Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the link. I have them on lots of pages and am not worried about them... but they are not "overstuffed".

Hey, So - I actually don't think either of those two strategies are worth considering in order to get more nofollow links. Particularly with YouTube - if you connect your site (by linking) to a video that will inevitably perform poorly on YouTube/vimeo etc - you're just sending negative branding signals about your site back to Google and it wont help you in anyway. So - my first questions should be - why do you need more nofollow links? A very small percentages (think it's 3% or something) of the webs links are actually nofollow,- and these are typically accrued naturally through profiles, comments, wikipedia articles etc. The only reason i can think of why you might want to be increasing them at a small scale like this would be to cover up a thin and questionable backlink profile. If this is the case, then i don't think this strategy will help to mask the unnatural links/suggest improved quality - especially if you've already been slapped by Panda. Multiple profiles will look spammy and i can't see them helping you in any tangible way. Probably a better use for your Product videos will be on the site - hosted on a secure third party platform (not YouTube), to show Google that you're expanding your media types and creating richer content. Coming out of a Panda penalty - this seems like a much better thing to be doing and will send the right signals. Additionally - i would use the great images on your site, rather than using other services to post your content for the sake of nofollow links. Like you suggest, you can increase nofollows from quality comments and profiles generally - but i come back to the question of the underlying purpose here. So - My suggestion is: Put all the content on your own site only- and securely host the videos with a third party solution (vimeo pro, wistia etc) rather than using YouTube. You don't need to give away content to get nofollow links - but if you're trying to make a bad backlink profile look good - that isn't the way to do it. Hope that's useful! Phil

Does this data match "link:www.yourwebsite.com" when you put that into Google? This is so rarely updated or accurate I wouldn't worry too much about it. Try Open Site Explorer or go to blekko.com and type in yourwebsite.com /seo which will give you a better analysis. It's also not that the links you have are not being 'recognised' by Google - i.e. if you have a good link, it will be likely to contribute to your ranking, just not available via the link: command.

The opinions that you get on this will vary depending upon the content development skills of the person who is speaking and their tolerance of creating competition for their own websites. I would not do any of the following..... *Writing quality articles for external blogs with keyword links back to sites *Taking the above articles and spinning them at SEOLINKVINE to create several articles *Writing quality articles for every site's internal blog and using keywords to link out to other sites that are on different servers - All articles are original, varied and not duplicate content. *Writing quality, relevant articles and submitting them to places like Ezine

I am still working on these issue. In the past year we tried allot (onpage and offpage) to rank for the singular Keyword, but without much success. We are still on Page 3.... In the meantime i am quiet convinced that these is an transactional/informative issue. Which factors could Google use to understand weather a search or a website is more transaktional or informative? Apart of mentioning Buy now, Shop, Buy now, Shop Any Ideas?

I did a super-quick review of your backlinks in OSE. What I saw was mainly press releases, with a few links from sites you own, and links from pages full of spam like http://www.alivincent.com/blog/post/2010/04/28/Work-Weeke280a6e280a6-when-the-reality-show-becomes-a-REALITY!.aspx I also notice that your backlinks are overwhelmingly using your target keywords as anchor text, so you may be suffering for anchor text over-optimization. My recommendation would be to focus more on higher quality, natural backlinks. Focus on SEO strategies that build your brand and focus on users. You might find http://www.seomoz.org/blog/why-big-brands-get-all-the-breaks helpful. Hope this is helpful.

Hi Peter, We get get a message from Google via webmaster tools in Feb about 'unnatural links', but it's difficult to identify which links they are referring to. We certainly don't deliberatly or activly ingage in any sort of unnatural link building. Thanks

I'd also build the links to point to an inner page. If you run into an algorithmic issue with them, you can always 404 the page, lose the problematic links, and then hopefully you can solve some of the algorithmic issues.

Yeah no kidding! I just noticed that on a search term where I previously ranked #1 that yourdomain.com now ranks above me for a term that has NOTHING to do with yourdomain.com which is a parking like page. Why that would show up on page one of google and my site gets kicked to #62 I have no idea!

it doesn't! but i had no where better to put it!

Also Karl, Alexa does a fairly good job at tracking inlinks with referring URL's which is pretty helpful. Your site is here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wholesaleclearance.co.uk And of course Open Site Explorer here will give you some details as well.

Yes - we removed many of the irrelevant ones and we also put no follows on the remaining ones.

I'm going to "guess"  it's not the penguin but a url issue. I've moved around 20 sites to a different platform and it's never been a totally seamless transition as far as google is concerned (none of them Drupal however). Also check your sitemap. (the url that google thinks it is).  I think you may see a 404 error. Not sure if this is relevant but you might check out this known issue: Known Issues While Sub-pathauto works when drupal_get_normal_path() is called, if drupal_get_path_alias() is called, the hook to alter URLs is not invoked. Functionality that uses this function to compare things like page visibility settings will not match the sub-path processed URL. This is due to core bug #1248626: drupal_get_path_alias() does not invoke url alter hook while drupal_get_normal_path() does. Good Luck . From one hyperfocuser to another

waiting to see if they can be removed. otherwise I'm kinda stuck as to how best acquire those elusive high-quality links.