Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Interesting Theory About Internal Linking

  1. #31
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,102
    Thanks
    349
    Thanked 918 Times in 702 Posts
    According to what Matt Cutts once said, the site providing the links is the one that gets hit, but that was said before Penguin.

    For the last 6 or 7 years, a thousand sitewide links only counted as one link. They may have not helped much, but at least they did not hurt the site they linked to. That all changed with Penguin.

    Penguin opened up huge opportunities for negative SEO.
    Last edited by TopDogger; 18 February, 2013 at 19:21 PM.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. Thanked by:

    Sami4u (19 February, 2013)

  3. #32
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sami4u View Post
    Hi,

    What if the site wide links come from a related site? I feel the one that are hit the hardest are the ones the come from unrelated sties. Just a guess.

    Sami

    After thought: I wonder if google is also thinking links from directories and other search places are bad? I could almost see it happening that they would try to control the market.
    If you don't have (m)any links from quality/related sites, then Google may use directory links (most directories) as a trigger to add you to the low quality genre.
    I am pretty sure the more good links you have, the more you will get away with.

    But it also leaves me wondering why add sites to those directories to begin with when the advantage is not proven and the risk is always there.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  4. Thanked by:

    Sami4u (19 February, 2013)

  5. #33
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sami4u View Post
    Hi,

    What if the site wide links come from a related site? I feel the one that are hit the hardest are the ones the come from unrelated sties. Just a guess.

    Sami
    It's not the sitewides per se that are at issue, but rather the use of "keyword phrases" in hyperlink text.

    It appears that sites using their url or brand don't have negative effects. Instead , "targeted keywords" or "money keywords" in the hyperlink text triggers some type of penalty or filter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Dammann View Post
    It's a percentage game. If 99% of your IBLs are crap, Google assumes your site is crap. If you have strong, old links and your site has been around, sitewides are being ignored by their algorithm.
    Exactly! If you go to the bottom of trump.com which is a strong site, you will see plenty of sitewide links to other trump websites.
    Mike Dammann likes this.

  6. Thanked by:

    Sami4u (19 February, 2013)

  7. #34
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    It's not the sitewides per se that are at issue, but rather the use of "keyword phrases" in hyperlink text.

    It appears that sites using their url or brand don't have negative effects. Instead , "targeted keywords" or "money keywords" in the hyperlink text triggers some type of penalty or filter.


    Interesting and makes sense. But what if it's an EMD?
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  8. #35
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,102
    Thanks
    349
    Thanked 918 Times in 702 Posts
    Have you checked your EMDs lately? It looks like Google made another pass at EMDs. A couple of mine with strong backlinks just fell out of their top slots. For one site most of the links were natural links set up by others who used the EMD keywords in the hyperlink text. At this point I do not know why Google wacked this site. There is nothing about it that violates any of their guidelines. It still gets traffic for other search phrases, but has dropped out for the EMD keyword search.

    It looks like Google hit a lot of other sites that traditionally showed up in the top 10 for the same search phrase. My site was #1 or #2 for years and is no longer in the top 100 for the EMD keyword search. This is a squeeky clean site, but I did recently write a couple of articles that were not favorable to Google, such as their suspected use of Chrome to monitor web users' activities without their knowledge. There could be some vindictiveness in play.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #36
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Have you checked your EMDs lately? It looks like Google made another pass at EMDs. A couple of mine with strong backlinks just fell out of their top slots. For one site most of the links were natural links set up by others who used the EMD keywords in the hyperlink text. At this point I do not know why Google wacked this site. There is nothing about it that violates any of their guidelines. It still gets traffic for other search phrases, but has dropped out for the EMD keyword search.
    I have this issue with a few sites, but not all are EMDs. The sites have a -950 penalty on the targeted keywords but rank on others. I'm guessing that this is some sort of 'unnatural link penalty'. The strange thing is that I've removed as many sitewide links as possible and some of the sites either started ranking around 700. But after a week or so were back at -949 or back again -950.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    This is a squeeky clean site, but I did recently write a couple of articles that were not favorable to Google, such as their suspected use of Chrome to monitor web users' activities without their knowledge. There could be some vindictiveness in play.
    I wonder if they are using IP addresses and Publisher IDs.

  10. #37
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,102
    Thanks
    349
    Thanked 918 Times in 702 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    I have this issue with a few sites, but not all are EMDs. The sites have a -950 penalty on the targeted keywords but rank on others. I'm guessing that this is some sort of 'unnatural link penalty'. The strange thing is that I've removed as many sitewide links as possible and some of the sites either started ranking around 700. But after a week or so were back at -949 or back again -950.
    Wow! A temporary boost of 250 rank positions! All kidding aside, I see a lot of evidence that Google is wacking all types of affiliate marketing sites, one by one. The first of mine to go were the Amazon sites that used Amazon data feeds. That part I understand due to the duplicate content issue. But then my gift idea sites that use 100% unique content were hit. They also contained Amazon links, but did not violate any Webmaster Guidelines. The latest to get hit are the range of sites that used Google Affiliate Network (formerly Performics) links. These also contain 100% unique content, use nofollow links and do not violate any Webmaster Guidelines rules. It looks like Google is attacking their own affiliates. I have since abandoned the use of the Google Affiliate Network.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    I wonder if they are using IP addresses and Publisher IDs.
    I suspect they are using this to tie site ownerships together. Matt Cutts once said that one really spammy site can reduce the rankings for all of your sites. He also accidentally showed a tool that Google uses to display all of the sites owned by one owner. They were a domain registrar for years--even before they started offering domain registrations. I always through the only reason for that was to get past the private registration issues.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  11. Thanked by:

    bogart (19 March, 2013)

  12. #38
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Wow! A temporary boost of 250 rank positions! All kidding aside,
    The site is back at -950 now! Removing the site-wide links was only a temporary fix.

    On another of mine that also has a -950 penalty, I was able to rank an inner page #8. After Panda #25 this weekend, the inner page ranking #8 and the main page are both -950'd.

  13. #39
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,102
    Thanks
    349
    Thanked 918 Times in 702 Posts
    If you are using blog networks for backlinks, you may need to stop doing that. I think Google has identified almost all of the blog network sites and is now flagging sites that they link to rather than simply de-indexing the blogs. The problem with blog networks is that they have an easily identifiable pattern of unrelated articles that each have one of more links to sites that typically do not pick up links naturally. I have not seen any blog networks that are smart enough to circumvent the identifiable pattern.

    There may be a threshold number of what Google determines to be natural links vs. unnatural links that is hammering your sites.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  14. Thanked by:

    Sami4u (21 March, 2013)

  15. #40
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    If you are using blog networks for backlinks, you may need to stop doing that. I think Google has identified almost all of the blog network sites and is now flagging sites that they link to rather than simply de-indexing the blogs. The problem with blog networks is that they have an easily identifiable pattern of unrelated articles that each have one of more links to sites that typically do not pick up links naturally. I have not seen any blog networks that are smart enough to circumvent the identifiable pattern.

    There may be a threshold number of what Google determines to be natural links vs. unnatural links that is hammering your sites.
    It's seems that the issue is too many links from the same IP/Whois. I've been making changes to a small control group of links. First, I changed the link url to the category page and reached #8. A couple of weeks ago the page was Panda-ized. I then switched the links back to the original url and the singular version of the keyword. The page moved to page #38 and was again Panda-ized.

    This makes sense that this is a panda low quality signal. A lot of publishers were linking to their related sites and .

    Also, The Panda updates are now real-time, and no longer manually pushed out. Google will no longer be announcing Panda updates.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •