Built Tons of Low Quality Backlinks - Penguin Recovery? Thank you very much, Google.

114 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Right, here's a disclaimer first.

I don't recommend blasting your websites with tons of low quality backlinks. This was just a test - I don't care about that particular website one bit. I always test stuff, like dozens of tests running all the time. I know that correlation doesn't imply causation, you don't need to remind me of that.

One of my mini-niche-sites got hit by Penguin 1.0, lol. So I decided to build about 3000 low quality backlinks to it, using around 300 different anchors (as well as naked URL links, such as site.com).

After a few weeks:



And here's what GWT shows me (there's about 20-30 quality links in there, if that):



Now, will it get nuked again the next Penguin refresh? I doubt it (but that's only an opinion).

Would I use this strategy on my new websites? No.

Once again - this probably isn't a good long-term strategy (but no one can prove or disprove this point tbh). However, there are so many random theories thrown around right now... Do your own testing, because most people don't know ****.
#backlinks #mass #penguin #recovery
  • Profile picture of the author karljimm
    wow thanks man, that a new information for me.. i read a lot about penguin, usually people talk about don't create anchor text we must use LSI
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559407].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      I Don't get the point. Even if those links can give you a temporary bump up you are only opening yourself up to an unnatural link notice in Webmaster tools.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559432].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I would be interested to see what happens to the site after 1-2 Penguin refreshes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559433].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tryme1
    Well, it's certainly a traffic recovery, that's for sure. It looks like your recovery does coincide pretty much with Penguin 1.1 which was launched on May 25th. When did you start building those links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559480].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author OneManSEO
      Originally Posted by tryme1 View Post

      Well, it's certainly a traffic recovery, that's for sure. It looks like your recovery does coincide pretty much with Penguin 1.1 which was launched on May 25th. When did you start building those links.
      I was just about to say the same thing....

      I'd be more interested in what you did to your micro site to make it return with Google's Penguin 1.1 refresh.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559854].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author retsek
    Very interesting!

    Any details on the anchor text ratios around April 24th vs today?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6559909].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by karljimm View Post

      wow thanks man, that a new information for me.. i read a lot about penguin, usually people talk about don't create anchor text we must use LSI
      Yea I used a whole bunch of related anchor text links.

      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      I Don't get the point. Even if those links can give you a temporary bump up you are only opening yourself up to an unnatural link notice in Webmaster tools.
      That's fine, I'm simply testing to see how things are working right now. See, I have learned something and can now apply it when building links to new sites. I don't care if this site gets one of those notices sometime in the future.

      I'm waiting for the next Penguin refresh to see if a couple other sites bounce back or not (nearly identical circumstances).

      It's been a while now (over a month) and the site has more than paid for itself during this time.

      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I would be interested to see what happens to the site after 1-2 Penguin refreshes.
      Same.

      I'll update this thread when/if there's any movement.

      Originally Posted by tryme1 View Post

      Well, it's certainly a traffic recovery, that's for sure. It looks like your recovery does coincide pretty much with Penguin 1.1 which was launched on May 25th. When did you start building those links.
      Sometime between Penguin 1.0 and Penguin 1.1.

      Originally Posted by OneManSEO View Post

      I was just about to say the same thing....

      I'd be more interested in what you did to your micro site to make it return with Google's Penguin 1.1 refresh.
      I opened up GKT, put in my root keyword and hit search. Downloaded the whole table, formatted titles/anchors properly and built (outsourced) a few thousand links. That's it.

      Honestly, the whole process took me maybe 10 mins. I didn't put a lot of thought into it. Please don't ask what links I used - I don't think that it matters tbh.

      Originally Posted by retsek View Post

      Very interesting!

      Any details on the anchor text ratios around April 24th vs today?
      It had maybe a thousand or so links built using 2 or 4 main anchors. I can't really tell, because I haven't saved any past GWT data. Stupid, I know.

      At the moment GWT shows about a hundred anchors under "traffic -> links to your site -> how your data is linked". I'm sure there's more though - I used at least 278 different anchors for one of the blasts (3k links).

      Not sure about the ratios - none of the research tools are anywhere close to showing accurate, up-to-date data.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6560076].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

        That's fine, I'm simply testing to see how things are working right now. See, I have learned something and can now apply it when building links to new sites. I don't care if this site gets one of those notices sometime in the future.
        To each his own but a cure that ends up making you even sicker is hardly a cure. Better to build quality backlinks to recover than tons of low quality that will get you a notice and then your site is forever toast.

        The other problem for people reading is who knows whether there was something about that serp that makes all the difference and why it won't work for most people.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6560700].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          To each his own but a cure that ends up making you even sicker is hardly a cure. Better to build quality backlinks to recover than tons of low quality that will get you a notice and then your site is forever toast.

          The other problem for people reading is who knows whether there was something about that serp that makes all the difference and why it won't work for most people.
          Yea that's why I always stress that everything I say is just my opinion (albeit I test more stuff than most people here).

          I don't think I'll be getting any notices from Google, but we will see. I'm happy to update this thread at any time, or even give someone reputable access to the site's rankings to confirm changes as time goes by.

          Where you seem to be misunderstanding me is that you assume that my "cure" is building tons of low quality backlinks. That couldn't be further from the truth, as I was simply trying to see if changing up anchor text diversity might help. And it did.

          There's another (nearly identical) test in progress right now, I just need Google to do another Penguin refresh. This does not, in any way, mean that you should be building tons of low quality backlinks. This particular site already had tons of links with the same anchors and I needed to "dilute" them - it's that simple.

          Make whatever you want of this, I'm just sharing my results. I have no interest in becoming an SEO guru.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6561109].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author blanchi
            Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

            Yea that's why I always stress that everything I say is just my opinion (albeit I test more stuff than most people here).

            I don't think I'll be getting any notices from Google, but we will see. I'm happy to update this thread at any time, or even give someone reputable access to the site's rankings to confirm changes as time goes by.

            Where you seem to be misunderstanding me is that you assume that my "cure" is building tons of low quality backlinks. That couldn't be further from the truth, as I was simply trying to see if changing up anchor text diversity might help. And it did.

            There's another (nearly identical) test in progress right now, I just need Google to do another Penguin refresh. This does not, in any way, mean that you should be building tons of low quality backlinks. This particular site already had tons of links with the same anchors and I needed to "dilute" them - it's that simple.

            Make whatever you want of this, I'm just sharing my results. I have no interest in becoming an SEO guru.

            The next update will be cool to read up on.

            I wonder, how would you rate the quality of the content on your "test" site? Also, how many pages is this site?

            Curious because even terrible links pointing to mediocre content in a niche that is absent of good content should rank well in the long-term, even without all of those links. But I suspect the links gave it a bit of jolt and got it ranked where it should be - e.g. one of my sites got slammed for a major keyword and my first thought was "WTF???" and I gave up on the KW. Now it's ranking right back where it should without any of the hard work you invested...

            Anyway, just curious. Thanks for the post & taking my questions...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IM Ash
    This is the 3rd case where I have seen someone recover from penguin after a low quality link blast. This is weird to say the least! Will it last... hhhmmm... will just have to wait and see.

    Thanks for sharing your experience Bnet and keep us posted on your rankings please!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6560648].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mazero
    I'm usually very skeptical about the whole link blasting process in order to rank a site. Man! that can really come back and bit your in the @#@#$.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6561140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author des1slav
    what tool you use for this 3k backlinks?
    Signature

    SEO Expert at NewRank.bg

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Blue445nm
    I hope it stays for you!!!

    However, Google never likes LQ backlinks. Maybe cause it was your anchor text variety this time around.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563577].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by Blue445nm View Post

      I hope it stays for you!!!

      However, Google never likes LQ backlinks. Maybe cause it was your anchor text variety this time around.
      Yea I believe that it was the anchor text. Maybe.

      Waiting for another Penguin refresh to confirm this with a different site.

      Obviously, my new websites don't have this (low Q links) issue, so I'm not worried about that. Though I don't think that I'll ever get any messages or penalties for this site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author boxoun
    Seems to coincide with the refresh. How can we know it wasn't a tweak to algo? I have sites WITH unnatural link notice jump back to number 2. I appreciate the testing and posting but I can't personally credit the links since the movement correlates with some of my sites getting massive positive bump during same time. I have 3 sites not ranked and then jumped to first page with the penalized site jumping to number 2. I gave up on these sites and did nothing to them BTW.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563688].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by boxoun View Post

      Seems to coincide with the refresh. How can we know it wasn't a tweak to algo? I have sites WITH unnatural link notice jump back to number 2. I appreciate the testing and posting but I can't personally credit the links since the movement correlates with some of my sites getting massive positive bump during same time. I have 3 sites not ranked and then jumped to first page with the penalized site jumping to number 2. I gave up on these sites and did nothing to them BTW.
      More likely than not they adjusted Penguin settings a little. One of my sites stayed penalized during Penguin 1.1 (I didn't build any links or anything to it) - I have now blasted it with a bunch of anchors. We'll see what happens next.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StoneWilson
    Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Several of my sites were in the same place weeks ago, but all of their ranks dropped again after a 3 or 4 weeks' recover period.
    Signature
    Looking for godaddy renewal coupon? Check GodaddyRenewal.com!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563954].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by StoneWilson View Post

      Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Several of my sites were in the same place weeks ago, but all of their ranks dropped again after a 3 or 4 weeks' recover period.
      Not sure what you mean by that? It's been close to 6 weeks now, how long do you suggest that I wait until sharing something like this? We'll see how long the site survives - I'll keep this thread updated. Re-read the OP: it's just a test, nothing more.

      Your rankings dropped without a Penguin refresh? Must have been something completely unrelated then.

      There's a reason I put up a disclaimer in the OP - most people on this forum are semi brain dead or simply refuse to read.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6563989].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marketwarrior06
    Banned
    Its a great experiment, At least you haven't suggested it to others
    Actually you are lucky that's why you are not affected. another thing is that Penguin is little concerned about the links. As you have used 300 different anchors that's the reason you are saved.
    thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TuNguyen
    I really dont get why people dont just read a thread fully before replying. The OP is not endorsing this method, in fact quite the opposite; he has merely taken time out to share his experiences and data, and its up to us to take what we want from it.

    Thanks for sharing bnetwork.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564067].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author getano
    What pages did you use in the backlinking process? You forgot to mention. If you used only inner pages then it makes sense in a way.
    Maybe among those 3000 backlinks there are 10 that are considered helpful by Google.
    You used 300 anchor texts. This helps your backlinking profile look more natural, because you don't have only main-term keywords as anchor texts.
    Maybe you managed to trick Google!
    Signature


    Buy Google Plus Ones
    (delivered 100% manually) - Special discount for Warrior Forum Members
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564157].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Lot of accusations about not reading and people being stupid and not knowing **** So let me read the OP to you (so to speak).

      Once again - this probably isn't a good long-term strategy (but no one can prove or disprove this point tbh). However, there are so many random theories thrown around right now... Do your own testing, because most people don't know ****.
      Now that does leave the door open to some newbie reading that it might be a good long term strategy especially when you follow it up by saying no one can prove or disprove.

      If you can't prove in 2012 with tens of thousands of people getting notices for mass low quality backlinks is not a good strategy then you can't say anything about anything in SEO. That IS a proven fact.

      I don't want to rain on people posting their findings but there is something we all have to realize when we look a these kinds of findings - The scientific principles of sampling. We have tens of thousands of people getting unnatural link notices. The evidence is overwhelming. Its proven. "Testing yourself" is fine but the average SEO type has a very small sample size of sites. The smaller the sample size the more inherently unreliable are the results. There have been small studies in medicine that seemed to indicate this or that and then the study was repeated in a much larger sample and the results were COMPLETELY different.

      I see this alot of this forum - the idea that you can rely on your own testing when in fact you can't. I do my own tests but that MUST be supplemented by data from organizations that have far more reach and sample size than I do. Relying on your own testing a lot of time only leads to you learning things that are just plain wrong. WSOs are full of people who kid themselves they have some SEO tactic that works because a few sites they used moved up and it had nothing to do with their strategy because it flopped for most everyone else.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564603].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aaron86
    I guess you are right using different anchor text is one of the best way to rank a website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564619].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Lately I read someone's SEO strategy, first he did dripfeed links for a month, after he pointed a few strong links at his domain and he ranked for a ton of kw's that he targetted with the dripfeed links.

    At the end he explicitely said: This is a SHORT-TERM strategy!

    Fine, when you're okay with shipping money short term then there is nothing wrong with, but don't expect these kind of practises to last at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Lately I read someone's SEO strategy, first he did dripfeed links for a month, after he pointed a few strong links at his domain and he ranked for a ton of kw's that he targetted with the dripfeed links.

    At the end he explicitely said: This is a SHORT-TERM strategy!

    Fine, when you're okay with shipping money short term then there is nothing wrong with, but don't expect these kind of practises to last at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564625].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Jesus Christ people. Bnetwork is well aware that low quality links in abundance are not the best idea for SEO these days. He was just seeing what would happen to a site that was already screwed by Penguin if he threw a bunch more ****ty links at it. He decided to share what happened. He in no way said, "Hey if you are screwed by Penguin, do this."

    And even if his site doesn't get blasted in the near future in the SERPs, it is just one example and doesn't mean the same thing will happen to other sites. There are a billion different variables.

    My prediction is it will get caught up in one of the next few Penguin refreshes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564730].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Jesus Christ people. Bnetwork is well aware that low quality links in abundance are not the best idea for SEO these days. He was just seeing what would happen to a site that was already screwed by Penguin if he threw a bunch more ****ty links at it.
      That might be true MIke but This is WF. IF you don't think The title and some of the statements don't get some people to think hey maybe it worked for Bnet's site so....

      I'll leave you guys to it but I still don't get the point. What actionable is anyone going to take from this and what good does it do to tell newbies that what already has been proven might not actually be proven? with no real data to look at there is little to nothing that can be learned from it. The site could have gone up for any number of different reasons. Might have nothing at all to do with anchor text or links at all. As tryme excellently pointed out the Penguin 1.1 coincides with the rise so I really don't get how any of you think anything is learned here. I mean in regard to anything even anchor text diversity.



      When I asked Bnet what the point was I wasn't claiming he hadn't put disclaimers in like some of you misrepresent. I was asking just that what's the point? Anything conclusively learned? Nope. Based on the lack of data frankly its just anecdotal and based on the rise taking place during an algo change makes it even less reliable to draw anything from.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6566121].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
        Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

        And here's what GWT shows me (there's about 20-30 quality links in there, if that):
        bnet, can you post some screenshots from Majestic seo? would be nice to see the actual amount of links picked up over what period of time. Also what did you blast it with, scrapebox? or xrumer?...

        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        What actionable is anyone going to take from this and what good does it do to tell newbies that what already has been proven might not actually be proven?
        I don't care I'm trying it, I've got around a dozen domains sat around doing nothing but collecting hosting and domain renewal costs.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6566189].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bolocancristian
        I would be interested to see what happens to the site after 1-2 Penguin refreshes.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6733331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnnys229
    As mentioned by Mike, G does not like low quality links, especially nowadays in 2012, so I predict your site might be back down after the next refresh. Remember, Penguin is a periodic refresh and as such it is not running every day, or even every week, or even every month. It runs when Google feels like it. So it's best to wait until then for some conclusive results.

    My own experiments have shown the opposite, low quality links (even with random anchor texts) do not change the results. Any small positive results eventually diminished at the next refresh. So we're contradicting eachother at the moment - such is the uncertainty and non-exact nature of SEO :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Haikela84
    Nice! But I'm not blasting low quality links to any of my sites yet. Let us know after the next Google update if gets hit.
    Signature
    Top notch Virtual Assistant Services

    Avail of our July Promo

    Only $2 an hour for the whole month of July!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6564994].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    Holy **** people THINK. All I'm trying to show you is that varying your anchor text could me more important than you think.

    And let me find that link for you Fraggler... give me a sec.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
      Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

      Holy **** people THINK. All I'm trying to show you is that varying your anchor text could me more important than you think.

      And let me find that link for you Fraggler... give me a sec.
      Thanks for that.

      Your first sentence is what has me confused though and just thinking out load here...

      You're saying that a blast to dilute anchor text abuse is helping a site break the Penguin filter/penalty but you're also saying that Penguin is a manual update that only gets a refresh when Google says so. Why is a penalised site moving if the changes haven't been refreshed yet? Wouldn't that mean that Google is now looking at anchor text abuse in it's real time algorithm?

      It's quite an interesting scenario if what you say about push button refreshes is correct. It could also be a simple difference of any blast of backlinks still having a temporary spike but once Penguin does its thing it looks at the quality of links and then applies it's filters. That would mean this rise isn't due to anchor text dilution.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567054].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author retsek
        Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

        Thanks for that.

        Your first sentence is what has me confused though and just thinking out load here...

        You're saying that a blast to dilute anchor text abuse is helping a site break the Penguin filter/penalty but you're also saying that Penguin is a manual update that only gets a refresh when Google says so. Why is a penalised site moving if the changes haven't been refreshed yet? Wouldn't that mean that Google is now looking at anchor text abuse in it's real time algorithm?
        The site was hit in Penguin 1.0 (april 24th), recovery happened in Penguin 1.1 (may 25th).

        Penguin recoveries can only happen when there's an update/data refresh. If a site recovers when there was no known update then it likely means the site wasn't hit directly by penugin in the first place.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567082].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
        Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

        Thanks for that.
        Sorry about that!

        Here's a good page with dates of most major updates along with some info: Google Algorithm Change History | SEOmoz
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author feyt333
    I 301'd new domain

    this method help new site?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Oranges
    @ bnetwork - Curious to know, what type of links you've used for this experiment? (elgg, drup pages, bbpress forum posts and stuff like that?) also did you use spun content?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565482].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikeshinobi
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565494].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Oranges
      Originally Posted by mikeshinobi View Post

      It's pretty unlikely those rankings will last unless you continue building links and adding content to that site. Don't delude yourself into believing you can blast your site with some spam, hit page 1 and stay there forever. If it were that easy, everyone would be on page 1 for their keywords.
      errrrrrrrrr.....! The whole experiment is based on "ANCHOR TEXT DIVERSITY" not a "LINK BLAST".
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565507].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author skoh
        HURR DURR -
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565526].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mikeshinobi
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565555].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
          Originally Posted by mikeshinobi View Post

          Thanks OP. I'm going to build 10k links to my payday loan site with diverse anchors and rank on page 1 by tomorrow. Well, ttyl.
          You can do better than that, Mike. Read these one more time:

          Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

          Right, here's a disclaimer first.

          I don't recommend blasting your websites with tons of low quality backlinks. This was just a test - I don't care about that particular website one bit. I always test stuff, like dozens of tests running all the time. I know that correlation doesn't imply causation, you don't need to remind me of that.
          Once again - this probably isn't a good long-term strategy (but no one can prove or disprove this point tbh). However, there are so many random theories thrown around right now... Do your own testing, because most people don't know ****.
          Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

          There's a reason I put up a disclaimer in the OP - most people on this forum are semi brain dead or simply refuse to read.
          Ok now this:

          Originally Posted by IceToEskimos View Post

          While you may be able to rank with them now, they offer zero equity, and if you aren't in this for the equity, then what are you really doing?
          Yes. Anyway...

          I don't care about explaining SEO basics to half of the posters in this thread. I couldn't care less what someone with no common sense takes away from all of this. I'm not here to "protect" anyone, because you can't "protect" people from stupid.

          I'm done answering the same question over and over again.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568315].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            I don't care about explaining SEO basics to half of the posters in this thread. I couldn't care less what someone with no common sense takes away from all of this. I'm not here to "protect" anyone, because you can't "protect" people from stupid.
            Agree you can't protect people from stupid but since you continue to throw around insults and claim that anyone that questions your study is stupid (seriously I can't remember any other thread on WF where the OP just non stop kept calling people stupid) . I'll put it straight. This is one of the WORST poorly done studies/self testing I have ever seen. Its pretty much worthless and lacks the very SEO basics that you are accusing everybody else of not having the sense to see. Its SEO testing 101 that you cannot determine anything from a rise that takes place coinciding with an update that absolutely no one knows but Google what was updated. so despite your claims of learning something from it there is absolutely nothing to take from it. Its totally worthless by every standard of a scientific test. If an update happens around the same time you get results the whole test has to be scrapped. Doesn't matter a wit that you put disclaimers in there the test itself is a total bust for the reasons stated.

            The title and the paragraph that claims that it is not proven that what you did with these sites is not a good long term strategy is just misleading to newbs as I stated and has now been proven by some responses of people looking to follow that strategy. So on one side the results are unreliable and on the other side newbs will be led astray. Its a total fail in intelligent testing and the fact that you think everyone else is stupid for not seeing that only makes it worse.

            Seriously though ease up on the name calling. All the "stupid" "they don't know ****" just makes you sound like a kid
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568668].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
              I get a feeling that you (you personally) feel offended by this thread. I don't have a grudge against you Mike.

              Do I know that most people who commented didn't even bother to fully read and digest the OP? Yes. Do I think that they're stupid? Yes I do, so what? It's just my opinion.

              edit: calling someone stupid makes me sound like a kid? I'm fine with that.

              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              This is one of the WORST poorly done studies/self testing I have ever seen.
              Better than pretty much anything else I've seen posted here. Most threads are just a bunch of bullet points with opinions stated as facts. I don't claim to have proved anything.

              Its pretty much worthless and lacks the very SEO basics that you are accusing everybody else of not having the sense to see. Its SEO testing 101 that you cannot determine anything from a rise that takes place coinciding with an update that absolutely no one knows but Google what was updated.
              Disagree here. It's 99% Penguin related, especially since the site got dinged by Penguin 1.0.

              None of the other sites where I've done nothing recovered. ALL of my 301's are going strong after the refresh though, but this thread isn't about that. This particular website recovered, so I posted the screenshots and what was done. I say make what you want of this.

              I have also posted that I know that correlation doesn't imply causation, which is what you've been hinting at for a while now.

              Its totally worthless by every standard of a scientific test. Doesn't matter a wit that you put disclaimers in there the test itself is a total bust for the reasons stated.
              SEO as we do it isn't a science (and never will be). And you're not a scientist (yeah I remember your old "SEO scientist" line).

              The title and the paragraph that claims that it is not proven that what you did with these sites is not a good long term strategy is just misleading to newbs...
              ...newbs will be led astray.
              I don't care. You're welcome to start a thread teaching newbs how to do SEO... I think you already have. It's a good starting point for anyone looking to learn the ropes.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568721].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

                I get a feeling that you (you personally) feel offended by this thread. I don't have any grudge against you Mike.
                Nope the only thing I find offensive is you constantly in this thread calling people stupid. Its in fact the only reason I posted again because the test as I said is worthless and yes I think most mature adults would consider constant name calling as childish.

                Do I know that most people who commented didn't even bother to fully read and digest the OP? Yes. Do I think that they're stupid? Yes I do, so what? It's just my opinion.
                Thats a poor excuse for name calling. Under that rationale people could call people anything they wanted on this board and pass it off as just their opinion. Its fine to describe behavours as stupid or even ideas/responses but what you have been doing incessantly is calling people stupid for not falling all over themselves over your very flawed test.

                Better than pretty much anything else I've seen posted here.
                Get over yourself. Its one of the worst threads. For someone not interested in being an SEO guru you sure are doing alot of promoting of yourself. Everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid and now this thread is one of the best ever. sheesh pretty arrogant. Electron Plumber did some excellent stuff , Terry Kyle back in the day just to name two, Plenty of people have done great scientific studies. Your "test" is not even in their league.

                Disagree here. It's 99% Penguin related, especially since the site got dinged by Penguin 1.0.
                Well of course you disagree but just one question - do you know Google's algo and specifically what was in the update? I don't mean what you think. Shucks man Don't you know that there are sites who did nothing in almost every update move up? Look at your graph. May 25th soars and its the same time of an update. Can you isolate other factors besides anchor text? NO because you would have to know that the refresh only addressed anchor text diversity and Google isn't letting all those cats out the bag. Its sad I have to state again but its basic SEO testing that if a rise occurs during an algo change the test in progress has to be scrapped. This IS just common sense because you can't isolate all the other factors. Noe if Google came out and told us everything in an update then yeah but thats not the Google we have to deal with.

                Incidentally in many serps people get tunnel visioned about the idea of moving up. in many cases depending on the variables of that serp they don't move up as much as other sites fall in an update.

                It doesn't matter a whit that you had other sites that didn't move up. Perhaps those just wreaked even more - regardless its anecdotal and as someone in this thread has already pointed out they did see changes on sites they did nothing with.

                the idea that anchor text variation had something to do with Penguin is months old. Absolutely nothing new so you would think that everyone that got that memo and runs SenukeX would have recovered by now but strangely I see ton loads of them still complaining they haven't recovered. That directly contradicts the idea that anything real can be learned from your small sample isolated test.

                SEO as we do it isn't a science (and never will be). And you're not a scientist (yeah I remember your old "SEO scientist" line).
                and are you a chipmunk? Whats the point? Testing HAS to be scientific or its worthless. Has nothing to do with all of SEO being scientific. That you think that you can't do tests in SEO that follow scientific principles is strange to say the least. If you hold to that all your studies have no hope of learning anything real.

                So in essence you are not answering the same questions over and over again instead you are just claiming that since SEO isn't ,science that you don't have to answer the flaws in the study and then claiming everyone is stupid that points that out meanwhile telling newbs that what is a proven fact is really not.

                A lot of regulars have expressed amazement at objections to the study but I am amazed that they can look at your graph know where Penguin was updated and not see the very obvious flaws that make the study worthless.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568827].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Well of course you disagree but just one question - do you know Google's algo and specifically what was in the update?
                  Of course not. I never claimed that.

                  I wrote a long reply, but, frankly, I can't be bothered any more.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568887].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

                    Of course not. I never claimed that.

                    I wrote a long reply, but, frankly, I can't be bothered any more.
                    Now its you missing the point and not reading. The fact that you can't isolate that and the sites rose during the update is what makes the entire test worthless. Has nothing to do with the length or your reply. No reply changes that fact. You have claimed that something can be learned from such a test and its nonsense. No one who has the first clue would take a rise during an update and try to claim that something can be learned about one particular metric being tested (anchor text). Every update can track potentially a hundred or more metrics. Sites of all sorts of sites go up and down for what seems to us inexplicable reasons precisely because we don't know all those metrics Its skews the whole test. People testing any factor could walk away thinking they learned something

                    People can get all upset at my objections, bring Jesus Christ into it, say people don't read yada yada yada. It s baffling to me that many can't see that huge flaw of a MAY 25 rise (right when an update rolls out ) staring them right in the face.

                    Hey but like you said you don't care who gets mislead by it, you are content at constant name calling because "its your opinion" and since SEO isn't a science you don't have to live or do tests by any scientific standards. Just spare me putting down all the other great contributions by people in this forum and claiming that this is one of the best threads WF has seen. There have been ton loads better that actually made sense. Self testing is fine but once you bring it to the public expect a poorly done test to be questioned. Plus when you are throwing the word "stupid" around so freely to others its only right for them to point it out in your own test.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569592].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
                      Where you seem to be misunderstanding me is that you assume that my "cure" is building tons of low quality backlinks. That couldn't be further from the truth, as I was simply trying to see if changing up anchor text diversity might help. And it did.
                      This is a great test of a domain you're willing to risk and it seems to verify my hunch that this was almost exclusively about using overoptimized keyword backlinks (something I am guilty of).

                      I've been thinking about trying to restore a few of my sites this way (vary the anchor text ratio), but never got around to it.

                      We need more willing to do these tests and fewer bitching about what others do with their own domains.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569834].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

                        We need more willing to do these tests and fewer bitching about what others do with their own domains.
                        Thats utter nonsense. No one is bitching (I guess we can add that to stupid and can't read accusations) about what people do with their own domains. You can do whatever silliness you want with your own domains - who cares? but if you post a test publicly for people to learn from then theres nothing to say everyone has to fall all over themselves to accept it and no one can critique it. If you hadn't noticed its a forum.

                        Thank you for proving my point though . I said people would latch on to it precisely as the title led them to believe - an effective penguin recovery strategy. Now just one question I haven't raised yet.

                        How do you all intend on duplicating what you have "learned" (or to use your word - verified) from this "Test"? I submit that practically for most people the claim that this has nothing to do with blasting is a crock. The OP and his supporters just have not thought things through. even with anchor text variation you still need enough anchor text targeting your keywords (unless this was a drop deadweak serp making it even more unreliable as a test)

                        Now look at the numbers from the OP - 3,000 links and 300 varied text. Now forget the 3,000 lets just look at the 300 varied text. How many people on Wf know how to get 300 quality links? or 150? or 75? or 25? Plus what seems totally lost by people is that as you lower that you by mathematical neccessity change the variety ratio. So the only actionable thing people will take from that on a practical level IS to blast low quality links.

                        Frankly this deeply flawed unscientic anecdotal approach to testing has launched a thousand SEO WSos that are full of hot air and don't work. Claiming that this is some great test and one of the best threads :rolleyes: just adds to that nonsense culture. The regulars supporting the viability of this study owe an apology to all the WSO sellers I have seen them over the years criticize precisely because of anecdotal results and poorly done tests.
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571359].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author IceToEskimos
        Originally Posted by Oranges View Post

        errrrrrrrrr.....! The whole experiment is based on "ANCHOR TEXT DIVERSITY" not a "LINK BLAST".
        If you think that something as easily manipulated as "anchor text" is going to save you from an update slap, I feel sorry for you.

        Bulk links are bulk links for a reason.

        They are cheap.

        Cheap links are cheap links for a reason.

        They are easy to build.

        Easy links are easy links for a reason.

        They don't have much value.

        Low Value links are Low Value links for a reason.

        They have an extremely high rate of attrition (link loss).

        You can fool around with anchor text all you want, but it's not going to insulate you from the cold hard truth that low quality links are low quality links.

        While you may be able to rank with them now, they offer zero equity, and if you aren't in this for the equity, then what are you really doing?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565564].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author skoh
          Originally Posted by IceToEskimos View Post

          If you think that something as easily manipulated as "anchor text" is going to save you from an update slap, I feel sorry for you.

          Bulk links are bulk links for a reason.

          They are cheap.

          Cheap links are cheap links for a reason.

          They are easy to build.

          Easy links are easy links for a reason.

          They don't have much value.

          Low Value links are Low Value links for a reason.

          They have an extremely high rate of attrition (link loss).

          You can fool around with anchor text all you want, but it's not going to insulate you from the cold hard truth that low quality links are low quality links.

          While you may be able to rank with them now, they offer zero equity, and if you aren't in this for the equity, then what are you really doing?
          Strong 1nd
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kdshields
    Out of curiosity, are you using Scrapebox for your low quality backlinks? i.e..are these blog comments, forum profiles, what kind of low quality backlinks?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565591].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Oranges
    Hmmmmm! Did someone notice these new IDs with 1 post?
    Bizarre!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565620].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IceToEskimos
      Originally Posted by Oranges View Post

      Hmmmmm! Did someone notice these new IDs with 1 post?
      Bizarre!
      So, because I have a low post count, my contributions aren't welcome?

      I'm only trying to help.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565871].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
        Originally Posted by mikeshinobi View Post

        It's pretty unlikely those rankings will last unless you continue building links and adding content to that site. Don't delude yourself into believing you can blast your site with some spam, hit page 1 and stay there forever. If it were that easy, everyone would be on page 1 for their keywords.
        It was there for about 8 months before Penguin hit, the rankings will likely last. Unless, of course, the links drop off (as they're mostly on low quality sites that disappear overnight) and the site gets hit again.

        I really don't care how long the site ranks. That wasn't the point.

        Originally Posted by IceToEskimos View Post

        So, because I have a low post count, my contributions aren't welcome?

        I'm only trying to help.
        IceToEskimos does post (not here) good advice from time to time, he's a good dude, lol. Though I'm a little surprised that he's trolling here now.

        edit: it's actually pretty awesome that he joined here just to post in this thread.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6566046].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author IceToEskimos
          Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

          IceToEskimos does post (not here) good advice from time to time, he's a good dude, lol. Though I'm a little surprised that he's trolling here now.

          edit: it's actually pretty awesome that he joined here just to post in this thread.
          There's the welcome I was expecting.

          Thanks bnet.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6566500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Got something to comment about anchor diveristy, my client site was already pretty diversed but then he wanted me to focus on 1 keyword only and he got a penalty soon after, a bit too soon imo.

    Anyway we builded a bunch of strong links and he got his rankings back but not completely, then we decided to change all the anchor txt and url's that we previously build to vary it up very wide.

    Now guess what? He lost his rankings AGAIN
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565646].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThatAblaze
    Interesting, nik0. That implies that penguin is looking for anchor text manipulation rather then for diversity specifically.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6565749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Ok cool, thanks. That makes sense. I didn't know the dates so didn't piece that together. It kind of sheds some light on the quality and truth between the Penguin recovery products swamping the market if recovery can only happen when Google says so.

    I guess the key was to not get penalised in the first place.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567308].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      Ok cool, thanks. That makes sense. I didn't know the dates so didn't piece that together. It kind of sheds some light on the quality and truth between the Penguin recovery products swamping the market if recovery can only happen when Google says so.
      HEy troy . I missed this before. I would need alot more evidence than Retsek has provided to buy into his thesis. Penguin like Panda is to my knowledge a algo update. the same way that sites can move up in between updates if the crawl finds new factors its potentially the same way it can move up if it doesn't find those factors.

      Maybe I missed a Google announcement but I haven;t seen even a zilch point 0001 evidence that if you lose all the factors that are weighing you down that you cannot move up in between updates. I'm open to seeing the evidence for this claim that a recovery can only happen with a refresh but none has been presented.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571860].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author retsek
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        HEy troy . I missed this before. I would need alot more evidence than Retsek has provided to buy into his thesis. Penguin like Panda is to my knowledge a algo update. the same way that sites can move up in between updates if the crawl finds new factors its potentially the same way it can move up if it doesn't find those factors.

        Maybe I missed a Google announcement but I haven;t seen even a zilch point 0001 evidence that if you lose all the factors that are weighing you down that you cannot move up in between updates. I'm open to seeing the evidence for this claim that a recovery can only happen with a refresh but none has been presented.
        Why Google Panda Is More A Ranking Factor Than Algorithm Update

        Enter Panda. Rather than being a change to the overall ranking algorithm, Panda is more a new ranking factor that has been added into the algorithm...

        Panda is a filter that Google has designed to spot what it believes are low-quality pages. Have too many low-quality pages, and Panda effectively flags your entire site. Being Pandified, Pandification — whatever clever name you want to call it — doesn’t mean that your entire site is out of Google. But it does mean that pages within your site carry a penalty designed to help ensure only the better ones make it into Google’s top results...

        Instead, Google runs the filter periodically to calculate the values it needs. Each new run so far has also coincided with changes to the filter, some big, some small, that Google hopes improves catching poor quality content. So far, the Panda schedule has been like this:
        Both Panda and Penguin are filters/penalties (whatever you want to call it), that run alongside the main algo but are not realtime. Of course other factors will affect a site, but recovery from those two updates can only happen when a site makes changes and filters are refreshed. There's been cases where sites that have made no changes have recovered at the time of an update/refresh. That's usually attributed to Google tweaking and changing aspects of Panda -- for example they may do something to reduce false positives.

        It's the same for other things like the ATF update in January.

        All this is the general consensus which you can glean from sites like seobythesea, interviews with Cutts at SEL, seomoz, etc. You're not gonna find smoking gun evidence cause as you know Google is always vague about their updates.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6572027].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
          Originally Posted by deeznuts View Post

          Was this added later or was always in the original post?
          Yes.

          Originally Posted by retsek View Post

          Why Google Panda Is More A Ranking Factor Than Algorithm Update

          Both Panda and Penguin are filters/penalties (whatever you want to call it), that run alongside the main algo but are not realtime. Of course other factors will affect a site, but recovery from those two updates can only happen when a site makes changes and filters are refreshed. There's been cases where sites that have made no changes have recovered at the time of an update/refresh. That's usually attributed to Google tweaking and changing aspects of Panda -- for example they may do something to reduce false positives.

          It's the same for other things like the ATF update in January.

          All this is the general consensus which you can glean from sites like seobythesea, interviews with Cutts at SEL, seomoz, etc. You're not gonna find smoking gun evidence cause as you know Google is always vague about their updates.
          And this.

          Mike, do you honestly not believe that both Panda and Penguin are periodically run filters?

          For the record, I never said this: "one of the best threads ever created on wf". There are hundreds of better threads on this forum - most of them not on SEO.

          I get a feeling that you're very bitter right now - why? Beyond me.

          No one has scientific evidence for anything-SEO, including any of the techniques in Mike's videos or the "white hat" stuff posted here - that's if we were to use scientific testing as the only acceptable form of proof.

          Niko, there's your answer ^^ right here. That's just the nature of this industry. Read up more on proper scientific testing and you'll understand why the principles don't apply to SEO. It can be frustrating, but that's just how things are.

          Good thread overall, would post again!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6573404].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Thats it? You are making an absolute statement about Penguin based on an article in Searchengine land about Panda? Thats really poor evidence. First let me say I have tremendous respect for both searchengineland, Seomoz, etc but they will be the first to say they are on the outside looking in.

          Both Panda and Penguin are filters/penalties (whatever you want to call it), that run alongside the main algo but are not realtime
          Has nothing to do with it my concerns over your blanket statement. Obviously some aspect of a search engine's working can't run all the time but I'd like to see the evidence that the Penguin can run when and only when their is a known update. there is absolutely nothing in that article that states anywhere that that has to be the case. even the very article you link to states the following


          Each new run so far has also coincided with changes to the filter, some big, some small, that Google hopes improves catching poor quality content.
          two things about this paragraph.

          A)Searchengineland is in no way backing that panda can only be run when there is an update as you claim just stating what they think is a trend based on what they think is the case and certainly no rule.
          b) We have no idea when Panda, Penguin etc are run UNLESS there is a programmed change and google either announces it or it shakes up the serps in a noticeable way. Google is on record hat they do hundreds of changes every year to the algo and yet there are no hundreds of major named updates and most fly right under the radar.

          in short you have presented absolutely no evidence that Google does not run either penguin or panda more than just the known updates

          Of course other factors will affect a site, but recovery from those two updates can only happen when a site makes changes and filters are refreshed.
          You can state it ten more times you still have no evidence for this.

          There's been cases where sites that have made no changes have recovered at the time of an update/refresh.
          Of course sites will move up and down when there are changes. that doesn't prove anything but that when there are changes that will happen . It does not indicate that Penguin cannot be run between changes to reasses new sites, sites that have for one reason or another gained authority or changed content.

          Furthermore the very title of the article you linked to does not make any absolute ruling out of changes in the real time algo that are meant to hook into the non real time parts of Penguin. It merely states an opinion of what it may be MORE of

          quote]the general consensus which you can glean from sites like seobythesea, interviews with Cutts at SEL, seomoz, etc. You're not gonna find smoking gun evidence cause as you know Google is always vague about their updates.[/QUOTE]

          Its not a matter of smoking gun evidence you have presented none whatsoever . Even your link does not support the blanket statement you have made that a recovery can only happen when there is an update.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576513].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author retsek
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Thats it? You are making an absolute statement about Penguin based on an article in Searchengine land about Panda? Thats really poor evidence. First let me say I have tremendous respect for both searchengineland, Seomoz, etc but they will be the first to say they are on the outside looking in.



            Has nothing to do with it my concerns over your blanket statement. Obviously some aspect of a search engine's working can't run all the time but I'd like to see the evidence that the Penguin can run when and only when their is a known update. there is absolutely nothing in that article that states anywhere that that has to be the case. even the very article you link to states the following




            two things about this paragraph.

            A)Searchengineland is in no way backing that panda can only be run when there is an update as you claim just stating what they think is a trend based on what they think is the case and certainly no rule.
            b) We have no idea when Panda, Penguin etc are run UNLESS there is a programmed change and google either announces it or it shakes up the serps in a noticeable way. Google is on record hat they do hundreds of changes every year to the algo and yet there are no hundreds of major named updates and most fly right under the radar.

            in short you have presented absolutely no evidence that Google does not run either penguin or panda more than just the known updates



            You can state it ten more times you still have no evidence for this.



            Of course sites will move up and down when there are changes. that doesn't prove anything but that when there are changes that will happen . It does not indicate that Penguin cannot be run between changes to reasses new sites, sites that have for one reason or another gained authority or changed content.

            Furthermore the very title of the article you linked to does not make any absolute ruling out of changes in the real time algo that are meant to hook into the non real time parts of Penguin. It merely states an opinion of what it may be MORE of

            quote]the general consensus which you can glean from sites like seobythesea, interviews with Cutts at SEL, seomoz, etc. You're not gonna find smoking gun evidence cause as you know Google is always vague about their updates.

            Its not a matter of smoking gun evidence you have presented none whatsoever . Even your link does not support the blanket statement you have made that a recovery can only happen when there is an update.
            I seriously have no idea what you're arguing about. :confused:

            Mate, the bottom line ..basically what I'm saying ....is that panda/penguin recoveries can only happen when there's a data refresh or an update. Whether that refresh/update is publicized or not, doesn't change the fact that recovery can only happen when the panda/penguin filters are re-run or tweaked.

            I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. How about putting forward thoughts of your own ? If SEL isn't the authority on search engine operations, then I have to ask who is ? I linked to that article, because I thought it would explain in layman terms for you how it works. You can go search and find interviews on SEL with Cutts that say the same thing.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577072].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by retsek View Post

              I seriously have no idea what you're arguing about. :confused:

              Mate, the bottom line ..basically what I'm saying ....is that panda/penguin recoveries can only happen when there's a data refresh or an update. Whether that refresh/update is publicized or not, doesn't change the fact that recovery can only happen when the panda/penguin filters are re-run or tweaked.
              Not only don't you understand other people posts but you lose your own train of thought. Read your post 55 and where you directly refer to known updates and stop being silly. Heres a snip

              If a site recovers when there was no known update then it likely means the site wasn't hit directly by penugin in the first place
              :rolleyes: my point is pretty clear and it seems like you have finally realized it. you have absolutely no evidence for what you have stated. you can get all irritated at me if you wish but it is what it is. As the snippet above proves you were referring to known updates.

              I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

              Look people who don't understand what they write and can't be honest about it always try that crappy argument. again read your post 55 it was what was being responded to .

              How about putting forward thoughts of your own ? If SEL isn't the authority on search engine operations, then I have to ask who is ?
              Look Retsek between your blanket statements in this thread and the total silliness of your claims in my 5,000 post thread that anyone using web 2.0s automatically has to be using low quality content I consider responding to you further a waste of time. your pointing to a search engine land article about Panda to support your argument about Penguin that doesn't even support your blankets absolute statements (even for Panda) is too silly to go back and forth with you. As I related before but it was lost on you - not even Search Engine Land themselves would back your premise that they are the last word on SEO.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6583549].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        HEy troy . I missed this before. I would need alot more evidence than Retsek has provided to buy into his thesis. Penguin like Panda is to my knowledge a algo update. the same way that sites can move up in between updates if the crawl finds new factors its potentially the same way it can move up if it doesn't find those factors.

        Maybe I missed a Google announcement but I haven;t seen even a zilch point 0001 evidence that if you lose all the factors that are weighing you down that you cannot move up in between updates. I'm open to seeing the evidence for this claim that a recovery can only happen with a refresh but none has been presented.
        Oh I wasn't buying into the experiment itself either way. I was more curious about Google reverting back to refreshes of the index rather than the shift towards a dynamic algorithm due to the boosts from Caffeine. The only thing I can find about such a statement is through forum/blog chatter and a tweet by Matt Cutts. Something official would be handy but unlikely.

        I thought the updates may have been tweaks to the algorithm to reduce false positives or something so there was movement when it got applied. The new algo changes may have released some sites faster than usual.

        The one thing that is obvious is the huge jump occurred around the time Matt Cutts made the tweet about the 'data refresh'.

        The experiment is anything but conclusive but it might be a starting point or a motivator for others to try something extreme on their dead sites and commentating on the results. That's when patterns can start to emerge.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574101].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jpsween88
    Why would you want low quality backlinks in the first place?
    Signature

    Please do not use your signature to promote affiliate/MLM programs

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author boxoun
    It's not really a positive result unless you can repeat it. If you had 2 sites with simular results then we can begin to assume you were correct. To claim that it was a penguin recovery is a bit of a stretch. I'm not trying to be Debbie downer its just that I had similar massive jump at same time to 3 sites and 1 of them is currently penalized with link spam notice. If I posted same screen shot and said "the key to penguin recovery is to not do anything" you would roll your eyes too. I'm just adding some info for you to consider. Not putting you down. I wish I can believe this so I can just spam the crap out of my sites.. oh wait I already did that lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

    I don't care about explaining SEO basics to half of the posters in this thread. I couldn't care less what someone with no common sense takes away from all of this. I'm not here to "protect" anyone, because you can't "protect" people from stupid.

    I'm done answering the same question over and over again.


    So many unappreciative flamers in the last week or so.

    If I knew of a better private forum I would consider packing up & GTFO.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      Ok cool, thanks. That makes sense. I didn't know the dates so didn't piece that together. It kind of sheds some light on the quality and truth between the Penguin recovery products swamping the market if recovery can only happen when Google says so.

      I guess the key was to not get penalised in the first place.
      Exactly.

      Originally Posted by boxoun View Post

      It's not really a positive result unless you can repeat it. If you had 2 sites with simular results then we can begin to assume you were correct.
      Agreed, which is why I mentioned (maybe 2 or 3 times) that I have another (nearly identical) test running right now. Won't be able to tell much until a Penguin refresh though.

      Also, as mentioned previously, I never claimed to be "correct" in any way. A site got dinged, sent a bunch of links to it and it recovered during the next algo refresh. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.

      If I posted same screen shot and said "the key to penguin recovery is to not do anything" you would roll your eyes too.
      Erm, nope. We work in a correlation industry, any real data is good to have, even if it goes against what I believe in (which isn't the case here).

      I'm just adding some info for you to consider.
      I've seen you post about it before, and it did give me something to think about. Which is why I remember you posting about it in the first place.

      I wish I can believe this so I can just spam the crap out of my sites.. oh wait I already did that lol.
      lol.

      I'd do a full 301 redirect and focus on quality backlinks. Add some new content while you're at it and your site is almost guaranteed to recover AND stay that way.

      My low quality backlink blast was just a test to a site I don't really care about. Ironically, the site pulls in around $8/day right now, which is what most people here dream about. If it maintains its rankings for at last 5-6 months, I'm going to flip it for $2-$3k... if not, who cares.

      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      So many unappreciative flamers in the last week or so.

      If I knew of a better private forum I would consider packing up & GTFO.
      Such is the nature of most IM forums, I guess. Once you stop giving a damn, it's kinda fun waking up in the morning and reading all these comments, lol. Makes me feel all warm inside.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6568632].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author plsearch
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      So many unappreciative flamers in the last week or so.

      If I knew of a better private forum I would consider packing up & GTFO.
      If you find one let me know please, this place is starting to remind me of digital point
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author deezn
    What's the big deal?

    It's a throw away site. He was probably going to abandon it right bnetwork? Hey, I'm going to probably throw away this site. Let me do something CRAZY and see what happens. Holy crap, something good happened.

    So he shares it. For those with the same ... throw away sites you're going to abandon it anyway, try it. If 9 out of 10 get the same results, you have something. If nobody else has the same results, then it was just a one time quirk.

    What's the harm? He clearly tried it on a site he wasn't interested in saving. The post says as much. If someone reads his post which clearly states so, but tries it on a site they care about, whose fault is that?

    I don't recommend blasting your websites with tons of low quality backlinks. This was just a test - I don't care about that particular website one bit. I always test stuff, like dozens of tests running all the time. I know that correlation doesn't imply causation, you don't need to remind me of that.
    Was this added later or was always in the original post? I mean, if you read that, and then still try it on a website you care about, that's entirely your fault. I won't call them stupid but I may question their rational decision making.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571211].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by deeznuts View Post


      So he shares it. For those with the same ... throw away sites you're going to abandon it anyway, try it. If 9 out of 10 get the same results, you have something.
      thing is though You really have nothing. The only way the test can be duplicated for most people is to depend on low quality links which is a known and totally proven way of getting you into an unnatural link notice and then your sites are even more toast. has this board gone mad? You got into this situation by low quality links and now you are ready to bounce around a study that shows no rise outside of one that occurs at the identical time of an algo update :rolleyes: and a study involving a blast?

      Was this added later or was always in the original post? I mean, if you read that, and then still try it on a website you care about, that's entirely your fault.
      Then what in the world is the point? according to the OP this is the best thread he has ever seen on Wf and all it can only be applied to is sites that you DON'T care about? But even that is poor thinking. Who ever built a site they didn't care about. The only reason people are talking about not caring about the sites is because for the last few months they have tanked but heres the deal -

      given the kind of backlinking done by most people on WF its only a matter of time before a vast amount of their links are deleted. Sites remove spam comments. Forums remove links . BMR links deindexed will fall out of the link graph data eventually and still other links can be removed. So a ton load of people whose sites are now tanked are going to find later in the year their sties can be moved back up. Will that be the case if you get an unnatural link notice? No. thats not algo related. You are in Google's dog house and you can't get out unless they grant you a reconsideration which you stand never to get.

      So lets not kid newbies and people who don;t know any better that trying to mimick this test (as now at least three people have indicated they want to do) has no down side. It has plenty of down side.

      anyway I am done (unless of course theres more accusations and name calling). absolutely no one is addressing the obvious and glaring flaws in this test. They are merely, to use another posters words, "bitching" about people pointing out said flaws.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571565].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KISARAGI
    Thanks for this information, it's very useful!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author retsek
    For me, this test confirms what others have already suspected, Penguin has alot to do your anchor text ratios for non-branded terms. Take the test as a representation of how to recover, but don't take it literally ..i.e don't go blasting links.

    Simply, if you've got tons of over-optimized anchor text then try removing some (especially those sitewides) and adding more for variety. Doing both will work towards tipping the scales back in your favor.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sovereignn
    Nothing new here..... Whenever you blast links at your website you get a bump in the rankings

    I've sent over 100k links to my website in a day and guess what I was instantly boosted to first

    Now how long it lasts is another story... There's no doubt in my mind in a week or two you'll be slapped into oblivion. I mean sure there's a 1% chance you wont be but lets be real here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571484].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    I don't know why it is but the SEO community is about the worse community of everything there is when talking about scientific/factual things. The only thing I see around me is guessing and even more guessing.

    Even a simple thing like:

    - Will a domain that has been dropped a few years ago keep it's power to rank other sites? (cause there are still strong links pointed at it)

    Stays unanswered at whole the internet. I mean is there really no one who ever tested these kind of things or is there just not a single sole who wants to share this knowlegde. Soon I'll be able to give an answer to that but it just amazes me that the only results I get are: "I think...." "Probably..." "ToysRus lost it rankings for toys when it bought toys.com....". But nothing that answers the question.

    If even such simple things remains unanswered then I bet the Penguin update will remain a mystery for ever.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6571927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    ^^I'd like people to remember this: vary your anchor text and add in tons of "naked URL's". Spam wasn't the point - the site was already spammed before my blast.

    Matt Cutts tweets every time there's a "refresh" or a "roll out" and all hell breaks loose on webmaster forums - for a reason.

    Caffeine is a totally different change/mod: it doesn't target spam or on-page quality.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574142].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Caffeine wasn't an algorithm, it was a change in the way they handle their data so they can process changes a lot faster. It was to remove the delays in acting on data with the benefit of knocking out exploits fast - that's why I think push-button refreshes seem odd.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574327].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      Caffeine wasn't an algorithm, it was a change in the way they handle their data so they can process changes a lot faster. It was to remove the delays in acting on data with the benefit of knocking out exploits fast - that's why I think push-button refreshes seem odd.
      It's a different way to build "an index", which is 100% based on an algorithm (everything is). Most likely a combination of algorithms. It's an indexing system - a foundation - that's it.

      A lot of low quality, spammy, even malicious websites are included in this "index". It does have some qualifiers though, we just don't know what they are.

      Official Google Blog: Our new search index: Caffeine

      This "index" of websites is then put through their rankings algorithms to filter out obvious crap, and you get SERP results.

      Now, they also have Panda and Penguin, which are both run periodically (on top of that "index" of websites). Because neither of those are real time, you can still rank ****ty sites with several link blasts - but then a "slap" comes when a data refresh is done.

      That's my take on it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574432].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IM Ash
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      ...that's why I think push-button refreshes seem odd.
      Resource intensive!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574798].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author karismasand
        Hi 2 all.

        After pinguin i don't write anything on blogs on forum about how to get back from Pinguin hit.

        What you did is exact the conclusion i have come studying how to rank after pinguin.

        IF YOU WANNA TO RANK HIGHER IN SERPS MAKE SPAM LINK WITH DIFFERENT ANCHOR.

        Will be a lot of people here that will say i'm crazy but is is the new way!

        Good luck!

        PS - I will not say more...
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576299].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JCTorpey
          Originally Posted by karismasand View Post

          Hi 2 all.

          After pinguin i don't write anything on blogs on forum about how to get back from Pinguin hit.

          What you did is exact the conclusion i have come studying how to rank after pinguin.

          IF YOU WANNA TO RANK HIGHER IN SERPS MAKE SPAM LINK WITH DIFFERENT ANCHOR.

          Will be a lot of people here that will say i'm crazy but is is the new way!

          Good luck!

          PS - I will not say more...
          karismasand, its probably a good thing you "will not say more" until you come up with some proof or stats to back up your statement. Unfortunately, informaiton like this ^^^ that gets spreads around, gets taken to heart and gets people who listen without knowing any better get deindexed.

          The OP's test is one thing, but your post is another. Where's your proof? Where's your stats? All you are doing is hurling the community. You can't make a statement like that and not back it up.

          If you do what you've suggested, "make spam links with different anchor" it might work for a little while, but you'll eventually be deindexed and will have no one to blame but yourself.
          Signature

          JC Torpey ~ Freelance Writer for Hire
          Read samples and view my portfolio @ Virtual Copy
          Read the VCopy Blog before Sept. 30 and get a discount off all services

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    I'm not sure where this is going now lol.

    In the context of this discussion and search engines, I was differentiating it from the ranking algorithms.

    Yes, your basic description is right - except the last part is unknown and why I'm saying it seems odd. Caffeine's benefit was that a situation like you explained in the last paragraph could now be avoided.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574714].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      I'm not sure where this is going now lol.
      Such is the nature of forum discussions.

      Caffeine's benefit was that a situation like you explained in the last paragraph could now be avoided.
      Nope, it was to speed up the crawling and indexing processes needed to keep up with the incredibly fast growth of the # of websites online.

      So previously they had their "base" index, then another "active" index on top (which they could query/display on-the-fly, etc...). Now they have a single "active" index the size of (or significantly bigger) their old "base" index - and can query the whole thing real time, meaning a much bigger site base for results that require freshness, etc.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574745].message }}
  • Interesting thread. I'm eagerly anticipating the next Penguin refresh. I'm betting lots of Warriors, much like bnetwork and myself have tested lots of things and will see what happens soon.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574741].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author retsek
      Originally Posted by Neville Pettersson View Post

      Interesting thread. I'm eagerly anticipating the next Penguin refresh. I'm betting lots of Warriors, much like bnetwork and myself have tested lots of things and will see what happens soon.
      Yep. I got two tests waiting on the next data refresh
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574747].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author plsearch
    I appreciate the data and the test, if anything would like to see what happens down the road.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576639].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Born2rule
    Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

    Right, here's a disclaimer first.

    I don't recommend blasting your websites with tons of low quality backlinks. This was just a test - I don't care about that particular website one bit. I always test stuff, like dozens of tests running all the time. I know that correlation doesn't imply causation, you don't need to remind me of that.

    One of my mini-niche-sites got hit by Penguin 1.0, lol. So I decided to build about 3000 low quality backlinks to it, using around 300 different anchors (as well as naked URL links, such as site.com).

    After a few weeks:



    And here's what GWT shows me (there's about 20-30 quality links in there, if that):



    Now, will it get nuked again the next Penguin refresh? I doubt it (but that's only an opinion).

    Would I use this strategy on my new websites? No.

    Once again - this probably isn't a good long-term strategy (but no one can prove or disprove this point tbh). However, there are so many random theories thrown around right now... Do your own testing, because most people don't know ****.

    The safest way I know of regaining from penguin affected site for the long haul is using a customs 301 redirect. This has work for many of our site, two months on now.

    If you are in any doubt Pm me for details. penguinexterminator@gmail.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577482].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    For those asking about Panda/Penguin not being a live part of the algorithm, here is a video from Matt Cutts just uploaded today. He mentions it briefly around minute 16 where he is answering a question about recovering from Panda.




    On a side note, interesting comment around minute 19 about the above the fold penalty. Cutts mentions that Google takes the aggregate of all the pages on the site. So if you have one page with a lot of ads above the fold, but most of the pages on the site have very few ads, you are safe.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577550].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author retsek
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      For those asking about Panda/Penguin not being a live part of the algorithm, here is a video from Matt Cutts just uploaded today. He mentions it briefly around minute 16 where he is answering a question about recovering from Panda.

      On a side note, interesting comment around minute 19 about the above the fold penalty. Cutts mentions that Google takes the aggregate of all the pages on the site. So if you have one page with a lot of ads above the fold, but most of the pages on the site have very few ads, you are safe.
      Just watched that. The above the fold comments I hadn't heard of before. That's good to know.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577591].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Turned out to be a pretty good discussion after all. Nice.

      Originally Posted by blanchi View Post

      I wonder, how would you rate the quality of the content on your "test" site? Also, how many pages is this site?
      Very good. Better than most websites in the niche. Article length: 600 to 2000 words, 8 pages total + privacy/contact pages. It's a pretty small site.

      Originally Posted by Born2rule View Post

      The safest way I know of regaining from penguin affected site for the long haul is using a customs 301 redirect.
      Yup, I've got a whole set of mini sites going strong after 301's. Most survived Penguin 1.1, though one got dinged second time (or 301 simply "passed" the penalty - no idea why the others didn't).

      I'm quoting this, because it's a must read/watch for everyone here:

      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      For those asking about Panda/Penguin not being a live part of the algorithm, here is a video from Matt Cutts just uploaded today. He mentions it briefly around minute 16 where he is answering a question about recovering from Panda.

      Hangout from India - YouTube
      On a side note, interesting comment around minute 19 about the above the fold penalty. Cutts mentions that Google takes the aggregate of all the pages on the site. So if you have one page with a lot of ads above the fold, but most of the pages on the site have very few ads, you are safe.
      I wonder if they do full-site analysis of other factors as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6580359].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      For those asking about Panda/Penguin not being a live part of the algorithm, here is a video from Matt Cutts just uploaded today.
      Mike to clarify I don't see anyone really questioning about Panda/Penguin being live. the issue to me was more the statement of when you can recover. its a great video though and pretty much confirms what I thought. What I saw Matt saying there was that Panda is ran and reran periodically. there is no specification that it is ran only when there are known updates.

      So I don't see any evidence that for example Penguin 1.1 has not been run multiple times. the changes in that situation would be minor not the mass changes we all come to recognize when new factors are tweaked or changed but could a site climb? no evidence to say otherwise. now whenever there are major changes then sites fly up and fly down based on new factors and tweaks not merely for example because of link factors found in regard to a site.

      Bnet's premise is that the links had something to do with it but we don't don't have anything whatsoever to isolate it to that. Could be an on page content issue, could be something about the serp itself, Ip diversity, lack of competition due to other sites getting tanked, along with 20 or more parameters we don't know about. Theres no data whatsoever. Someone criticized a poster who said blasting links is the new way to recover but frankly if they had added a graph it would have had the same amount of real data that this thread started out with.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6583635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DPM70
    Shame Google can't get their cameras focused. Must be filming it through Google glasses.
    Signature
    I don't build in order to have clients. I have clients in order to build. - Ayn Rand
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6577796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author feyt333
    do you have all those links pointing to your homepage or did you distribute to inner pages?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6733205].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tuned
    wow.. thats really a great news and a informative post..
    Signature

    Feel Free To Visit My Blog about cute nicknames

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6733780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author martinacastro
    @bnetwork, do you have updates?

    your site still performs Ok?

    Regards
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6974002].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WraithSarko
      yeah where's da blummin update B?
      Signature
      SuperExpensiveNUKE...SubmitterEnvyNUKE...SENukeXCRaptastic
      I've spent the last 59 months building 412 MFA sites. Each site averages 8 cents per day...I said average, some make up to 17 cents per day, PASSIVE INCOME! This income allows me to live comfortably and buy ANY flavor Jolly Rancher or Skittles I desire. Don't give in to fear, it CAN be done!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6974708].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ArcherWylde
    Definitely playing with fire here. Glad to see you got some results, but I'm definitely not going to be blasting any of my sites anytime soon.

    I'd be interested to see if you stay there or if this is a temporary fluke, please keep us updated
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6974804].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by martinacastro View Post

      @bnetwork, do you have updates?

      your site still performs Ok?

      Regards
      Originally Posted by WraithSarko View Post

      yeah where's da blummin update B?
      Haha.

      Yea the site got smacked at the same time when all Penguine'd -> 301'd sites that recovered got killed. They (Google) adjusted something at that time, I can show you at least 20 nearly identical cases (all happened at the same time as well). I have since rebuilt (with improvements) and re-ranked the site. Currently #6 and #5 for the main keywords, nearly there.

      Originally Posted by ArcherWylde View Post

      Definitely playing with fire here. Glad to see you got some results, but I'm definitely not going to be blasting any of my sites anytime soon.

      I'd be interested to see if you stay there or if this is a temporary fluke, please keep us updated
      Yea don't blast your sites with crap, I never suggested that people do that.

      On the other hand one of the sites did over $4k in insurance leads during those 3 weeks so it can be worth it sometimes. Really depends on your niche. I'll admit that I needed the money to put into bigger projects.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6975187].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sudeep
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6976169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mosthost
      Originally Posted by Sudeep View Post

      please update the thread..
      What's there to update? All he can do is tell you a fairy tale about an unnamed site. You either believe it or you don't
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6976210].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author martinacastro
    @bnetwork,

    sorry but I dont uderstood....

    your site still perform Ok or lost positions in Google?

    Thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6976983].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanLB
    We can nitpick over how people will take this, but I appreciate the information at face value. It's not like he is claiming to have some sort of magic formula here, just showing how it worked for him. Not enough data to know for sure, but if I had one guess, I would say that the anchor text diversification may have helped, although I doubt a site that was still under penalty would climb so dramatically, so quickly.
    Signature

    I'm a Freelance Copywriter that helps Agencies, Startups and Businesses Educate Their Audience and Grow Sales
    Skype Me: r.boze
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6978098].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    It didn't work out in the long term so who cares lol. 301's didn't work out either. All hail Penguin.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6978133].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author martinacastro
    @bnetwork

    sorry that I ask again, but I don't understand if your site is performing good? or it was hitted again buy Google Penguin ?

    Thanks

    Martin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6979318].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mosthost
      Originally Posted by martinacastro View Post

      @bnetwork

      sorry that I ask again, but I don't understand if your site is performing good? or it was hitted again buy Google Penguin ?

      Thanks

      Martin
      Read the post above the one you made. No, things didn't work out. Yes, he got hit again. The Penguin is much more powerful than 'bnetwork' could ever hope to be and slapped the taste out of his mouth The Penguin is a veritable killing machine.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6979683].message }}

Trending Topics