't think it would be that hard to find these sites offering the free downloads though.  According to ahrefs you've got 850 domains linking to you.  If you know the anchor text used in these footers, you can narrow it down even more.  Provided the sites hosting the free downloads have a demo version of the site then they'll be on that backlink list.  If they don't have a demo version, there still has to be a way to do a Google search for the name of the template to find these hosts. Then, get them to remove the template.  If they don't, file a DMCA takedown request or speak to a lawyer about getting a letter written to get them to remove it.