Welcome to the Q&A Forum

While we can never really quantify how much benefit a given link affects rank, we do know that a link can convey equity both for the link itself and for the anchor text. Google has indicated that a "safe" method of protecting ourselves against an impression of over-optimization is to use anchor text like "read more", "more info" or "click here", as well as using the target page's title for anchor text or a simple raw URL (as I recall, it was John Mueller that told us that in a Hangout some time ago). Personally, I see the question of link quality as dealing with the quality of the source page and the relevance between the source and destination, and I evaluate links first by those criteria. I see anchor text as a separate issue, considering relevance and diversity. We have successfully cleaned up trashy profiles where the same anchor text had been overused, by mixing up KW anchors with generic anchors, page titles and raw URLs, and have gotten penalties lifted. That said, your last point: "While spammy links on non-keyword rich anchor text is certainly not a good practice, is it nonetheless effective?" makes me wonder exactly what you mean by "spammy links". That, to me, sounds as though the source page is either low quality or not sufficiently relevant to the destination, in which case, I'd say it's an ill-advised practice.

Sure, thanks. But am surprised that why the spam links are not referred in complete by Majestic & Open Site as against Google Webmaster - which has much more comprehensive data. What i observed through Open Site - around 4 to 5 spam domains Majestic seo - added another 4-5 domains Google Webmaster - was biggest surprise, when found even porn sites linking. Have never checked latest links from Google WT - infact have explored all links created in last 2 yrs. Has spent good 4-5 hrs checking page authority, domain, relevance and came to conclusion for some 55 spam domain linking to site (of which 15 do not exist as on date or url been nofollowed) - which were not mentioned in both Majestic & Open Site Explorer As advised - Have disavowed all of them !!

I don't think 50-100 KW is that much. I'm rarely targeting less than 30 on a very small site of 20-30 pages, and on an ecomm site, 1000+ KW is nothing out of the ordinary. Resources, as you say, are the governing factor in determining how many KWs you'll be going after simultaneously. I'm usually only focusing on a handful at a time.

The thing is though - these methods will not increase your rankings.  Google has pretty much devalued any links that we have some form of control over (directories, forums, blog comments, social bookmarking sites - even guest posting).

thank you Omid. Shirazi for your precious help

Hi Oomdo For local seo, your citations aka your NAP in youtube description goes a long way because in local seo world it works as a link If you need more info Dana DiTomaso did a great post on earlier this year: http://moz.com/blog/you-asked-i-answered-qa-from-you-probably-think-this-citation-source-is-about-you-dont-you **3. Couldn't citations on sites such as YouTube and Flickr be flagged as spam?**Only if you're being spammy in your citation building. If the photo or video could contain a relevant address, I don't see an issue. For example, if the photo or video was taken at your business, then you're just saying (with a full NAP) where the photo or video was taken! I can't see how that would be considered spam - it's relevant information for the visitor. I agree with Dana that somethings will look spammy but your NAP in cases like a youtube video should not. Hope this helps

I too follow this approach Lesley...mentioning the subject of a blog and asking for comments / or just telling them you've written about them really is a good way to get the content "out there" especially if these companies are very active and influential.

it depends on the niche and the specific keyword. It's actually pretty normal on many niches. Some are monitored more closely by Google. Some get away with it for the next 3-6 (sometimes more) months Those tactics still work, with just a few tweaks this time around and not just 1 anchor blasts. Plus there are a lot of non-mainstream tactics being applied today so it is harder to find out. You can see them with majestic, and your other link checkers, but most of the best SEO's, you won't see their links at all.

Great, thanks!

Hello Federico, There are enough tag pages still indexed that I'd go ahead and remove that entire directory in Google Webmaster Tools. You may consider a noindex tag on archive pages as well. In regard to your original question, I don't think it would necessarily remove an algorithmic penalty, but it would be good for your brand in the long run. If you're going to do a change like that you might as well do it while traffic is low anyway. Yes, 301 redirect the .net site to the .com site on a page-by-page basis. I would also look into creating a few more useful non-blog pages on the site. Some type of innovative resource that advertisers and/or publishers would find super useful would help you build up the authority of the main site, which would be important considering how relatively few pages and links you have there compared to the blog. An inforgraphic wouldn't cut the mustard, but I'm sure you can come up with something since it is a very well-done site visually.

reciprocal link building is significantly down-valued by Google which means it should not be a long term link building strategy. Some even consider it in the same pool as link farms etc. Link-building like I said is an art its not a one on formula but different methods of outreach this might help: http://moz.com/ugc/category/link-building

I looked at some of your main keywords. Looks like they are back to decent ranking. So did you fix the issue already? If so, can you share what you did? I had a similar issue around the same date with my site. Ranking has not been returned yet. This is the details of my specific issue http://moz.com/community/q/is-this-site-hit-with-penguin-or-something-else . If we can compare notes, it would be great

Hello Robert, So doing the right thing for the client aside (which would be to advise them to nofollow those links for their own long-term benefit), if they are still ranking very well it is doubtful that they have a site-wide "penalty" or "filter" like Penguin, Panda or any others. Most likely if traffic has dropped significantly, but not dramatically, you could be looking at a loss of pagerank (not the green bar PR, but the real stuff) due to Google blocking the flow of PR from those, or other, links. If that is the case then nofollowing them would neither help nor hurt because they aren't being counted anyway, and the site isn't currently being filtered or penalized. However, it could help in the future if you nofollowed them because you never know when "not counting" a link could turn into "penalizing you for it". It could only be an update away...

Algorithmic penalties like Panda and Penguin will be re-calculated on the refresh of the update. This is the reason you see conflicting answers on whether a 301 will pass the algorithmic penalty: it depends. It depends on a lot of variables that aren't really worth going into right now. The point is, IF your penalty is link-based, the penalty will almost definitely pass with a 301 redirect because the new site has no authority and no visibility. If you haven't already, you'll want to make sure it's not something like Panda. It would be a shame to start over just to find that your UX and design were to blame all along. I've seen this happen several times because everyone just assumes it's the links. Leaving both versions of the site will result in Google selecting one. They'll almost definitely select the original version of the site unless you take it down. You need to make the final decision: take the value of your current brand, domain, and legitimate links. Subtract that from the amount you think it will take to overcome the bad links either by removal or counter-balancing them with real links plus the opportunity cost of doing something else. Starting over is generally the very last recourse, and I suggest it only if the are many links and the vast majority are heavy on the anchor text or clearly spam.

Hi Lewis, I'm just checking in to see if you saw John's response. Please let us know -- we're here to help! Thanks.

Thanks for the response and the suggestions  - I have updated the image so it works. I guess they are site links pertinent to the particular page (in our case Product) and not the Company.  I've never noticed them before.  Is there a method to influence Google on these?  (they say not but I just have to ask). We use Rich Snippets religiously. Thanks again - I really appreciate the response.

My pleasure, Carla! So glad to help.

From the mouth of Google: "setting a geographic target won't impact your appearance in search results unless a user limits the scope of the search to a certain country". So if your users in the UK say "return UK sites only" then you likely wouldn't be shown unless you change your behaviour. And that depends on how users in your target country search, which I don't know enough about for the UK.

I can't decide about Yahoo.  I've tried to spot patters in ranking change when we've added or expired a listing, but have never been able to see anything conclusive.  It's also an absolutely textbook paid link (it's not like it sends traffic),. You say it yourself; "Forget about Yahoo search, it pushes authority and trust to all SE's" - therefore we're doing it just to manipulate rankings.  I can't believe Matt Cutts (or anyone else in search quality) has never asked the question "Should we allow Yahoo listings to pass authority - they're just paid links?".  It does have manual review in it's favour, but otherwise it is hard to justify. Might be interesting to run an experiment where someone tries to alter a site's position using only well known, manually reviewed directories.

Those people are not responding ! and when i contact the, they sending spam to my emails !