Google issue new link warning

[UKSBD]

After the recent Interflora slap Google have now issued strongest warning yet about buying or selling links
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-reminder-about-selling-links.html

 

[Picto]

Sounds like they mean business but I don't see how this policy is even slightly enforceable for anything but huge websites really taking the mick. That said we certainly won't be doing it (anymore lol)

 

Yeah like to see them go after the big companies who spend huge amounts on link puchase.

But I won't hold me breath.

 

[LianneF]

it sounds like if you have any links at all that have pagerank then google will assume you have bought them and you get punished, how can they tell if they are bought or earned? It sounds like they don't want you to get any links at all but you can't rank on content alone. The way seems to be to ignore google all together and work on getting direct traffic to the site but when you are an online only business its hard to just exclude google as no one brings in the kind of traffic they do.

 

[Websitehandyman]

Great, I'll be able to put my prices up

"Thou shell not encroach on Google's orchard"

 

[OldWelshGuy]

More FUD from Google, waving the big stick at the small business person, as they daren't wave it at the big boys as the big boys can hurt them back.

 

[JonathanSEO]

All about the advertorials.

Can't believe Independent got slapped from PR8 to PR4.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

All about the advertorials.

Can't believe Independent got slapped from PR8 to PR4.

All hail the mighty Google eh.

 

[RedEvo]

We were approached and asked to remove a link to an Interflora business from our Scottish business directory. A perfectly legit and popular human edited business directory. Quite funny and I was only too happy to remove them.

d

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I got an email saying that a link on my blog was classed as a spammy link and that they wanted it taken down. There was a load of crap about how Google is treating links etc and how my site being a poor quality site needs to be mindful of how it uses links.

I sent an email back to the sender (a company who charge others to clean up their link footprint) and also the original company I had linked to, asking them on what basis they had decided my blog was a bad site and that removing a genuine link would benefit them/their client, and that I had absolutely no intention of editing my blog post to satisfy their half baked idea of link cleaning.

No reply as yet.

 

[Websitehandyman]

I can let you into a little secret, I've earned over $100 from people paying me via fiverr to add a link for sites I suspect are not theirs but one of their competitors

I even had someone ask me to remove a link and tell them who asked for it to be placed. I said I would remove it for $20 but they wouldn't get the details of who placed the ad.

So feel free

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Google don't have a Scooby at the moment, and the sooner some big corporation took them on with regard their antics, the better.

 

[eventdomain]

We were approached and asked to remove a link to an Interflora business from our Scottish business directory

Was it Interflora themselves? I'm betting its not them.

 

[JonathanSEO]

I got an email saying that a link on my blog was classed as a spammy link and that they wanted it taken down. There was a load of crap about how Google is treating links etc and how my site being a poor quality site needs to be mindful of how it uses links.

I sent an email back to the sender (a company who charge others to clean up their link footprint) and also the original company I had linked to, asking them on what basis they had decided my blog was a bad site and that removing a genuine link would benefit them/their client, and that I had absolutely no intention of editing my blog post to satisfy their half baked idea of link cleaning.

No reply as yet.

SEO companies hit the panic button when it comes to link clean up. Try remove everything link imaginable before even diagnosing the problem.

 

[wdog5555]

How does anyone know that all this Google 'unnatural/dodgy/poor quality link' carp isn't just Google trying to 'flush' out sites it suspects of manipulating links?

Surely, if you were Google and you suspect a site of manipulating the links pointing to it, you could send them an email asking them to remove a dodgy link and the site can confirm they control the links pointing to it by removing the offending link (so thereby incriminating themselves)?

Maybe I'm being paranoid (but I'm fairly sure all my fears are real!!)................:|

 

[eventdomain]

manipulating the links pointing to it,

If you mean linkbuilding - then every site on earth does it.

 

[wdog5555]

If you mean linkbuilding - then every site on earth does it.

But Google seems to want 'natural links' now? A good link builder would (I think?) make the links they build look natural.......

If Google suspected a site had an unnatural link profile, they could send an automated 'warning' email, then if the link profile changed they would know the site is 'building' it's own links and that some of the links aren't natural?

It's just a theory (based partly on paranoia!), but why would Google bother warning sites about poor links? Why not just ignore the poor links?:|

 

[eventdomain]

Google bother warning sites about poor links? Why not just ignore the poor links?

They will simply add a penalty eg: a drop in the SERPS.

Hunting for natural links? as far as I know a natural link cannot be obtained unless someone gifts it to you - thus its a one-way and a gift.

Gifts are obviously tough to get, as a price is usually attached as part of the bargain. Many don't want to bargain, know what I mean....

 

[trebor8]

Hunting for natural links? as far as I know a natural link cannot be obtained unless someone gifts it to you - thus its a one-way and a gift.

Isn't that the point of a good SEO/M. Create great content so others will want to link to it!

 

[eventdomain]

Isn't that the point of a good SEO/M. Create great content so others will want to link to it!

Well, that's the theory many cling to, bit different trying to do it - but its not 1996 anymore and the free link ride is over.

Its just many cant let go as free links are their only means of exposure. Years ago it was easy to get 10k of free links within 2 years - now this takes 10 years to get the same result (and that's with a decent site offering)- when these days you need 30k's worth of links to stand out plus whatever you get from SERPS.

Unless you can create that 'Masterpiece' portal - you're buggered as even with that, it relies on other's goodwill to lend that helping hand. Might be different if you got that following or community, BUT you got to get there first. Many will never accomplish this.

 

[Websitehandyman]

Google's hold over internet content has just got to be broken it's as simple as that.

Everyone has a right to earn money from their website any way they choose. Not all sites, no matter what the content, gets lots of traffic so if you have worked to produce high ranking why shouldn't you be able to benifit from that.

If Google want to stop people trading in links that pass rank why not go after those that buy them. They won't do that because they also sell to those same people and it may affect their bottom line.

 

[RedEvo]

Google's hold over internet content has just got to be broken it's as simple as that.

Everyone has a right to earn money from their website any way they choose. Not all sites, no matter what the content, gets lots of traffic so if you have worked to produce high ranking why shouldn't you be able to benifit from that.

If Google want to stop people trading in links that pass rank why not go after those that buy them. They won't do that because they also sell to those same people and it may affect their bottom line.

Google's only got a hold over you if you want to feature in their organic search results. Their merit based algo (I know) only works if people play fair (I know) and they've got every right to penalise sites they find cheating and trying to game their algo - again, I know....

d

 

[eventdomain]

Google's only got a hold over you if you want to feature in their organic search results.

Problem is everyone thinks they can sit either on the first page or at No1 spot. Only hope for Google to control or stop people gaming their engine is to go paid - fully..... but that carries a risk, I mean look what happened to Looksmart:

LookSmart changed its "submit a site" directory system to pay-per-click.

see originally, if memory serves - it was £200 one-time fee?? they made crazy profits on that engine, but as soon as they switched PPC, things changed. SO, IF Google decided to charge a fee to stop people doing whatever, then surely that will have consequences.

Never bite the hand that feeds you...

 

[webgeek]

Jeesh, massive spun text paid links from a network of 200+ sites tied so tightly together that ALN and BMR look like James Bond and MI-5.... shouldn't come as a surprise that a nice bit of public slapdown would occur.

Google only needs to make a couple of examples out of sites like the Chome slap for 'browser', Interflora, the newspapers, and so on so that once again people stop 'buying' organic and start buying PPC.

Advertorials and media companies in general are now aware that they're the targets of opportunity. PR stripped if you sell PR, and major erasure if you're buying them.

I also was impressed with the way Webmaster Guidelines have been updated to specifically name low quality directories and bookmarking sites as violation of the link schemes policy.

I'd bet we can expect to see continued Google pressure on flagrant dofollow link sellers, additional devaluing of meta-indexes of information which add no real value or use serious editorial control, and a people taking their link selling to the back room instead of high street where Google isn't a part of the good ole boy network.

Regardless, the link profile clean up industry is booming and about to completely explode as people try to ditch the good links of yesterday which are the poison of today. Got disavow? It's better than milk.

Peanut gallery advice?

People stop going for volumes of links. You can absolutely kill it with some wickedly good, original content that frames the information in a unique manner and contributes something to society, combined with a handful, or two, of high trust / high authority backlinks from topically niche relevant sites that serve the same country as where your prospects reside.

Invest in building something remarkable, whether it's a white paper, case study, research, plugin, application, calculator, foon (better than a spork), infographic, video series.... just something remarkable, worth sharing, worth bookmarking and not a rewrite/rehash of ezine articles and wikipedia entries!!!

Think twice, build once - now is the time for you to shine

 

[JonathanSEO]

Jeesh, massive spun text paid links from a network of 200+ sites tied so tightly together that ALN and BMR look like James Bond and MI-5.... shouldn't come as a surprise that a nice bit of public slapdown would occur.

The penalty was manual.

The Link network had no bearing on Interflora here as that would have been dealt with algorithmically. Was solely for the paid advertorials.

It's a message from Google, they will probably get re instated sometime soon.

 

[webgeek]

The 'link network' I am referring to is the laundry list of media sites, some 200 of which were a part of a syndicated network where you could/can buy posts that appear on 200+ newspaper sites in a blast.

Although in the Interflora example, these were advertorials, it was the same groups of newspaper sites where many SEO companies were contacted and offered a chance to build links there.

Yes, Interflora apparently had/has some blog network links from non-newspaper sites and these weren't the nail in the coffin.

There are conflicting reports as to all the variables in the Interflora equation, but it seems reasonable that some competitor or SEO grunt got a wild hair and reported them for the high velocity garbage they were spewing and that/those spam report(s) triggered the manual review.

At that point anyone can speculate as to whether those advertorials were viewed in a vacuum (unlikely), or in context of the utter lack of high trust backlinks combined with other blog network and paid posts, single post web 2.0 spam, a couple dozen links from de-indexed sites, a couple hundred links from sites with page rank stripped and hundreds of same-owner domains which are probably a network... were also taken into consideration during the review, before Google took action.

If Cemper can pull that detail in a matter of an hour or so with his own suite of tools, you have to figure that a 'manual' review is just a matter of w minutes in running a spam profile app on the Google desktop, checking the ratio and severity of the rule violations, look at the sum total spam score and hitting the red 'kick me' button that delivered Interflora's llittle present.

Note: I'm relying on Christoph's data, and haven't reviewed all the links personally. I doubt he's got this wrong, given his track record on Penguin analysis and the high profile of the post.

I would not expect Interflora to be re-instated with 100% of their same organic rankings and traffic. If they remove/disavow a lot of the mess, they lose velocity and citation flow/URL rank, in exchange for a bit of trust and a penalty removal, thereby pulling out a nice sized chunk of the foundation that previously propped them up.

Then again, I enjoy surprises....

 

[SEO Lady]

I also was impressed with the way Webmaster Guidelines have been updated to specifically name low quality directories and bookmarking sites as violation of the link schemes policy.

I've just been looking for this information - can you please post a link?

I've just seen this online "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]the [Interflora] site no longer ranks for keywords it used to, including its own name."[/FONT]

- is this what is meant as 'Sandboxed'?

 

[JonathanSEO]

I've just been looking for this information - can you please post a link?

I've just seen this online "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]the [Interflora] site no longer ranks for keywords it used to, including its own name."[/FONT]

- is this what is meant as 'Sandboxed'?

No, it's what's know as a manual penalty. I.e. their website has been penalised at the discretion of a Google Engineer.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-reminder-about-selling-links.html

 

[eventdomain]

I'd bet we can expect to see continued Google pressure on flagrant dofollow link sellers,

Na - there's too many of them, its too big to police. I bet many are adwords customers....

 

[Chris Ashdown]

So in laymans terms what does this mean to me and my sites

 

[Suzuki]

So in laymans terms what does this mean to me and my sites

If you've not been building these spammy types of links then it means nothing... business as normal.

If you have, then it should mean you're spending the next week or two on a clean up mission before it blows up in your face.

 

[eventdomain]

they lose velocity and citation flow/URL rank, in exchange for a bit of trust and a penalty removal

Not worth losing the citation flow ofcourse, what, in exchange for a bit of Google love - not worth losing all those free links, assuming those links deliver traffic ofcourse - which they will....

as people try to ditch the good links of yesterday

Good links are tough to replace, if it was easy then every site on earth would have 10 million links pointing their way

 

[Gillie]

More FUD from Google, waving the big stick at the small business person, as they daren't wave it at the big boys as the big boys can hurt them back.

But it sure got some 3+ pages out of you lot telling us not to worry though, didnt it??

 

[OldWelshGuy]

But it sure got some 3+ pages out of you lot telling us not to worry though, didnt it??

Who told you not to worry? Not sure what you are trying to say?

 

[Gillie]

Why simply as stated from various on this thread - that if you have got links - ensuring they are valid and good quality means you should not have to worry about this latest - what was it you called it James, oh yes - FUD from google!!

(Must have been a long day for you James -as I was merely teasing you lot!!)

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Why simply as stated from various on this thread - that if you have got links - ensuring they are valid and good quality means you should not have to worry about this latest - what was it you called it James, oh yes - FUD from google!!

(Must have been a long day for you James -as I was merely teasing you lot!!)

Not a long day, a long week, damn virus is killing me FUD Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, this is what Google love to throw out there. Reality is there is no such thing as a safe link any longer, even the cleanest most meritocratic link can suddenly become toxic if Google decide it is so.

I have seen a site get slaughtered because they got featured in a magazine and some people linked to them after reading about their site. Too many links, from not the right places (according to the great god Google)

Google have redefined the word 'natural' it now means "whatever Google decide it to mean for that day"

 

[Suzuki]

The garbage thing is, at one point the Google guidelines actually recommended submitting to directories.

So you follow their guidelines in 2007 and then get a penalty in 2013 for doing exactly what google told you to do.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

That has been the argument I have tried to progress, but they don't seem to get it at all.

They are now penalising people for doing what they themselves told them to do.

 

[Suzuki]

It certainly makes things difficult Not only do you need to comply with rules Google already have in place, you also need to comply with rules they haven't even made yet.

I try and hedge my bets by building some long term projects that are compliant with all the rules, and some other rules I think they're likely to rescind/change/create later. But I do quite a lot of spammy stuff too. If it wasn't for all this google stuff I'd love to do legitimate projects only as I do find them more interesting... but I'm not willing to gamble my future income fully on Google doing the right thing.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

There is no worng, there is no right, there is only Google. Such is their might currently.

The maddest part of all is that they are actually driving people towards a black hat scorched earth policy whereby they just put up a site, spam it, make money, see it get burned and move on to the next one. It is as easy as ever to do this, the people really suffering are those trying to make a living and build a brand.

Fr ages Google told people to use press releases, now they say press releases are toxic, they have recommended directory submissions, now theya re toxic. They have recommended guest blogging, signs are that will become toxic shortly on anything that is in any way formulaic in nature i.e. 400+ words, 3 links to your site yada yada. That said people who have been involved in that sort of guest blogging deserve to get slapped. FAR better to have multiple links and curated content that looks more natural.