Does anyone have any suggestions on removing spammy links?
-
Thanks for sharing this tool Stephen. I watched the video but the site does not share any info about the mechanics of the tool. Some questions:
-
how is the contact info pulled? I am wondering if it sometimes misses info or pulls the wrong info
-
for the PR, does it always show the home page PR? Or does it calculate the PR for other pages by subtracting 1 for every click from the home page? I mainly ask so I can respond to client questions if they ever see the tool.
-
any idea of what Agency pricing is?
I am just asking in case you happen to know some of this info. Otherwise I will reach out to the author.
Thanks again Stephen!
-
-
I'm just using the free bit myself.
Its pretty new, but seems to work well enough. It may well pull some wrong info (or maybe pulls the info it gets to first)
- for the PR, does it always show the home page PR? Or does it calculate the PR for other pages by subtracting 1 for every click from the home page? I mainly ask so I can respond to client questions if they ever see the tool.
I doubt its that clever, its just aggregating data
S
-
My plan is to put all the root domains into http://netpeak.net/software/netpeak-checker/ check for PR main, status code, index, PA and DA. Then put them into Buzzstream which should go out and find the info for you. Then grab all the links from each spammy domain and provide them in the email to the webmaster to make them easier to remove. Hopefully this will make it a little more efficient.
-
Thanks for sharing your experience with this Ryan.
We had a similar scenario to contend with and after trying to contact all sites linking to our client's and providing detailed documentation to Google to no avail, we had to resort to 404ing the affected pages to kill all the bad links, changing the url of those pages without redirecting the links and re-point the good links.
Reconsideration has since been submitted and we are waiting to hear if this is now satisfactory.
On one hand I'm pleased this is happening but on the other hand, it's not the client's fault in many cases, it's the poor advice they received from agencies.
-
Hey Ryan,
Have you read this post by Dr. Pete http://www.seomoz.org/blog/penguins-pandas-and-panic-at-the-zoo#jtc180593? Wanted to get your thoughts on his suggestion not to submit for reconsideration.
-
Thanks Ryan - can you advise how you know if it's a manual or algo penalty ?
-
In December 2011 when I encountered this issue for the first time I suspected it was a manual penalty. I contacted Google via the Reconsideration Request tool and they confirmed the site was indeed manually penalized. After the initial wave of cleanup, Google confirmed the reason for the manual penalty was the "inorganic" links.
In our post-Penguin world, I would presume the issue is algorithmic but since we are all so new to Penguin I would still use the Reconsideration Request tool if the client approved.
-
I have tremendous respect for Pete and I can understand his thought process. I'll share a different viewpoint.
I am fully understanding of a client's past history. If they practiced black hat techniques in the past, that is not my concern. The past is the past. If I work with a client, they must agree that going forward they will not use any black hat SEO, and they will actively work to resolve any issues so their site complies with Google's Guidelines.
Based on the above, I complete the Reconsideration Request. I have nothing to fear from Google. I would have already reviewed the client's website. I would have identified and be actively working on any outstanding issues. I practice full transparency with Google. This approach is how I choose to operate, and I believe I am more successful because of it.
What's the alternative? Hide from Google? At best, it's only a matter of time until they catch up.
Perhaps I am naive. But if you do have a manual penalty then the fastest way to resolve it for the client is the Reconsideration Request tool. Google can actually help you identify the issue and they can tell you exactly what is required to resolve it. I'll share one example.
When I was reviewing the manipulative link issue mentioned above, I found many free directory sites and I initially classified those links as being ok. Based on the information shared from Google, I re-evaluated those links and removed them. I firmly believe if we are fully transparent with Google and sincerely try to resolve violations, they will be helpful. That is my experience. Many others share different experiences. When I question them and review their communications, I quickly determine they fall short of full transparency so I can understand why they are struggling.
-
Hi Everyone - and Ryan,
IRyan, thanks for all of your helpful info. I'm so desperate to understand this Penguin further...could you answer 2 questions for me please?
I got the "unnatural links pointing to my site" message in the google WMT last month and now my traffic is almost gone. Before I clean up, I need to udnerstand 2 things clearly.......
1 - What exactly are spammy links or "inorganic links"? Can you (or anyone) explain in simple terms what that means? How will I know which ones to remove?
Or is it safe to say that any link I built through article marketing is considered spammy or inorganic? For example, I hundreds of articles in places like Articlesnatch.com or Articlebase.com. These articles contain at least 2 links pointing to my site -- 1 to my home page and 1 to my T2 or T3 page. Should I try to remove them ALL?
2 - People say the other problem is having too many links with the "exact same anchor text". Does that mean having too many links pointing to the same page (like home page) using the same text in the URL - like MYHOMEPAGE.COM?
Thanks for any advice I can get.
-
What exactly are spammy links or "inorganic links"? Can you (or anyone) explain in simple terms what that means?
Organic links are links you earned. They are usually links which are editorially added. Inorganic links are ones which were created to manipulate Page Rank. There are various examples and details which can be offered to further clarify the distinction but at a high level, that is the distinction.
People say the other problem is having too many links with the "exact same anchor text". Does that mean having too many links pointing to the same page (like home page) using the same text in the URL - like MYHOMEPAGE.COM?
No. If you use a URL link then the concept of exact match anchor text does not apply. If you sell sports watches and then build 10 links to your page with the anchor text "sports watches" that would be an indicator the links are not organic.
-
Hi Ryan,
Great words. I am following the thread throughout. I need a help from your last post;
"If you use a URL link then the concept of exact match anchor text does not apply"
please correct me if I am wrong in understanding, this line means that if the anchor text is a URL then there is no issue of exact matching anchor text. Am I right?
What do you suggest that what ratios are Green, Yellow and Red signals for the exact match anchor texts in the back-links?
I am unable to find what back-link types are remaining after Penguin to be used? Do you think that if all the back link types like;
1- Forum Profile
2- Forum Posts
3- blog comments
4- Articles links
5- Author Bio
6- Directory Submission
are used in safe ratio of keyword mix, PR evaluated, Google Indexed sites then the site can gain a good ranking. what other back link types do you suggest and why?
I found three kind of links in the back link of my client site and mentioned them as paid links.
1-Link List
2-Advertisement
3-side bar
Am I right in my idea? what other links do you suggest are kind of paid links?
S
-
The concept of anchor text manipulation deals with replacing the URL with text which is more targeted to the keyword for which the site is trying to rank. Editorial links mostly do not use ideal anchor text. Many simply use the site link while others use text that is not ideal for SEO.
When the site owner or a SEO builds links to their own site, one of the many signals that point towards manipulation is when the anchor text is perfect. Try this...check OSE for Google.com. Look at the anchor text. Filter out the image alt text and just focus on the anchor text. Of course you will see "Google" a lot but you will see a nice variation of terms used to link to the same page. That is because those links are natural.
Look at your client's site. When you look at the top 20 links and 17 of them show "Best watch" for the anchor text, that is a clear sign of manipulation. Either the site owner or someone working on their behalf likely created those links. Another possibility is the site owner influenced the creation of those links. These links are not natural, or at the very least are less natural.
I hope that answers your question. I will also add the suggestion you are focusing on the wrong area. The best way for a site owner to build links is....to create amazing content which others find useful / helpful / amazing then let the world know about it. If you wish to build more links, then embed yourself as a member of the community related to the site's niche and sparingly mention the site.
-
Has anyone had any luck with contacting the hosting company; Specifically for 3 or more links from a "network" of sites from the same C class IP with absolutely NO contact information what so ever. If so, can you provide an example of the letter you sent? Thanks you guys
-
If a website does not offer any contact information, the next step is the WHOIS information. Visit http://www.whois.com/
Site owners are required to provide their accurate name, address, phone number and e-mail when registering their websites. It is part of the ICANN rules. It is also required that this information be maintained up-to-date.
I am not a legal expert but it is my understanding if the information is not accurate, you can file a complaint with ICANN who then will attempt to contact the site owner. If they are not successful they can recall the domain.
Some sites, especially spammy ones, choose to hide their contact information using a privacy service. There is still a contact e-mail provided. If you send an e-mail to that address it does get forwarded to the site owner.
-
What if the anchor text has a lot of variation but they are still exact keyword phrase, just a lot of different ones?
-
Thanks Ryan,
Yes I'm using whois and a variety of other services to discover contact information but more often than not, I'm getting returned mail (address not valid). Some of the networks, especially those banned from Google have hidden themselves VERY well. One of my hit sites is 16 years old and I'm not embarrassed to say what seemed very ok years ago is now an issue along with what appears to be content scrapping along with a link to my site. I'm thinking it might be best to remove the "you can use this article as long as you give a link" statement that was popular in the past..RIGHT? ..
I'll keep digging into the whois info..along with other search techniques but I was hoping someone had some luck with hosting services replying to this issue. -
Ron, you are missing the key idea.
You should simply not worry about anchor text. Why? Because you should not have control over anchor text. If you earn authentic links from others, they will link to your site.
I control less then 5% of the anchor text for my clients. I would have to think further about the math but it may very well be less then 1%. At those low percentages, you are not at any reasonable risk of incurring a penalty related to manipulative anchor text links.
-
The challenge with contacting a host is their hands are tied. There are only two ways I can think of for a host to potentially help you:
1. Provide the site owners contact information. That would be a breach of confidentiality. There is simply no reason for a host to share this information with you.
2. Remove the links to your site. If you filed a DMCA complaint regarding a copyright infringement, then a host is likely to help you. They may also assist with trademark complaints. Otherwise the site owner is free to link to any site they desire. The site owner is not breaking any laws by linking to your site. Therefore the web host is not able to take action.
-
Thats what I thought from remembering issues back in "the day". Thanks for clarifying. Hmmm...seems like there is a career opportunity for people right now who want to go into the hunting down website owners business
I'd certainly pay a nice penny at this point. -
What about with your guest posting? Are you using anchor text or branded terms?
How do you target other keyword phrases that a page is not totally targeted for when Google also doesn't want a bunch of pages on a site that target slightly different but simliar keyword phrases? Is this a matter of creating great content i.e. blog posts, linkbait, etc. that target those different pages?
-
07178
-
010164
-
031.8k
-
05120
-
03190
-
0101.3k
-
02522
-
06347