Google issue new link warning

[eventdomain]

some people linked to them after reading about their site. Too many links, from not the right places

won't have to worry much longer as one way links/link swaps are toast.

I figure the only sites that offer a freebie will be some form of directory.

Everything else will be struck down, devalued or taken down from the web by its owners. On-site SEO will be all that's left, everything else will go paid although not badly expensive, but some sort of paid mass-blunderbuss effect eg: paid links, paid adverts, paid copy, paid video etc.

Paid social networking????

 

[Alan]

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

Keep optimising your Adwords campaigns

 

[OldWelshGuy]

won't have to worry much longer as one way links/link swaps are toast.

I figure the only sites that offer a freebie will be some form of directory.

Everything else will be struck down, devalued or taken down from the web by its owners. On-site SEO will be all that's left, everything else will go paid although not badly expensive, but some sort of paid mass-blunderbuss effect eg: paid links, paid adverts, paid copy, paid video etc.

Paid social networking????

Paid social networking already exists, it is now possible to get an indistinguishable social profile that is paid. Google are WAY behind the curve on this and theya re placing more and more weight on it.

 

[angrystone]

I think that the solution is to accumulate links naturally and on a gradient ( with a bit of help ). Publishing press releases and articles in non-spammy places should be fine.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Google have come out and said that press releases are not good for SEO as they handle PR sites differently these days and rprevent link juice from flowing.

 

[zookx]

We admin an industry specific, not spammy, directory and have had a few poorly written emails form companies operating for business' who added their sites asking for removal.

I expect in a few months they will be resubmitting their sites.

 

[eventdomain]

Google have come out and said that press releases are not good for SEO

Well, press releases aren't deemed as 'content' unless its properly categorised as a whole bunch of content eg: a press database site.

Google (and others) love piles and masses of content hoarding/displaying sites. If you think about it, this makes sense, its good for the searcher to easily find information, as Google IS a search tool that claims to put precise relevancy in-front of the searcher.

So these portals often hold info like a mini-yahoo, this is what searchers want as it makes their life easier.

 

[MASSEY]

I think the key with seo now is to have back up sites waiting in the wings should your main site suffer a filter that is too difficult to get around.

I also think people have to bite the bullet and start spending some cash on adwords to compliment seo. The trouble is people pay alot of money for seo and then can't really afford to get into adwords which is becoming increasingly pricey.

 

[Suzuki]

and then can't really afford to get into adwords which is becoming increasingly pricey.

Most people can't afford adwords as they have a crap site and/or no real business. You're always going to get chewed up and outbid if you've spent £50 on an affiliate site populated with the same feeds as a million other affiliate sites.

If you're selling a real product that you produce yourself (or a service you actually carry out) then Adwords is certainly still viable. If you want to promote a payday loan lead gen or car insurance lead gen site you built in an hour... then the outlook isn't so good.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Well, press releases aren't deemed as 'content' unless its properly categorised as a whole bunch of content eg: a press database site.

Google (and others) love piles and masses of content hoarding/displaying sites. If you think about it, this makes sense, its good for the searcher to easily find information, as Google IS a search tool that claims to put precise relevancy in-front of the searcher.

So these portals often hold info like a mini-yahoo, this is what searchers want as it makes their life easier.

So now you know Google better than Google I say again that Google have come out against press release sites for SEO benefit. They named some of the top press release sites also, so the quality is irrelevent in their eyes.

 

[Suzuki]

won't have to worry much longer as one way links/link swaps are toast.

Ed what do you mean with one way links are toast?

 

[eventdomain]

I expect in a few months they will be resubmitting their sites.

Ofcourse - they soon realise any lost links are costing them rankings and traffic. There's no shocks there.. Gone are the days where you can sink £2k into PPC and expect 50% of conversions - maybe 5% or something - its not instant buyers as so many assume it is or will be - just curious folk, who won't make a purchase.

75% of traffic always click away from every website these days, making PPC spend wasted.

 

[eventdomain]

Ed what do you mean with one way links are toast?

Site owners aren't giving them away for free. Well, if the thousands of link pages being removed is anything to go by...which is due to Google devaluing them.

Its a rare thing to get a major link, put it that way. I dont count citations in the same mix or as quality either, as these are fairly easy to get with the right news story.

I made the prediction 3 years ago, that free links will be over - there's little left for free now everything is getting devalued. Started to notice this in 2009ish and in 2011 felt a severe loss of rank data, even though the one-ways we got were still being recorded by various sites and showing up on other engines etc.

We removed our free links page in 2010 to force the point of 'no free rides will be tolerated' back then about 150 sites were getting free traffic from that page without paying us for it. We havent regretted the decision since, infact profits and traffic are up..

 

[MASSEY]

Most people can't afford adwords as they have a crap site and/or no real business. You're always going to get chewed up and outbid if you've spent £50 on an affiliate site populated with the same feeds as a million other affiliate sites.

If you're selling a real product that you produce yourself (or a service you actually carry out) then Adwords is certainly still viable. If you want to promote a payday loan lead gen or car insurance lead gen site you built in an hour... then the outlook isn't so good.

Adwords is viable for the services i offer but it still pains me having to spend an average of £2.50 for a click.

What i was trying to get at is people are usually only thinking SEO and wanting the free traffic it can bring. This was a good strategy a couple of years ago but all the changes to the serps layouts and algorithm changes have made seo less stable so people need to embrace adwords, they have little choice not to.

 

[Suzuki]

Site owners aren't giving them away for free. Well, if the thousands of link pages being removed is anything to go by...which is due to Google devaluing them.

Not true. We're doing quite well just now getting loads of 'free' links that will never ever be penalised by Google or algorithmically discounted. The difference is we spent £8000+ on an extremely useful resource section that people enjoy using and will happily link to.

If you have an obviously commercial site and you just spam random sites with "link to this site selling xyz please" then of course you're going to get no joy in 2013.

If you go and create something truly valuable, it can still be done and it will back out to a suitable price per link in the end. And of course as links get harder and harder to come by for competitors also, the return on genuinely brilliant ideas like this is even better

 

[OldWelshGuy]

the Google mantra is simple, once you get your head around it the world becomes an easier place.

Build something that people will want to link to.

 

[Carboy]

I just need someone to tell me what the Mantra is

 

[Suzuki]

the Google mantra is simple, once you get your head around it the world becomes an easier place.

Build something that people will want to link to.

We're trying to do that, but even that isn't enough - you need to build something people want to link to, then spend a fortune in man hours finding relevant people and telling them your page exists lol.

 

[Websitehandyman]

We're trying to do that, but even that isn't enough - you need to build something people want to link to, then spend a fortune in man hours finding relevant people and telling them your page exists lol.

So who is doing all this linking ?

The only impulse linking going on is on facebook, twitter and in forums. Only the likes of bbc are going to product content suitable to attract those sort of link constantly.

The are very few website owners now vollenteering to link to any content. I say very a few the are millions but in terms of percentages it's going down and it a trickle to what it might have been 5 years or more ago.

And with google suggesting they are punishing for "linking to" (I think thats right) that will only go down.

 

[terryuk]

Impulse yeah but I've seen stuff re-tweeted which is months old Facebook is more impulse and never go back again in my opinion.

Twitter would probably be best and cheapest way to start a flow of links if you are on the ball with your content and right crowd.

I found most people re-tweet and link to just a few well known sources, but it's all linking in one way or another..

I think if you look away from linking altogether, start looking at brand mentions and url drops then you may be getting warmer - I don't know. But they were part of the Seomoz Page Strength algo years ago.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

What i was trying to get at is people are usually only thinking SEO and wanting the free traffic it can bring. This was a good strategy a couple of years ago but all the changes to the serps layouts and algorithm changes have made seo less stable so people need to embrace adwords, they have little choice not to.

That's what G would like you to believe - Load of old FUD. The Algo changes have only affected a small % of sites overall and if you study how the web is supposed to work, you are unlikely to go wrong. It's now easier than ever to rank local sites IMHO.

Take a look at Baton Rouge Architects. The first result (Not one of mine!) was built in a couple of hours and ranked at No 1 in a matter of a few weeks, where it has remained since August last year... Above G places entries... I use it as an example of how NOT to build lead gen sites but it does show that it easy to solidly rank a local site in weeks.

 

[Suzuki]

So who is doing all this linking ?

I don't really want to give the specific example but in the one I'm talking about here we've created something brilliant. It genuinely adds something to the persons site if they feature this (either by linking to it, or embedding it with a 'powered by..' link.

Other people sell access to what we've created. Some people have created tiny versions of it for free. We're the only place where we give it away completely free, without even needing people to sign up or give any personal info. They can just visit and use the page with no strings attached.

So now we just need to find people and let them know this product exists. This in itself is a major job and expense... its labour intensive to find suitable sites and then email them all. But there are thousands of targeted sites out there.

Its good if link buying becomes too risky... I'd rather it takes massive investments to get anywhere in SEO. I'm confident in repeatedly coming up with good ideas that others won't be able to compete with. And with a decent link bait costing £10k+ to put into action I'd rather Google keeps rewarding this stuff rather than some kid with an xrumer and TLA account on churn and burn domains

 

[webgeek]

Other people sell access to what we've created. Some people have created tiny versions of it for free. We're the only place where we give it away completely free, without even needing people to sign up or give any personal info. They can just visit and use the page with no strings attached.

This, and variations, is a great way to go. Look at the Domain Authority metric. A lot of people want to use it, but it's pay to play data. One person has given it away via a bulk domain authority checker.

If you look at who links to this page, despite there's only about 30 links, the ones that have linked are mostly from high trust, strong domains. I don't see Twitter/FB being much of an influence, but the mentions on Google+ are sure visible.

I'm linking to him as an example because his making some valuable information free is worthy.

Yes, link building has gotten harder and will continue to do so, because Google is a link economy and they're trying to strengthen the currency.

 

[MASSEY]

It wouldn't be something to do with calculations would it sukuki

 

[Suzuki]

It wouldn't be something to do with calculations would it sukuki

I've no idea what you're talking about, there are no sort of calculations in what I'm referring to. Why don't you post a link to the one you mean, if its a good link idea I want to see it.

 

[david64]

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

For me, this is the only way most small commercial sites can go about it now. Why some SEOs insist on making a mess in their link manuring is beyond me.

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?:|

Fear. These messages have a lot of people leaving the industry, cleaning up their SEO practices, losing clients etc.

 

[david64]

Not true. We're doing quite well just now getting loads of 'free' links that will never ever be penalised by Google or algorithmically discounted. The difference is we spent £8000+ on an extremely useful resource section that people enjoy using and will happily link to.

Good to see you have got that to work. And that is the kind of money people need to spend for entry level SEO for many niches today. With work like this it is likely to appreciate over time; whereas your typical detritus of "social bookmarking", z-rate directories, splogs etc. are going to massively depreciate over time.

Does anything like article spinning and directory submissions even work any more?

 

Fear. These messages have a lot of people leaving the industry, cleaning up their SEO practices, losing clients etc.

Fear we are talking about SEO not bomb disposal.:|

Googles " do as I say,not as I do policy".

 

[eventdomain]

directory submissions even work any more?

Yes, in that they ARE giant resources, and they rank pretty highly. Just look at Monsterjobs - how high do they rank - No3 for 'jobs'. Only a jobsite directory can rank top 20 for the job keyword.

The top 350'000 (and above) alexa ranked ones are the best to get links from. Many directories are so firmly rooted now, it doesnt matter if 500'000 people slated them, as they get a lot of traffic, been online for years gaining visitors every month for years. I'd suggest there's probably 1000 generals worth using (for SEO worth), and another 3000 recognised industry portals that are 'must haves' as they'll deliver quality visitors - its all about eyeballs.

 

[david64]

Think there is a wire crossed. I was refering more to these type of things for link building:

http://freshwebzdirectory.com/

When I was in the game, they were still worth doing on auto or semi-auto outsourced to India, but now I would not want to have any of my sites linked by a bundle of these directories. Am I wrong in thinking this?

 

[eventdomain]

but now I would not want to have any of my sites linked by a bundle of these directories. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Well, you dont want links from low quality. I just did a quick perusal and it only has 50 backlinks pointing its way - plus a tiny database of only 683 indexed companies, so you wont get anything from such small creations.

Apparantly, it has a value of

10'360 monthly visitors http://freshwebzdirectory.com.ip4.bz/ and is worth a staggering:

$382,543 (£254.257 GBP)

 

[MASSEY]

Yes, in that they ARE giant resources, and they rank pretty highly. Just look at Monsterjobs - how high do they rank - No3 for 'jobs'. Only a jobsite directory can rank top 20 for the job keyword.

The top 350'000 (and above) alexa ranked ones are the best to get links from. Many directories are so firmly rooted now, it doesnt matter if 500'000 people slated them, as they get a lot of traffic, been online for years gaining visitors every month for years. I'd suggest there's probably 1000 generals worth using (for SEO worth), and another 3000 recognised industry portals that are 'must haves' as they'll deliver quality visitors - its all about eyeballs.

I've lost count of the posts i've seen where people complain about the 'good' directories that charge money.

They all talk a good game with their 'traffic' and 'visitors' yet it would seem that the majority of people who pay are left feeling un-happy with the outcome for the price paid.

If you are talking SEO worth i think you are mistaken if you think listing in 'well known' directories for SEO worth is good value for money. It might be in a small number of cases but as i said most people seem to feel rather un-happy about the spend vs return. (Usually because there is no return).

Your website, for instance, charges 50 quid to the small few willing to pay it for whatever reason. If i was going to spend 50 pounds on your website i would look at the following.

• Does event domain rank for any decent terms that could be delivering legitimate traffic to the website. (In your sites case that would be a no because it doesnt look like it ranks for anything other than 'event domain')
• Secondly, i would look at the site itself to work out whether the structure of the site is likely to deliver SEO value to my paid for profile. (Your sites listings are hidden away rather deep in most cases. The profile page itself allows for little content making it a rather weak page and finally your links are no follow)

All the above would make me not want to spend any money with you.


Thirdly, if i was looking to list in your site, not for seo value but for the hope i would get traffic, the amount of adsense you display which show competing business would put me off spending any money with you.

10'360 monthly visitors http://freshwebzdirectory.com.ip4.bz/ and is worth a staggering:

$382,543 (£254.257 GBP)

What made you list that info?

david64 When I was in the game, they were still worth doing on auto or semi-auto outsourced to India, but now I would not want to have any of my sites linked by a bundle of these directories. Am I wrong in thinking this?

I've never had links from those type sites on a large enough scale to be able to tell really.

 

[Fresco_Creative]

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

I just hope Google stick to their word on this - very very annoying when you see other people cutting corners on their SEO efforts

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Because Google use a sliding scale algo with the elements interacting, it isn't the same rule for everyoneunfortunately. i.e. I could have better trust so I get away with spammy links and spammy titles etc, you may have less trust, better titles, but be below me.

It can all change if trust drops to a site, and it is this system of trustrank that they have been trying to get right. (for what seems like ages)

 

[UKSBD]

I just hope Google stick to their word on this

11 days and Interflora returns.
Wonder if the same would have happened for a small business?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

11 days and Interflora returns.
Wonder if the same would have happened for a small business?

Just like BMW, just like Nike, Just like other big brands, who, when hit hard, Google placed their engineers with the company to help sort it out.

While the small business can't even get a personalised reply to an email.

Yet another example of the biased approach Google has to brands.

 

[Suzuki]

I don't feel like going to checking dozens of keywords as I don't care enough to waste time on it... but looking at a couple of the bigger ones they're in 2nd now when they were in 1st before. So they have lost a massive amount of traffic.

Personally I'd have let them rank for 'interflora' purely from a user experience point of view (bad if they can't find a brand they're looking for) and keep them on page 2 or lower for everything else, as that would have sent a message to other brands thinking of replicating their tactics.

 

[webstore]

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

This raises the old question as to whether or not sig links (which one is paying for) are a violation of Google's guidelines???

What would be really great is if we all had an option in this forum to add rel="nofollow" in our http:// links in the signature. We would certainly use that since there's no sense in paying for membership in order to be allowed a URL signature only to find that's a big negative with Google.

 

[webstore]

Whoops - Just noticed clever OldWelshGuy already uses rel="nofollow" in his sig links. I did not think that was enough space to be able to squeeze this in - but I must now get this sorted. I wonder if some folks are allowed longer signatures as I think its going to be a squeeze for me.

 

[webstore]

Now struggling to add rel="nofollow" into sig link. Tried coding from Dreameaver. Tried coding in editor both without success - can anybody tell me how to do this please ?