The Sky is NOT Falling: Here's Proof.

I thought this may be of use for people who are struggling to see the fact that really, not all that much has changed - the main alterations in 2012, were really down to:

• Excessive and blatant over-optimisation i.e. anchor text usage.
• Over-reliance on a single link building mechanism.
• Blatant spam tactics i.e. on-site content manipulation, spinning and duplication.

Here's a few screenshots of backlink profiles of Confused.com AND MoneySupermarket.com - the two biggest brands in car insurance in the UK. They occupy the two positions in the UK for the term 'car insurance'.



Blatant over optimisation in the above profile.

Moving to the UK's biggest brand...



Again, blatant.

And another...this time it's the same page as before, but look for the paid links on the right-hand side of the page, for yet another blatant indication to the search engine...



And another:



So, what's the point of all of this? Basically, to show that paid linking and non-ethical strategies are going on all over the place and at a far wider scale in some instances than any single person on this forum is capable of achieving.

That said, is this simply encouragement to go and do what you like? OF COURSE NOT. The important point to remember is something which could probably be called link absorption - these brands have extensive natural link profiles in place too, some could argue that those profiles are more capable of absorbing manipulative activity.

What's more, they are all increasing the probability that they will be detected, or that CERTAIN links will be detected (not their entire profile). However, if Interflora is anything to go by that may again just mean a little bit of creative use of the Google Disavow tool and 11 days later you are absolutely fine (at least that's the case for a brand with a large link profile which is likely to get publicity).

Remember, there are two different types of 'ranking penalties' - manual reviews and algorithmic penalties. The latter is panda, penguin etc, and it works by reviewing a pre-determined set of criteria to compare your site against; if you've been indulging too much in any single link building mechanism, then of course it stands to reason you increase the probability you will be 'detected'.

However, remember, it's MECHANICAL - you have to make yourself stand out, you have to behave stupidly, or you have to do too much too soon, so much so that it just looks obvious. New sites are obviously more likely to be a prime target for trying to build something on nothing, so above all else, focus on building authority into your website, actual authoritative links from other authoritative domains.

TO AVOID (PARTICULARLY IN THE EARLY STAGES):

• Over-optimisation of anchor text (stick a lot of brand in there for the first few months and also moving forward too).
• Make sure deep-linking is enforced.
• Avoid excessive use of ANY one link building mechanism (but particularly the more obvious stuff i.e. private blog networks, commenting, paid links etc, most of which you should be staying away from entirely anyway), secure as many independent votes as possible i.e. independent links from independent domains.

The former, manual review i.e. Google Chrome, BMW etc, is unlikely to ever happen to you.