Google Will Soon Ignore Links You Tell It To

11 years ago

It is just a scare tactic. Google went through and manually found a bunch of sites to send the letters to. Most all linked within networks so it was not super hard to find a footprint.

Then they pretend like it is the algorithm that can detect shady practices, which it can't. So now SEO's get all scared and start dumping their links (which still work) because Google says they should.

If you use this tool when it comes out you are going to tell Google you are a black hatter. Pretty stupid IMO.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Real Theme Co. Real Simple. Real Clean. WordPress Blog Themes.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386859].message }}

JSProjects 11 years ago

Originally Posted by tylerherman

If you use this tool when it comes out you are going to tell Google you are a black hatter. Pretty stupid IMO.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Drawing too much attention to your backlink profile is never a good thing if you're using even just a few remotely greyhat methods.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386903].message }}

mosthost

11 years ago

I hear the police are coming out with a 'disavow crime' tool soon

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386924].message }}

Jolware

11 years ago

Hope Bing will increase its popularity!

Fed up with Google's mysteries, things left unsaid and arrogance.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

How To Create Income-On-Demand - REAL PEOPLE - REAL RESULTS - NO Experience Needed

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391549].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Enough already!

All this hyperbole over negative SEO seems based on rumors and speculations. Not much science going on here lately.

What is negative SEO? Is it anything within the realm of sabotaging your competitor's website?, Well if so, that's nothing new. Sabotage, has been practiced since the earliest days of the Web, and even before that on Bulletin Board services.

All these suggestions that the Penguin Update has suddenly made negative SEO possible via web spam seems patently false. Where is the evidence of this? Every test that I have heard of, that set out to confirm this theory, has failed to confirm it. Real science indicates it is an invalid theory, yet people go on, and on about it.

Admit it, you have been duped by this FUD, stop your spamming and start building something of real value.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391912].message }}

Mantasmo

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Admit it, you have been duped by this FUD, stop your spamming and start building something of real value.

Explain this to me. Just one simple thing.

There was a website ranking #3 for a decent term, making $5/day with Adsense. The site kept that #3 ranking for about 8 months without any issues. It only had about 10 quality backlinks pointing to it. Not a very competitive term, obviously.

Then it got hit with a couple AMR blasts, 1000 pligg bookmarks and 500 ALN type spammy blog posts and (almost immediately) completely dropped off the map. I mean not even in the top 10 pages. Hasn't recovered yet, been a good month or two...

Call it whatever you like, but to me "negative SEO" is a pretty fitting term. The original high quality links are still there, still PR5-6 and still helping other websites rank just fine, so it wasn't link devaluation. It wasn't Panda either - I keep track of the dates and it survived all previous Panda iterations.

The very fact that building low quality backlinks to already ranking pages makes those pages drop in SERPs means exactly what? Pages that kept those high rankings for 3-6-12 or more months without any issues?

It doesn't matter what you call it - negative SEO, algorithmic penalty, or some other fancy combination of words - the result is the same.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you have a legit, high quality website - this offer is for you.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391985].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by bnetwork

Explain this to me. Just one simple thing.

There was a website ranking #3 for a decent term, making $5/day with Adsense. The site kept that #3 ranking for about 8 months without any issues. It only had about 10 quality backlinks pointing to it. Not a very competitive term, obviously.

Then it got hit with a couple AMR blasts, 1000 pligg bookmarks and 500 ALN type spammy blog posts and (almost immediately) completely dropped off the map. I mean not even in the top 10 pages. Hasn't recovered yet, been a good month or two...

Call it whatever you like, but to me "negative SEO" is a pretty fitting term. The original high quality links are still there, still PR5-6 and still helping other websites rank just fine, so it wasn't link devaluation. It wasn't Panda either - I keep track of the dates and it survived all previous Panda iterations.

The very fact that building low quality backlinks to already ranking pages makes those pages drop in SERPs means exactly what? Pages that kept those high rankings for 3-6-12 or more months without any issues?

It doesn't matter what you call it - negative SEO, algorithmic penalty, or some other fancy combination of words - the result is the same.

Hi bnetwork,

There are dozens of possible causes for that page to drop in rankings, including the penguin update. A single example of anecdotal evidence does not establish causation, especially when there are millions of other websites that mirror that example without a similar drop in rankings. You cannot attribute that to negative SEO unless you have credible empirical evidence, which I would love to see if you have it. Otherwise, you are just talking Cargo Cult science.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393236].message }}

Mantasmo

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi bnetwork,

There are dozens of possible causes for that page to drop in rankings, including the penguin update. A single example of anecdotal evidence does not establish causation, especially when there are millions of other websites that mirror that example without a similar drop in rankings. You cannot attribute that to negative SEO unless you have credible empirical evidence, which I would love to see if you have it. Otherwise, you are just talking Cargo Cult science.

Yes, I've seen it happen across dozens of websites. I'm going to test on 3 more identical websites this week (still ranking fine - haven't blasted them yet).

Basically, you have no first hand experience. It shows. And I don't mean any disrespect - many people fall into this trap at some point in their SEO careers.

SEO isn't science, because we can't actually prove anything with 100% certainty. It's all based on trial & error and I have done plenty of that. What you're saying isn't based on anything else but what you think is right, which is nothing more than an opinion. I'll take some testing over yet another opinion any day of the week (especially when it comes to SEO).

I already know what you're going to say next.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you have a legit, high quality website - this offer is for you.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393325].message }}

dburk 11 years ago

Originally Posted by bnetwork

Basically, you have no first hand experience. It shows. And I don't mean any disrespect - many people fall into this trap at some point in their SEO careers.

Hi bnetwork,

LOL, if by "no first hand experience" you mean I am not a web spammer, then I will give you that one. I must admit, I am not a web spammer.

However, I do have plenty of clients that had Web spamming services that posed as legitimate SEO companies and built crappy web spam before moving to my services. I have also analysed many of my clients' competitors and have a reasonably large data store that I have analysed, using valid testing methods to accumulate empirical data, which I have used to formulate my conclusions, which my opinions are based upon.

My point being that a lot of folks jump to conclusions, based on anecdotal evidence from a highly dynamic system, without any isolation of the many possible causes. When you look at a larger data set, you get a very different picture.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393799].message }}

kyle4hire

11 years ago

Hopefully Bing and Yahoo and the other search engines.

Thanks

Signature

Web Dev, Web Content Writer, SEO for 350$ per month

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391781].message }}

markowe

11 years ago

I guess if they implement this it isn't going to be just a case of "Delete these links", it's going to be more like with other tools where they say, "Well, we don't guarantee that the GoogleBot will follow your instruction, but it will be taken into consideration", bla bla.

Otherwise we will all be taking down links one batch at a time to see which type of link got us the penalty or whatever - too much opportunity to reverse engineer there, I am sure Google won't allow it.

Not really sure I buy the argument that it will be effective admission of wrongdoing by webmasters (anyone can plead negative SEO, or that they bought the site with those links, or similar) - but it will be another way for Google to identify or confirm link neighbourhoods that webmasters want to disassociate themselves with, so that might be a quite powerful tool for them...

Having said all that, I DO have sites with links on that I really want to get rid of, but I am certainly not going to do it manually, so would consider using this.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391802].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by markowe

I guess if they implement this it isn't going to be just a case of "Delete these links", it's going to be more like with other tools where they say, "Well, we don't guarantee that the GoogleBot will follow your instruction, but it will be taken into consideration", bla bla.

Otherwise we will all be taking down links one batch at a time to see which type of link got us the penalty or whatever - too much opportunity to reverse engineer there, I am sure Google won't allow it.

Not really sure I buy the argument that it will be effective admission of wrongdoing by webmasters (anyone can plead negative SEO, or that they bought the site with those links, or similar) - but it will be another way for Google to identify or confirm link neighbourhoods that webmasters want to disassociate themselves with, so that might be a quite powerful tool for them...

Having said all that, I DO have sites with links on that I really want to get rid of, but I am certainly not going to do it manually, so would consider using this.

All I want to say is that Google is gaming Internet Marketers.
Why they don't simply automatically disavow bad links once they detect
them? Is there really a need for them that webmasters inform them of
having bad links?

Haven't they tools to detect bad links and networks according to what
they say? Or are they wearing the jury's hat and pretend to know guilty
but want him to confess to what he has done?

I'm sorry to say this but their behaviours seem a little bit childish to me
considering the fact that they are a grown big company.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391933].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

All I want to say is that Google is gaming Internet Marketers.
Why they don't simply automatically disavow bad links once they detect
them? Is there really a need for them that webmasters inform them of
having bad links?

Haven't they tools to detect bad links and networks according to what
they say? Or are they wearing the jury's hat and pretend to know guilty
but want him to confess to what he has done?

I'm sorry to say this but their behaviours seem a little bit childish to me
considering the fact that they are a grown big company.

Is it Google being "childish"? Or, is it all these web spamming Chicken Little's running around screaming "the sky is falling" after having their web spam devalued.

Google already devalues web spam, and they are getting better at it every day. It seems to me that Google is simply responding to the childish way web spammers are reacting to their spam detection and warning system. The wild rumors and hyperbole about negative SEO arre not worth the time and energy people are putting into it, please let it go before it drives you to insanity.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392008].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Is it Google being "childish"? Or, is it all these web spamming Chicken Little's running around screaming "the sky is falling" after having their web spam devalued.

Google already devalues web spam, and they are getting better at it every day. It seems to me that Google is simply responding to the childish way web spammers are reacting to their spam detection and warning system. The wild rumors and hyperbole about negative SEO arre not worth the time and energy people are putting into it, please let it go before it drives you to insanity.

I agree with what you said completely except for the last paragraph
that does not address why Google sends message "Unnatural or Artificial Links"
towards a site. This completely may prove negative SEO is possible.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392141].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

I agree with what you said completely except for the last paragraph
that does not address why Google sends message "Unnatural or Artificial Links"
towards a site. This completely may prove negative SEO is possible.

Hi rahmanpaidar,

While it is true that Google has started sending out "unnatural link warnings" messages to webmasters via webmaster tools, nothing about that implies that they have changed how they handle those unnatural links. Like always, they devalue them and this does not seem to have an adverse effect on meritorious links.

The point is that negative SEO has always been a possibility, and there is nothing new that suggests that web spamming, alone, can be used as a instrument for negative SEO. Truly effective negative SEO involves far more than web spam.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393339].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi rahmanpaidar,

While it is true that Google has started sending out "unnatural link warnings" messages to webmasters via webmaster tools, nothing about that implies that they have changed how they handle those unnatural links. Like always, they devalue them and this does not seem to have an adverse effect on meritorious links.

The point is that negative SEO has always been a possibility, and there is nothing new that suggests that web spamming, alone, can be used as a instrument for negative SEO. Truly effective negative SEO involves far more than web spam.

Not only they devalue certain links, they certainly penalize sites for having them.

They revoke penalty by sending message to webmasters.

If there was no penalization, then there was no need to revoke penalty.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393468].message }}

paulgl

11 years ago

Webpronews has its own agenda. Why people quote
these places like it's the gospel truth, give them
a friggin backlink even, has always been beyond
my comprehension.

People fail to read the whole thing. Hyperbole sells.

Here's the "truth," if people would read.

The vast, vast majority of manual actions we take are on pages that are engaging in egregious blackhat SEO techniques, such as automatically created gibberish or cloaking.

In fact, of the messages that we sent out to site owners, only around 3% were for unnatural or artificial links. So just to be clear, of the 700,000 messages we sent out in January and February, well above 600,000 were for obvious blackhat spam, and under 25,000 of the messages were for unnatural links.

Most of us have been saying that stuff for years.

Unless you are going over the top, you have nothing to worry about.

That's 99.999999999999999999% of us.

Google is not worried about most sites on the internet. Nor the
vast, overwhelming majority of webmasters.

I just not to be, nor never have been, in the group of webmasters
that google has always had it sights on.

Paul

Thanks

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393527].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

Not only they devalue certain links, they certainly penalize sites for having them.

They revoke penalty by sending message to webmasters.

If there was no penalization, then there was no need to revoke penalty.

I have never seen credible evidence that Google penalizes an entire website due to inbound links from other websites. If you can produce a single example of this
I would appreciate it.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6393814].message }}

cooler1

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

I have never seen credible evidence that Google penalizes an entire website due to inbound links from other websites. If you can produce a single example of this
I would appreciate it.

If Google doesn't penalize websites due to inbound links, why did so many sites affected by Penguin have a high exact match anchor text ratio? Seeing as webmasters can't control who links to their sites, a competitor could build a high exact match anchor ratio to hit a site unless the site in question has plenty of authority.

I've got a site with around 50 pages and the keywords are literally nowhere in the top 20 pages in the SERPs, so the site makes no income. There is no keyword stuffing, duplicate content, etc.. or anything like that on the site, but it does have a high anchor text backlink ratio for it's primary keyword.

If inbound links can't penalize a site, why are my keywords nowhere to be seen? I know the site is indexed because it appears if I type part of text in quotes. Also, many of the sites outranking my pages are complete rubbish, things like spammy facebook note pages so it's nothing related to quality of content.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6394061].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by cooler1

If Google doesn't penalize websites due to inbound links, why did so many sites affected by Penguin have a high exact match anchor text ratio? Seeing as webmasters can't control who links to their sites, a competitor could build a high exact match anchor ratio to hit a site unless the site in question has plenty of authority.

I've got a site with around 50 pages and the keywords are literally nowhere in the top 20 pages in the SERPs, so the site makes no income. There is no keyword stuffing, duplicate content, etc.. or anything like that on the site, but it does have a high anchor text backlink ratio for it's primary keyword.

If inbound links can't penalize a site, why are my keywords nowhere to be seen? I know the site is indexed because it appears if I type part of text in quotes. Also, many of the sites outranking my pages are complete rubbish, things like spammy facebook note pages so it's nothing related to quality of content.

Hi cooler1,

A correlation does not imply causation, that is a common fallacy trap that many fall into.

Clearly, web spammers are statistically more likely to use the exact same anchor text and therefore show a direct correlation to those pages effected by the Penguin Update.

In this case A does not cause B, instead C causes both A and B.

Where:

A = Identical Anchortext,
B = Pages devalued by Penguin
C= Common practices of web spammers

There are far too many examples of A not causing B, it is only when A is caused by C that you find a correlation between A and B, therefore both A and B are caused by C.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6394780].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi cooler1,

A correlation does not imply causation, that is a common fallacy trap that many fall into.

Clearly, web spammers are statistically more likely to use the exact same anchor text and therefore show a direct correlation to those pages effected by the Penguin Update.

In this case A does not cause B, instead C causes both A and B.

Where:

A = Identical Anchortext,
B = Pages devalued by Penguin
C= Common practices of web spammers

There are far too many examples of A not causing B, it is only when A is caused by C that you find a correlation between A and B, therefore both A and B are caused by C.

I certainly don't agree with all that you say, but here I agree for the full 100%. I've always been thinking the data from that micro site blog is flawed cause of the habits of people, exactly like you say, people with >60% exact anchor txt are in general the web spammers which makes the anchor txt % a lot less reliable factor to penalize a page.

I've seen it myself by doing PAD blasts, where the anchor txt = the company name. All sites that had a PAD blast with maybe 100 live links are still going strong after all these penguin updates (talking about brand new sites), they didn't even have any other links and we used exact anchor txt as the company name.

Another interesting thing that I noticed is this (pretty obvious actually):

When I pad blast 1 url, nothing wrong.
When I pad blast the same url 3+ times then it seems to start to hurt
When I pad blast different url's from the same website all seems fine again.

What does this proof (well proof the dataset isn't that large)? It does show that Google definetly devalues/penalizes pages and most of the time not websites in total.

I think the most determining factors whether a site gets penalized is primarly based on the ratio of low quality links vs high quality links and that there is a cap build in of how many low quality links you can build before it pulls the trigger.

Another factor that I think most people under estimate is the number of referring domains, for example spamming the same blogs over and over or building huge amounts of web2.0s or any other types of links from the same domains, as in only links from blogspot or wordpress sites. That's why I always try to build the links from as many different domains as possible. Most people think the key is link diversity, I don't think that matters, the reason I build diverse links is to expand the number of unique domains cause there are only so many web2.0s , bookmark sites, doc sharing sites, video sites, and what not.

When people buy (the same) follow up package from me through the buy now, I most of the time suggest them a customized package to keep up with the unique domains concept. Imo it just makes no sense to keep building the same links over and over.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395516].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

I have never seen credible evidence that Google penalizes an entire website due to inbound links from other websites. If you can produce a single example of this
I would appreciate it.

Don, I'm sure you have seen or heard this legitimate message already:

“Previously the webspam team had taken manual action on your site because we believed it violated our quality guidelines. After reviewing your reconsideration request, we have revoked this manual action. It may take some time before our indexing and ranking systems are updated to reflect the new status of your site.”

Specially note the "revoked this manual action" and
"ranking systems are updated" in the message.

Google seems to penalize pages not an entire site after january of 2012
and applies a light version of penalty to other pages connected to the
penalized page.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6394555].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

Don, I'm sure you have seen or heard this legitimate message already:

Specially note the "revoked this manual action" and
"ranking systems are updated" in the message.

Google seems to penalize pages not an entire site after january of 2012
and applies a light version of penalty to other pages connected to the
penalized page.

H rahmanpaidar,

You are mixing two unrelated scenarios, The first is a manual de-indexing of a website that is revoked after a reconsideration request. This is the typical message one see's after they fix the cause of a violation and submit a request for reconsideration.

The second part of your post refers to changes in the ranking algorithm and appears to be completely unrelated to your prior point, which begs the question, what was your point?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6394811].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

You are mixing two unrelated scenarios, The first is a manual de-indexing of a website that is revoked after a reconsideration request. This is the typical message one see's after they fix the cause of a violation and submit a request for reconsideration.

The message is also sent to lucky webmasters in response
to reconsideraion request after the Panda and Penguin update.

Originally Posted by dburk

The second part of your post refers to changes in the ranking algorithm and appears to be completely unrelated to your prior point, which begs the question, what was your point?

My point was that ranking is manually changed due to penalization
and after revoking penalty, it will come back to where it was.

This is the point between penalty and devaluation.
In case of devaluation the links, there is no ranking back, since the
links are pure spam.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6394864].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

The message is also sent to lucky webmasters in response
to reconsideraion request after the Panda and Penguin update.

Hi rahmanpaidar,

Sorry to have to correct you, but that appears to be a response to a manually de-indexed site by the Quality team, not to an algorithmic de-indexing. Both Panda and Penguin were updates to the algorithm and webmasters did not receive that response in regard to algorithmic changes.

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

My point was that ranking is manually changed due to penalization
and after revoking penalty, it will come back to where it was.

This is the point between penalty and devaluation.
In case of devaluation the links, there is no ranking back, since the
links are pure spam.

Google does not manually adjust rankings, manual actions generally involve de-indexing of websites, or devaluing of web spam. It may feel like a penalty if your rankings depended on web spam that was devalued, but i would not characterize that as a penalty.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395211].message }}

aaron86

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi rahmanpaidar,

Google does not manually adjust rankings, manual actions generally involve de-indexing of websites, or devaluing of web spam. It may feel like a penalty if your rankings depended on web spam that was devalued, but i would not characterize that as a penalty.

Smart post I do agree with you buddy.

Thanks

Signature

THE BEST SEO SERVICE FOR ONLY $5
100% White Hat Tactics
Edu and Gov Profile Backlinks | Angela and Paul Profile Backlinks
-Penguin Safe-

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395412].message }}

rahmanpaidar

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi rahmanpaidar,

Sorry to have to correct you, but that appears to be a response to a manually de-indexed site by the Quality team, not to an algorithmic de-indexing. Both Panda and Penguin were updates to the algorithm and webmasters did not receive that response in regard to algorithmic changes.

Google does not manually adjust rankings, manual actions generally involve de-indexing of websites, or devaluing of web spam. It may feel like a penalty if your rankings depended on web spam that was devalued, but i would not characterize that as a penalty.

Don sorry but clearly you are misinforming here in this post.
There are atleast 700.000 webmasters that recieved "unnatural links detected
notice" in their WMT and clearly Google wants them to resubmit
reconsideration request while their site still is indexed.

So answer just this question. What is the point in reconsideration request
if this is not a penalty and just link devaluation and ranking will be
untouched even if you win reconsideration request due to permanent
devaluation of spam links?

You are fighting against the truth but never mind. I'm not here to make
believe someone of something. Let everyone judge it by himself.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØªØŒ Ø·Ø±Ø§ØÛŒ ÙˆØ¨ Ø³Ø§ÛŒØª

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395613].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

Don sorry but clearly you are misinforming here in this post.
There are atleast 700.000 webmasters that recieved "unnatural links detected
notice" in their WMT and clearly Google wants them to resubmit
reconsideration request while their site still is indexed.

So answer just this question. What is the point in reconsideration request
if this is not a penalty and just link devaluation and ranking will be
untouched even if you win reconsideration request due to permanent
devaluation of spam links?

You are fighting against the truth but never mind. I'm not here to make
believe someone of something. Let everyone judge it by himself.

Matt Cuts himself said that of those 700.000 webmaster notices only about 3% were cause of unnatural BACKLINK notices. The other 97% was about sites using blackhat techniques, he named a few examples of that but I forgot about it but had to do with ugly popups and that kind of things if I remember well.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395649].message }}

dburk

11 years ago

Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar

Don sorry but clearly you are misinforming here in this post.
There are atleast 700.000 webmasters that recieved "unnatural links detected
notice" in their WMT and clearly Google wants them to resubmit
reconsideration request while their site still is indexed.

So answer just this question. What is the point in reconsideration request
if this is not a penalty and just link devaluation and ranking will be
untouched even if you win reconsideration request due to permanent
devaluation of spam links?

You are fighting against the truth but never mind. I'm not here to make
believe someone of something. Let everyone judge it by himself.

Hi rahmanpaidar,

Please allow me to correct you once again, it was less than 25,000 that received that message:

Earlier this year, Google revealed that we sent out over 700,000 messages to site owners in January and February 2012 via our free webmaster console at www.Google.com/Webmasters . I wanted to clarify a misconception about those messages. A lot of people assumed that most or all of the 700K messages were related to "unnatural link warnings" that some site owners received.

The reason for sending the 700,000 messages via Webmaster Tools was actually because we started sending out warnings about blackhat techniques. The vast, vast majority of manual actions we take are on pages that are engaging in egregious blackhat SEO techniques, such as automatically created gibberish or cloaking.

In fact, of the messages that we sent out to site owners, only around 3% were for unnatural or artificial links. So just to be clear, of the 700,000 messages we sent out in January and February, well above 600,000 were for obvious blackhat spam, and under 25,000 of the messages were for unnatural links.

Matt Cutts

Source: http://www.webpronews.com/google-wil...-it-to-2012-06

Thanks

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395664].message }}

Dragontech

11 years ago

We should be happy and say thanks to Google!

Seo software creators never lack the creativity.

As soon as the "smart" tool comes out, there's just gonna be 10x more tools (and 100x more ways) out there to game you again and in turn making you even more fragile than ever.

And btw by doing this, aren't you simply trying to make all the links (and the "webmasters") even more spammy than ever then?

Wouldn't it make the top 10 just spending all their time cleaning (blacklisting) links instead of making your index look nicer?

It's always just another way of shooting the animals, and we never lack the maps and guns.

The great news the Little Big G is telling us is, "I'm still open to be gamed! Come on!"

And again, thanks Google

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392364].message }}

dmtaylor247

11 years ago

They don't give a damn about anyone getting hit with spammy backlinks.

They just realised that they could potentially get thousands of reconsideration requests from people who have been negged which, would take up too much of their time and cut into their gigantic profits, so they have offered a self serve soloution.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392467].message }}

radivoj

11 years ago

Yes I think they will update that feature in Google webmaster tool in a few months so you can tell Google which link to not count but what is the point of all this? having sites in webmaster tool you will still give Google your sites data so they can use it against you any time to penalized you...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392468].message }}

dmtaylor247

11 years ago

Originally Posted by radivoj

Yes I think they will update that feature in Google webmaster tool in a few months so you can tell Google which link to not count but what is the point of all this? having sites in webmaster tool you will still give Google your sites data so they can use it against you any time to penalized you...

It's all about money, they want you to sift through your ****ty backlinks not them.

Google already have all your data GWT or not, how else would they rank your site?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6392493].message }}

hood30

11 years ago

How do I get started with backlinks?..Do I need to pay?..I'd like to get a few free backlinks to improve my website visibility on search engines.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6395673].message }}

Google Will Soon Ignore Links You Tell It To

Trending Topics

Need AI editor to turn photos into graphics.

Replace ancient, well-ranked site with new website?

Digital Marketing

8 content writing pointers for beginners

One Affiliate Link For Multiple Products